Travis County Commissioners Court
August 22, 2006
Item 24
Again this week, we have one of our favorite items on, that is number 24. 24. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed interlocal cooperation agreement with city of Austin for public health human services.
>> good afternoon, sherri flemming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. As the court is aware, last week staff came forward with some issues that were preventing us from being able to move forward with the health and human services interlocal with the city of Austin. After much discussion last week, we -- we -- the judge proposed, made a counter proposal that our partner was going to take back to the city. And so without any further ado, I will turn it over to david lurie.
>> thank you, good afternoon.
>> david.
>> great to be considered one of your favorite items on your agenda, judge. Anyway, I scurried around this past week taking the information that you had shared with me and ran it by some folks at the city. I have some feedback that I would like to give you that I hope will be considered very favorable. I think what we have come up with addresses the whole range of issues of concerns that we expressed last week. I just wants to reinforce that our whole objective is to provide support for a public health system, an infrastructure focused on community wide promoting wellness and promoting the entire community from infectious diseases, epidemics, environmental hazards, other potential outbreaks. We talked a lot about the need to support capacity within the system. Even when we talk about animal services, for example in the shelter, we have a shelter in place with a degree of capacity to support the community. What we proposed is that although it may not always be 100% full, we would be asking Travis County to support that portion of that capacity of that shelter based on what our experience has been in terms of the proportion of animals that come to that shelter from the unincorporated areas of Travis County. In that instance we are suggesting a five year rolling average so that we have some stability, we do have quite a bit of fluctuation. In the area of infectious diseases, epidemiology, so forth, what we talked about last week, this has to do with the potential for outbreaks in our community. Infectious diseases. When we place a value on that, I'm thinking that the value to you is not necessarily if there's an outbreak in the unincorporated area of the county. For example pertussis that you would want to pay on the number of children or people impacted by that. But what's more important from a value perspective is having a system in place that monitors, suspect, detains in our community. What we said is we go wherever that leads us. If that outbreak is in the unincorporated area of the county, we are not suggesting that we would somehow come back and charge you based on a response of that. We are saying that we would absorb that. What we are wanting to ask you to invest in is the capacity and infrastructure and a system that effectively provides that kind of prevention, monitoring, detection and response. With that in mind, what we did, we have material to hand out to you, pretty pass nating to think that three years of work have come down to two pieces of paper, but I think it reinforces again the simplicity of this that we are trying to -- to achieve. I want to thank you for your support last week when we talked about this population based model, your acceptance of that in terms of your response. I believe what we have is a blended model that we try to develop that has a combination of population based and some areas, specific activities. Particularly for animal services and food establishments. So I would like to ask linda terry to hand this out, just go through with you, points by point, what we would like to propose at this stage. [one moment please for change in captioners] designated when that's going to occur, then it seems to us that adds your concern about paying after the services are rendered and addresses our concerns of having some assurance as far as the capacity and the financial support. For these services.
>> did you mean September 31st? Is that October 1st or September 30th?
>> that is the last day of September. Commissioner. Whatever that is.
>> 30 day hath September.
>> that's okay.
>> thank you.
>> it's okay. Is that I'm encouraged that's down to being the issue.
>> the second one, of course, is that we do have agreement in terms of the transfer of the monitoring for social service contracts. We will continue those contracts are on a calendar year, so they run through January. The city staff, partnership with county staff, will continue to work with -- the work that we have been doing for the county in terms of contract monitoring and assist with the transition, continue to scrointly plan around -- jointly plan around social services, there no cost in this model for those last three months of monitoring, we will absorb that and kind of fulfill that in terms of closing out that role for -- for those crts.
>> have we notified the affected agency that this is coming down the pike.
>> we have not, judge, we are all awaiting a final decision. Sherri do you want to comments on that.
>> yes, judge, we have had informal conversations with some of the larger providers about what was under discussion. However, we have waited to send out an official notice pending a policy decision by this court.
>> then the next item was the year end or the reconciliation issue and what we have proposed here is we have our final data in what's called close two with the city comptroller's office. If you go to the green page, we have a document that would depict for you how we would display a budget as compared to actual costs by program. In the basis of allocation column, you will see what we have reviewed before in terms of the percentage of population allocation versus those who -- in which we have for example the food establishments, it's the -- it's the number of fixed establishments, minus what is occurring in the municipality. So these are strictly the unincorporated areas and then down below as I mentioned earlier, you can see the animal services, by percentage of activities and percentage of animals based on that five year rolling average. The last item was performance reporting. April is wants being some data, what we would propose is that twice a year, we would provide you with performance reports I think it's 45 days after the mid year point. Our plan is for performance reporting to mirror what we have in the interlocal under the work statements. You will recall again last week we talked a lot about -- about the detail there. And in total there are 80 performance measures and a lot more details and specificity than we have ever had relative to this interlocal. We would be reporting out on those. Continue to work with you and work with staff if over time that you would like to look at other ways of displaying the data to the degree can he with provide that information, it's compatibility that we are encouraging you to support, we are flexible on that. We are open on that. I would just suggest that -- that for the sake of moving forward, we agree to provide you that information in the format that it is displayed in the interlocal with the work statements and continue to work with you and staff to -- to refine that information. And I would remind you that in that work statement, you do have the flexibility, as you look at these various programs, to indicate whether you would want to invest more or less in particular program areas. I think through this review, this joint review of the performance reports that you would have much better information to be making those policy choices.
>> I want to be I guess looking at all of this. Thank you, david, for bringing this to us, sherri. But when we look at all of this, numbers and things like that, how -- how would we fit this in as far as our auditor is concerned. How will our county auditor fit into this to make sure that the numbers of what they should be, actually getting the correct information accounting-wise? That's -- that's basically what I'm trying to put my arms around that. Is there a mechanism here in place where that can happen? With the county auditor to make sure that these --
>> I would certainly hope so. What we are trying to do is strike a balance in terms of simplicity of information, what we are trying to invest in here, but also provide enough detail so you and the auditor are confident that basically, you know, getting what you find and that's why, you know, we have this -- this programmatic detail which --
>> I guess my question should be have the county auditor had a chance to look at this also as we go forward, some of this stuff?
>> the auditor has been involved Commissioner during the negotiations process. In terms of the performance measures, the auditor would be provided all documentation that comes in with the invoice about the services that have been delivered.
>> exactly.
>> and then, you know, because that would be the final check for the auditor before payment is made to the city.
>> okay. I just want to make sure whatever we are doing here, that there's still some room for that to occur. So -- so you mentioned here, that's why I was posing the question, how does that fit in.
>> yes, sir. Normally I believe the auditor does review the work statements and the contracts as they are going through the normal course of business before the court ultimately approves them as well.
>> so in the middle, where you have year to date expenses, the date in March 07 which covers the first six months. What about the second six months of the year that this is not a correct copy, I'm sorry.
>> we abandoned the notion of the six month reported, 12 months.
>> we are talking about two separate reports. The performance report, the data in terms of the programs, that will be mid year. What we are asking, the balance in terms of this payment, versus after the fact payment, to have one points of reconciliation on the fiscal side of this, that would be the year end report. Just to give you alls sense in terms of our actual budget, this year we are estimating about 1% off in terms of actual versus budget. So I don't think that you are going to see you know significant swing or gap as it relates to that. As you recall, fixed price of that as we go over, if we absorb that we are under, keep that just -- just balance it out. But what we are saying here based on your request of last week, we would do a year end reconciliation to show you actual costs compared to budget. I think the -- the city is about 60 days at the end of the fiscal year, probably looking at November to have that final information.
>> [indiscernible]
>> do you need your copy back?
>> I have got one, thank you, judge.
>> I believe that our colleagues have done tremendous work in terms of hearing what the court, what the court's interests are. I do want to be sure that I'm clear as to mr. Lurie's comments about the performance reporting as it exists in the current work statements. I do believe that the court indicated where possible we would like to see the total costs of each program and then the costs reflective of county business. So to speak. And so -- so if I heard him correctly, he says that where possible staff would work together and identify those areas, they would let us know those areas where that information is available. I think that we would propose maybe looking at zip code information or other such data that might help us to, you know, not 100%, but certainly pinpoint the majority of services that were provided to county residents. In addition, we had also proposed the example where, you know, immunization clinics might be held, that we would look at the immunization clinics that were held in the county area outside of the city limits. So if -- if I heard him correctly, he said that staff would be willing to work together on that. Then I -- that would be my only question about what's been proposed.
>> I don't know that I heard that.
>> no, sir. My comment on that would be is that we can assure you, because this is our data reporting system right now. In terms of what's reflected in the work statements. Some of this does include county data, how many people are being served, talks about the number of cases, interviews, so forth that we do relative to infectious diseases, although it would be an extra burden for us to try to capture that and report on it in terms of -- of -- you know, unincorporated areas versus incorporated areas. Again as I was explaining earlier, that's not in my view the value that this represents in terms of services to -- to Travis County. What I said was I can assure you that we will report out all of the detail, there's a whole lot of it, in these work statements, make the commitment to continue to work with you and staff if you have an interest in going beyond this or trying to refine it as we go forward, we can talk about, look at ways that we can perhaps capture more data and, you know, again in terms of, you know, wanting to be supportive and flexible here, if there's any of that we can do sooner rather than later, I certainly want to try to do that. But I can't commit to at this time anything more than what we currently have the capacity in the systems to generate data on. That's what's reflected in these work statements.
>> my interest would be to have the court be clear about what reports they will see at mid year and whether those reports will be reflective of the discussion that we had on last Tuesday or if the reports will be more in line with the work statements as they have been presented. So I think that's the answer that we just got was that -- was that you -- in some areas you may see specific county information, in some areas you won't.
>> kind of a -- understanding, when we get these invoices I understand that we are going to get invoices or support for the services. When I didn't hear on the reconciliation is that if actuals come in under budgeted, are we going to get a refund back from the city of Austin for what we overpaid?
>> I want to say two things. One is we are not proposing elaborate invoicing here. We are proposing one-fourth of the total dollar amount in this interlocal with the expectation that there will be a review, reconciliation at the end of the year that will provide actual compared to budgeted. My question to you, which is policy question, what do you want to do with that n.? As you look at -- with that information? As you look at this reconciliation, how would you like to proceed with that information? Again the model that we are encouraging consideration was a fixed price arrangement where we provide information and then that information is then demmed going forward what the price is going to be. But we are saying to you we will provide the information, what's your preference in terms of -- of the use of that information?
>> we have got a credit, we want a credit. If we owe you more, we need to pay it. I mean --
>> what you are saying that will be reflected in the next year's financial arrangement?
>> I'm saying --
>> whatever the consequence is, it will be reflected in the next year's financial arrangement.
>> right.
>> if we paid $29,000 too much, that will be reflected in the next year's agreement.
>> right.
>> if we paid $29,000 too little, that will be reflected, also.
>> that's correct.
>> I think that's what I am hearing. In answer to mr. Palacios' question, there wouldn't be a refund, there would be a credit. We would not receive an immediate invoice for paying too little, it would be reflected in what we would owe the next year. Is the policy -- that's the policy consideration that you are offering.
>> yes, sir.
>> I'm sorry. Basically our first next quarterly payment after we do the reconciliation is December 31st. Between when we get it in November, it's more or less, whatever that number is, divide it by four, there's the new number for December 31st.
>> are you talking about annual --
>> we only get the reconciliation annually, though.
>> after the full year has occurred, you get the reconciliation sometime in the following November. The first new quarter under a new fiscal year, not this one, but the next one is December 31st and so that would tell us whether we get a credit on that statement or whether we owe you more and we need to divide that by four and give it to you as well.
>> are we talking about four quarterly payments or should we take that credit in that first quarter's installment.
>> seems it would be easier, now that he says that, it would not be fair if we owe you money to say we will pay it out for a full year or if we are owed money to wait a full year to get it.
>> that first quarter payment will take care of it whatever it is, the overage or under payment. I would think that would be the best way to go about it.
>> seems to make sense.
>> yeah.
>> the other question that I thought about this when I started thinking about the e.m.s., not only is there reconciliation, the -- let's we go this last year. The city had every intention of opening two e.m.s. Stations by mid year. They never did it. Clearly we had been paying for services that never happened. We are going to get a credit on that for next year and that's appropriate. But we also get the benefit of revenues that are paid. What happens to the revenues that are paid in either a fee or these things that are happening out in the unincorporated. Are we also getting our proportionate credits for --
>> yes. In fact if you look at the reconciliation document you will see a column reflecting revenues. And that likewise is shared. Now there's a combination of revenues, I don't know all of the details, but some are deposited correctly to county, some are not. This would be part of the reconciliation comirngs to Commissioner to show you actual revenues.
>> that's very consistent with the ems. Credit to the things that are run by county e.m.s. Vehicles, also means that we get credits or debits for our proper portion gnat share of whatever happens on the actuals compared to budgeted. Sometimes things legitimately change. Let me make sure that I'm on the right page. These on page 7 are not mocked up, these are numbers that we are anticipating using going into 2004, right?
>> -- into 2007. Right? So we are taking your word for it that for h.i.v. Outreach and prevention, the total program is going to be 660,056.
>> that's correct.
>> that's we have to find a starting point somewhere where someone is willing to buy off and believe here's where this program costs. I can see where especially the auditor's department are concerned that somewhere, sherri, are you concern that 660,056 -- $660,056 is the appropriate amount for what it's going to take to run a system? Because I understand what david is saying. Get on board with me for a system. -- you are not in this business, you all are paying for the service that your people get. If we sign-off on the fact that let's just take the percentage 25.25, that's what we are asking, we have to get the auditor's office comfortable with you may not get line item justification for the first quarter because the first quarter is going to be 166664, whether we use that much or doesn't. We are starting to talk about trueups, that's nots -- I don't think david that you have said. I think that you have said we are not necessarily interested in doing the trueups, what we will do is we will look at the end of the year, say what we really need to do is to start with something different. Unless you are telling me that hey if -- if we do this for a lot less, then we will tell you that that -- that payment that you have got to make may not be the 16 -- 166,664. I don't think that's what you want. I can see where that's not what you want, I mean, if I'm the city, I'm not wanting that, I mean, we have got to buy off on the fact that in -- this is where I look at sherri, say sherri if you think that that program total going down that list, that menu list, if you think we are okay to sign-off on, somebody has got to come up with that figure, which I think it is incumbents on us to say are we doing that. But if we are going to get into this thing on a line item deal where the auditor's office is going to expect you, david, to do that, I can see where you are going I'm not doing that, we don't do that for -- for us. I want to make sure that the auditor's office believes if this program costs this amount of money and sign-off and send the quarterly payments of the 166 because we are not going to get more information than that, right? , david?
>> not until after the first year. Then after the first year, we would find out did they indeed spend $666,000, let's say they had a whole bunch of vacancies or something happened. Maybe it came in at $600,000, we would then get the credit for our 25% of the system, we would get the credit on our first payment has we would owe for the following year.
>> what I would suggest also in the reconciliation they have financial statements that they give us a copy of the financial statements at the end that reflects what they spend on that program. Then we could also kind of verify what we paid and the percentage that we are paying doesn't equal to what we paid that would be part of the reconciliation.
>> yeah.
>> right.
>> well, I'm -- again, Commissioner you are right, there's a starting point. This is where we are at this point in time based on what historically has gone on within these programs, this is what we are projecting it's going to cost us going forward. Yes, we don't want to go into line item detail we are looking for a one-fourth payment. At the end of the year, we provide you the reconciliation that shows you what the actual costs were for these programs. Gives the opportunity to then make the adjustments that you talked about earlier. Also a dialogue about what's going on, maybe we want to invest somewhere else or maybe we are off in terms of, you know, what the demands are. But again this is, you know, sort of a capacity system. So we are anticipating that we are going to be pretty close on target and that's been our experience to date.
>> we have the ability to go back, david, I'm sorry, would we have the ability to have your figures that you have done for '04 and us -- well, yeah, you are pretty close to -- to this 660 because we saw your line item, because then the reconciliation I suppose what we really feed to say hey let's face it what we are trying to get comfortable at is knowing that the total number of dollars that there are true actual invoices that got paid versus somebody just saying well somebody slipped in, what's this $54,000 deal that got put in there, I mean, was that syringes, I mean, we go okay y'all did spend that much because, you know --
>> [indiscernible]
>> no.
>> I thought our issue was at the end of the year if you charge, if the county has been charged 166,000 of the 660 total, did our share in fact come to 166,000. Based on the expenditures, the annual reconciliation, we would be able to at least come close to making that determination. In some areas we have more specific information than others. But we would be able to see the documentation.
>> right.
>> I'm sorry, judge.
>> we would be able to see the documentation that's available, annually.
>> again, judge, I mean, I don't think we want to get into a situation of this line item so much for syringes, so much for this that the other. But our books are open. We will provide you with the year end report, the auditor can look at, you know, the city of Austin financial records for our health department and see that those numbers reflect what we are reporting to you.
>> but if you are saying now that ultimate spend 660,000, I would be concerned if you only spent 450,000. If you said okay we only spent 450,000, then my next question would be okay what part of that should the county pick up? And --
>> and hopefully there would be some records to help us make that determination. You are saying the record may not be 100% accurate, but whatever you use to determine the total that you have spent, it would be available.
>> what I'm saying judge is the same methodology that we are using for identifying what the county's share of this system will be up front is exactly the same methodology we are going to use to report to you what the outcome has been. So for example if you look at that white piece of paper in front of you, you look across the 660, which you will see on the right-hand side is that the county is paying 25.25% of that based on population. What we would show you is what the actual cost was, whether it's 700,000 or 400,000. And what we will then calculate for you is what 25.25% of that number is. And then you will see the difference between what you committed to in the interlocal and what you are looking for in terms of an adjustment if need be.
>> the proposal time for us to be talking about what ought this budget be for next year is right now. Sherri has just said we have looked at that, that's a good number, in which case we would be due the 25% and there be a trueup because if indeed for whatever reason you only spent 400,000 of it, then we would get our proportionate share of the savings. Now would be appropriate time for us to say teen pregnancy you are only spending 157,000, the two jurisdictions ought to say if it's that good or higher or lower. The interlocal also will protect the county in the sense if all of a sudden the city can't on its own say, you know, what we are going to go ahead and spend a million on h.i.v. Outreach, well, unless you have got that number signed off by the county ahead of time, you ought not to expect 25% of that number because there's a not to exceed in here. So we have got a not to exceed we have all agreed upon ahead of time, that's the number. We have the recollection -- reconciliation trueup, system basis were in fact delivered. Right now, next year at the same time would be the appropriate time for both jurisdictions to talk about what are the costs of each of these programs and ought they to be higher or lower. That is appropriate. Systematically looking at the programs.
>> I would say Commissioner that's very consistent with the model that we are presenting here. The only thing that I would reference is the do not exceed. If we are going to have a reconciliation it does cut both ways.
>> absolutely. I do want to ask a question represented to the animal services. You don't have anything represented to revenues. My memory is when folks go down, adopt animals, et cetera, there are fees, what happened to those fees.
>> that's an area where the county fee a direct deposit to a county account.
>> very good. Spay and neuter, that's one where they don't pay fees in. Got it, thanks.
>> I have another question, also, on the percentage of the population. We are going to start with 25.5. Through the year. But what about if mid year the city of Austin annexes a portion of the jurisdiction, some of the population becomes city of Austin instead of county. Would that percentage also be reconciled, how would that work.
>> I would recommend we do this annually. I don't know --
>> do it annual.
>> right.
>> yes. There it is still more people moving into the unincorporated so it cuts both ways on that, too. That seems about right. Jose, because our system costs of the e.m.s. Is about 28%, which does include small cities, so for this to be 25%, it seems about right. Seems close.
>> one final point of clarification, I think for us for '08, I think this will probably be true for '08, the most meaningful number is going to be the April number because we will have a budget request due to p.b.o. In may. Of -- of 2007. So by the time we would receive the year end reconciliation in November, we would already be in the 2008 fwait budget cycle. Those April numbers will be what hhs will have to use in order to project what the costs of this interlocally be for '08. Now, once we get past that little ratchet, I believe, we will have the November numbers that we can use as a part of our basis for the next -- for the coming year, but I did want to point that outlet because by the time we would receive that first year end reconciliation, we would already be in the new fiscal year.
>> are we or are we not playing off the green? Are we doing a mid year and an end of the year or just an end of the year.
>> no, sir. In terms of the fiscal, I would ask that we just do year end.
>> then if you are -- because see the green is different from the flight and sherri, I mean, if you have got to work, you know, with p.b.o. Well then your p.b.o. Number is 330028 because we are going to have to make two payments by that time, that is going to be your number. I don't think that we are really going to know exactly how to really calculate the upcoming year until at least we get the year under our belt and you go, you know, what, we thought that we were going to be able to do h.i.v. Outreach for 660, but it ended up costing us 800 and -- and that's -- that's the new starting figure for '08.
>> Commissioner, we would provide you with some projections in terms of '08 based on our experience. I'm just suggesting that for the reconciliation we just look at, you know, one submission per year. But melanie our financial officer can talk a little bit more about the kind of detail we would provide, which we are you teenly do every year. Because of '08 budgeting, cost drivers, so forth that we are experiencing within the department.
>> that's correct. What we would do, Commissioners, is provide an updated cost estimate based on our '07 experience here to date and what we anticipated in terms of cost drivers for '08. That's -- that's how we developed the model that you see before you. And we would be updating that for '08 to reflect a revised population figure, we advised revenue projections, revised expenditure projections, as well as things like we would update the percentage of animals based on the most recent year's data. So what you would -- what we would provide to the department and to you in April would be an -- an updated estimate based on all of those factors.
>> for the next year.
>> > yes, sir.
>> so if I could clarify then, because in performance reporting it says mid year and year end. So what you are saying is that the mid year report will not include the fiscal information. Only the year end report. So at the time that we are making the payments, you will also not be reporting performance.
>> correct. The -- the distinction here is that there's -- there's two reporting processes. One is the fiscal reporting which is the white reconciliation table that you have in front of you. And then another totally separate report would be performance reporting which will mirror what's in the work statements in the interlocal. That's where you see, you know, how many investigations we have dealt with, how many outbreaks we have responded to. The total number of people seen in some of the various programs, you will get data about, how many animals we are picking up, the percentage of those that are, you know, unincorporated areas and that sort of a thing. But those are two --
>> that would be provided.
>> that would be provided twice a year, mid year and year end. Physical report once a year, year end.
>> essentially for payments we will get an invoice that has one-fourth of the contract amount and requesting payment. Okay. .
>> > we are asking you to right up front [indiscernible]
>> can we get -- the auditor, is that okay? With the auditor? Setting the template.
>> we didn't get this in advance, I can't answer this, we were not given an advance copy to look at. You just got it jose. It's hard to tell.
>> so did we, susan.
>> I know. You know, I guess that I would like a week to look at it. Our payment is this, whatever contract you signed and whatever services you think that you are paying for, if that is documented, then we get a check out. That's not a problem. What is a problem is if there are performance measures or units or something that the city is supposed to do, and we don't have documentation for that, then under law we can't pay that. That's part of it. I don't know what you have from the contractual viewpoint what you have negotiated. But you know there are really two issues, what services do you want, what too you want to pay for that? Are you getting a good deal or not? There's that. And that's really for you all to -- to decide. I find it hard to believe since we close our books every month and proud provide you a revenue and expenditure report to date every month by line item that the city can only get financial information once a year. You know, that's hard for me to believe. But maybe they can't. So I don't know. I would like a chance to look at this. If you all are satisfied that you have got a tight contract and jose knows what we have to get to pay it,.
>> that's fraught a problem.
>> the given that I'm comfortable with if sherri says this program line item total I know enough about it, to give to depend on the executive manager from hhs to say that is a good figure. Then I've got to get comfortable with the fact that we need to pay 25.25%. I mean, if you give me those, you know, two themes that I am comfortable with, then I'm fine. The only place where I get uncomfortable and I'm sure that your life is a lot easier, susan if you are just like if this is the contract we are going to make quarterly payments for this amount, if that's the way you want to do business because that's kind of what I'm hearing versus having, I mean, some sort of a justification -- and I think the only way that can you get comfortable with this if sherri is -- I hate to tell you that's what we have to spend, you have got to get in and the audit department has got to go and say well I would just like to see a full year's invoices that come in that get paid for h.i.v. Outreach and prevention. Because that's really where we are. I mean, you know that you have got to buy off on something here because otherwise it does sound like that we are really bugging them, the city could come understand give us a line item here's what we spend on a monthly or a quarterly basis. We have to get off the high center somewhere for this.
>> you know, Gerald I hear what you are saying. But the question that I asked initially when I asked my question was impacting the role of our auditor [indiscernible] when I look at all of these numbers. What is the role. I would like for the auditor to also be at a comfort level as we go through this process. Sure, we can look at it [indiscernible] 25.25, participation for the county stuff like that. At the end of the day, the auditors still have to be comfortable request in all of this business. I am trying to see what that comfort level is. That's why I posed the question because susan just now responded but I posed the question a long time ago.
>> as an example, the contract is 2.4 million. If you are saying that's what we are going to pay the city regardless of what they tell us divide it by four, and every quarter you send them that no matter what. We can do that. We can do that. If there's something that you think they need to tell you that you are getting, then that needs to be in here. Because like when I look at this, now I'm -- I've not looked at these numbers like h.i.v. Outreach and prevention, $660,000. If we are saying you know they just decide what they want to spend and what they want to pay people and what's going to be involved and we are going to pay x percent of it, you can do that, that's easy for me to pay. But then -- then you know what you will not be able to do is come back and say to me, well, did we get what we paid for? Because I don't have anything to measure that by. So it depends on what you think you are getting from the city and what your measurement is. That's really what it is. What we have had with other contracts, whether it's with the city or someone else, we will say things like we will pay you for after school care. We will pay you $150 a child. Then what we would say is we want documentation of how many children you have. Then we will send you the money. Then people will say well wecan't do that, we can't document that. Well okay then we will pay your bills, they we want electric bills, what they spent their money on. It's either a unit of service or specific bills and it's whatever you want as your outcome. That's what I don't know. I mean we will pay the contract the way you want it. You know if you are convinced and sherri that you are getting $2.4 million worth of services from the city, and that's what you want, there are really no questions that you want to ask until the end of the year, you want me to cut four checks I can do that if that's what you want. I don't know what you want.
>> I think the proposal --
>> I think the proposal, though, is that they are giving us a listing and a line item listing of bundle of services that the city is offering to do on our behalf. Most of them are -- are on a systemic basis, divided by population, and they are asking us right now if you choose to go with what we have presented you, it's 2.4 million, and it will be, we will get outcome measurements. The reality is we won't know until the end of the year whether indeed they wound up doing $13 million worth of stuff of which case we owe 2.4 million. The trueup is going to truly have to happen after the year, although we would be getting indications of spending along the way about whether there is huge vacancies in a particular program we will see that in terms of outcomes, we will also see that in terms of their financials. So the time to do the trueup is going to be at the end of the year. So it's kind of like this first year we are kind of setting the template and again susan I see it where the agreement has to be right now of are we interested in this bundle of services on a systemic basis and if you agree with that, it's 2.4 million and it would be divided by four, and the real trueup on this is not going to happen for another year from now. And they will also about this time be saying, you know, what, the numbers have shifted, here's what we are proposing to you, do you still agree with this bundling that we have presented and oh, by the way there will be a credit or not from the previous year in terms of dollar amount on these systemic costs.
>> well, if I may respond to Commissioner Daugherty's point because I feel like I need to be clear about where I am on this, on this thing. Commissioner, don't let me put words in your mouth. If your question to me is I feel like, we are still back on that h.i.v. Outreach example here, if your question to me is I feel like $660,000 is a reasonable number for h.i.v. Outreach, I can't answer that question. Because what staff has asked for was how did we get to that number. And that has been the sticking point between the two city staff. The city and county staff. And we had a lot of discussion about that last Tuesday. And I think in an effort to move us forward, what -- what the judge did was he said okay, well, here's our proposal, we will take -- we will take, you know, we will take at face value what you have here and so if your question to me is, is, you know, 25.25% of 660,, 166 the answer is yes.
>> maybe I should ask the question then way then, sherri. This is getting more complicated than it needs to be. How many number people do you have in hhs. I know that you have a bunch of them. I expect hhs to tell me, because you have accountants, that this line item here for all of these services that you all are comfortable and however you count that I would think that what you would do is have your number people sit down with the city's number people saying yeah I can see where you said 660 because we have been looking at the numbers, that's the number that we need to sign-off on. Because once we sign-off on that deal right there, I think all of us are in agreement that 25.25 is a number that we need to work with. If what we are dancing around here, let's stop dancing. If we don't believe that this line item of numbers is correct on what it takes to run this service, somebody needs to say it. Sherri I'm going to put it right at you and you are the one as far as I'm concerned that I am coming to, are your numbers people telling me that those numbers are accurate enough numbers that we need to work with? If they are we ought to vote on this thing and vote for 25.25 move down the road.
>> my numbers people don't have the information that they need to make that assessment. However, what I heard the court attempt to do last week was to say let's move this forward and that we would request performance information tied to county services that we could then go back and say okay you told us our part was 166,000 and here's the services we provided in the county. We have consistently asked Commissioner was the cost of the services tied to that number? That's the number, that's the information that we haven't received. So that's why I've been trying to clarify today, are you telling me that we are still not going to get specific county information tied to, you know, the number of clinics performed for county residents or the number of county residents served or as we have stated in our summary of the court's proposal last week. Because I think the court needs to be clear about that. That you are still not going to get anything that is going to -- to take me to a place where I could sit here and tell you Commissioner that this is a reasonable number. Now, could my numbers people sit council and figure out okay well it takes this many people to provide outreach and here's what the salaries are in the county and this is the number that we could come up with, oh, certainly we could do that. But we know that there are overhead costs that are different. At the -- on the city's side. So at best we could do is bring you a guess. Without the specific information on the -- on the city program, the best we could get to would be a guess.
>> I think another way of saying just what she said in two sentences is, no county department would be allowed to submit this as their budget application and you would fund it. You wouldn't. You would want a whole lot more detail. No one could submit this. If this were my department's budget you would laugh because there's a whole lot of stuff that, or if this were sherri's budget, a whole lot of things that you would want to know from her other than just this. I think that's -- am I putting words in your mouth.
>> no, you are absolutely correct. But I want to be clear. I understand that we need to move this along and that is why we have tried to facilitate having this discussion with the court so that we could hopefully get you to a point of understanding so that you could be comfortable saying yes or no or make it whatever policy direction that you want to give us. But I have to be sure that you understand my position on this. Because I can't stand here and be on the record and say that I know that this program cost is this number without the detail behind how we got to this number.
>> well then I suggest we do something because we are not in the business to perform these things. We are in the business to work with the people that are. We can do this from now until the coming. I mean, you -- somebody has got to be able to sit down and say if I'm you, sherri, I'm telling my numbers people you get in and you give me something that I can look at the court and say my numbers people have signed off on these things, that's why I'm bringing it, that's what I can do. If you are telling me that your people can't get that because they can't get that out of the city, well then, you know, maybe -- it needs to go beyond department heads and -- and who runs certain shows and say, you know, what, we just can't get comfortable because the Travis County taxpayer is demarch madnessing of all of the accountability. We can't -- from everything that I have dealt with, with the city, the city demands those things, I think justifiable so. I don't expect anybody to just say hey, I mean, here's what you owe us without some sort of a justification. What I am really hearing now is that you don't think that your numbers people really can sign-off on these numbers because they cannot get enough information to send you over here and say you go over there and stand up for these numbers, because that's what you are really saying, isn't it?
>> that's why we are here Commissioner.
>> okay. [one moment please for change in captioners] is.
>> we will all have a schans to look at this again. You're just trying it bet us to a place where are we moving forward or still at a stalemate in terms of trying to get some kind of interlocal approved. Because don't have this interlocal before us right now.
>> and I think we have to look at some of the philosophical issues. That there are some services that we can pay per service. We can count some things. Some things we can't really count as units. If an outbreak of a communicable disease is prevent understand any area, it protects the entire area. So whether we have given lots to 25% of the total that live in the county and 75% live in the city or whatever type of prevention we are using, that preventing -- that we shop across city-county lines werks go to movies, and if an outbreak of any communicable disease prevented, whether it's prevent understand a city because someone was infect and they were treated or a county person was treated, we have protected the entire area. So we may not want to use our usual approach of we gave this many vaccinations out in the county. And I think that's what we're looking at when we are differentiating between things that are is -- that we can come up with unit costs and say yeah, that's what we paid for as opposed to something where we are paying for our portion of a system that protects this entire area, and in doing so protect our 25% of that pop laights. Population. Then the blend is is that some of them will be one way, some of them will be the other. The ones that are the systemic thing where we are saying we are protecting our entire population, and in doing so we are protecting the county portion of that population, whether the actual clinic or education ore vaccination or whatever was done to this many county people and this many city people, the area has been protected, then that is where we may have to come to the point of saying, so what we want to know is what was done to protect our entire area was the total cost of that $660,000. And then we've agreed that our part is 25%.
>> no, marietta. I mean, we're beyond that. I think that we are willing to be part of a system. I don't care whether we have 14 people that came in for the hiv stuff or whether we had 144. I mean, I just want to know that the 660,000 is what it took to take care of all of that in the county, out of the county, the whoag deal. That's all we're talking about.
>> and what you heard is you will not get that information except once a year.
>> at the end of the year, after you've signed the is contract and the year's over.
>> well, we're not quite-- we're trying to work on a new interlocal, hopefully a better one, but it's not a new arrangement. I mine, for '07, the county's figure is 2.4 dplampltz what for 2005 in.
>> it was more. It was, I think, -- 2.7 I believe is the number.
>> 2004 is how much? It changes a little bit, but it's roughly the same.
>> exactly. It's in the same ballpark. Ballpark: that's why the 2.4 million doesn't bother me, but I do think if we're working on interlocal, it ought to be our best effort to provide accountability, some effort to reconcile. And I don't know that it bothers me that we do that annually except for at the end of the year if we wait that long, we really ought to be able to get something specific. And the other thing is I don't know if after six months you put together enough information to projections about the '08 costs, then some documentation is available. So whoots problem of sharing that with us? Because we have to timent what it's going to cost the next year also. So your estimate is real grks your estimate plus documentation is a whole lot better because when sherri comes to pbo for an amount to be put in the preliminary budget, they want more than -- she cannot arrive and say the city told me this, so put it in. They're going ask for whatever documentation there is. So I don't know that we're that far apart, except we do need I think more than the multiplying the 25% times the total. I mean, we can say, okay, this is what the number's based on today as we prepare for the next year's budget, but when we looking back at the actual expenditures for 2007, then we ought to be ale to get more specific than that. And to me the chal shreng capturing -- the challenge is capturing that in a written agreement that we're both comfortable with. That's why last week I said okay, let's just sign off on the 2.4 $2.04 and let's figure out how we can build in accountability in other places. There's no problem in paying after the expiration of a quarter after that particular quarter. So I'm -- I can easily get there. Midyear I would say we will try to provide some financial information that shows what the estimate is built on for the next year, but the annual report ought to give us enough specifics for us to conclude this is what we spent last year, and as best we can determine is how much we spent in the county, and then we decide whether our allocation of 25% of that is a o. The mark too low or too high. And we make the adjustment for the next cycle or if it comes a little late because we have a budget in place. But if we have fairly decent figures midyear, then we can make the estimate for an amount to put in the fiscal year for '08 notwithstanding that we will start paying for the next year January 1, right?
>> right. And judge Biscoe, I thought last week we were down to just these three or four items. That's why I took it back and tried to give you a response on what acceptable to the city on these three or four items. As far as the dollars that are in each of these programs rtion again, it's there, it's historical, it's open to anyone to look at. I think where the had miscommunication comes in terms of staff asking for information is still circling back to wanting to see data in terms of how many people from unincorporated Travis County have accessed or utilized these services, which takes us right back to imetting away from the population-based model. We thought we were beyond that. We thought these were the two or three items and that's why I was so positive coming in here feeling like we have got this resolved. We will give you an estimate of '08 costs in the spring. We all have to do that in terms of bowrjting process, so you will see numbers in terms of what we're projecting, it's just I'm recommending when it comes to a reconciliation that we wait until we have the final numbers and do that once a year at closeout. But you will have a sense of how we're doing in the spring because we've got to develop those numbers to do our budget projections for twoult '08.
>> sherri, do we have any disagreement, and we have a week to talk about this, it's kind of like everything above the double line is exactly as acid just described there -- is just as exactly as david just described there, we're not going to be counting. It's systemic and based on population and it's part of the protection of the county regardless of, you know, spef specific numbers. And the things below the line are things where we are talking about a percentage of actual activities where we are indeed counting dogs, counting certain kinds of things, etcetera related to things where it's really more of a choice of the kinds of thanks we want to do in that particular area as opposed to the county's population, safety and health is at risk. Are we disagreeing with what david has laid out above the double line versus below the double line? Because the basis of allocations are quite different. There are ones based on population, systemic. It's irrelevant. We're look at everybody as a whole. And the ones below the double line are thing where it's really account based on certain services provided out in the county versus anywhere else.
>> I believe that there are some services above the double line where we could get more specific about what activities are provided in those areas. We've asked those questions over and over. What created optimism for me today when we sat down here is I thought I heard a commitment to continue to work on this. We've stated and restated our positions, but my staff has always been willing to sit down with city staff and show us what you do have. Let's not start from a deficit position, but let's start from a positive position. Show us what do you have and we can see if we can't get comfortable with what it is that you have. So I too don't want to take us back to where we were before last Tuesday, but I was asked a very specific question that I had to give a very specific answer to, and it is the basis for why we have not been able to move forward. So I really want to be clear about my response to Commissioner Daugherty because I do believe we need to move forward and I do believe that if we have a commitment to try to have a meeting of the minds on some of these things, and if tha if we could sit is down with city staff and look at what they did have, then by April maybe we can tell you that we're completely comfortable with the reporting that will come to you at that time. But in the absence of that, when I have a very specific economy question from a Commissioner, then I have to tell you the way it is. And right now in the absence of specifics in each of these areas, we can't tell you that that's a good number, it's a bad number, tts it isthe number, period, the end.
>> do you have the total say on all of those line items there above the double lines? Do they all work for you? Everything from hiv all the way down sickle cell?
>> total say is a strong term, Commissioner, but yes.
>> so would it be okay for us to can you that when our numbers people from hhs ask your folks to show me why 959, 7.59 per immunization is is what the number is, that that's something that -- because it sounds to me that that's what we're asking. We can't really get people to come to the table -- here are all the invoices. You can see what they are.
>> Commissioner, that would be an easy thing for us to provide. What it does is it takesthe current funding for those programs within both the city and the county and looked at the cost drivers for '07 and allocates administrative costs to those programs. It ties completely back to all of our financial statements, our budgets, so it's a very easy thing for us to tell you where that number came from.
>> and I'm going to go out on a limb here -- just a quick question? Of course you would not turn this into Travis County as being a budget, but with all due respect to david and his staff, they didn't either. This does not represent david lurie's departmental budget that he turned in to toby saying, look, I'm done all in one spreadsheet. Of course they have got the same kinds of stuff that we turn in, but they put it on one sheet for us to see this way. We need to be asking for the same kinds of stuff that we ask for our own departments in terms of show us the f.t.e.'s, show us the break down. It's not just given to us this morning.
>> can we get what you just described in the March? You will have that, right?
>> yevments I believe we provided that previously, but we'll be haip to provide that again.
>> is that what we need, what she just scried?
>> see, I think, judge -- I'm thinking on the fly. Like if I were sherri and I were you, one of the questions that I would ask, let's look at immunization and they're talking about we've got a whole system and we need to immunize everyone, and that's right. If she says how do we need that the people in Travis County have been immunized, that's my question, how do I know that they have been or did we just immunize all the people in the city of Austin and didn't do anything outside, to so really the people who don't live nid the city of Austin are paying property taxes. Is that the kind of question you need to ask? How do I know the people outside the city are being immunized and what data will she get to know that that -- on a programmatic --
>> now, my question before today was do we need to meet again? And I appreciate the optimism. We need to try to get both side together outside the court and have this back on next week. Our goal, david, is to have something in place by the beginning of the fiscal year, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> I'm as optimistic as you about our a lot to get it done. County judge will initiate a meeting of the city and county. We have a work meeting, a working meeting, and we'll try to work through this deal again. How's that? We have given up on our ability to achieve of consensus today.
>> I just want to clarify one item in terms of Commissioner Sonleitner's comept. There is a program area above the double line where we would be charging based on fixed food establishments. It's that area where you're looking at the information before permitting and health and safety code compliance. So it is a blended model. It's primarily population, but on the food inspections we did break it out by the fixed percentage of food establishments in unincorporated Travis County as opposed to incorporated city of Austin.
>> see.
>> thought that was furnitures, fixture and equipment. [ laughter ]
>> now, the council needs some -- do y'all have to go to the council meetings? Would you be able to meet Thursday morning is is a more direct question? Would you be able to meet at 10:00 Thursday morning?
>> on Thursday? Would Thursday afternoon be a possibility?
>> Thursday afternoon wouldn't be possible for me.
>> Thursday at 2:00. [overlapping speakers].
>> did you say impossible?
>> yeah. I'm leaving for san antonio for cdbg in the afternoon.
>> Wednesday at 2:00.
>> is that tomorrow or this coming Wednesday?
>> that's tomorrow. While it's still fresh in mind.
>> I'll be there.
>> check your calendars, and if you can't be there, let me know. Is there anybody other than my moarks the governor or president bush, cancel, 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, make me available. [ laughter ] all right.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:33 PM