Travis County Commissioners Court
October 3, 2006
Item 35
Number 35, though, is to consider and take appropriate action on first amendment to interlocal agreement for services with the Travis County health care district.
>> good morning, sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. I believe last week the only sticking point on this item was negotiations between health and human services and the health care district related to planning services. We have elected to remove that section from the contract. And I believe the health care district is intending to hire their own planning support. And, of course, we provided these services as kind of a startup so we always intended or anticipated that the health care district will transition to their own support. So we are okay with the document as it's written.
>> okay. Any issues with the document as written if we take health and human services out?
>> what's the deal with the latest e-mail that seems to be coming out of the purchasing folks about whether they are or are not going to be providing services to the district? This next fiscal year.
>> the same amount was in there for last year. So it is there for continuing purposes as far as the health care district, but they are talking back and forth and there is a provision that will allow either the hospital district -- or the health care district to pull out with 30 days' notices or the county could pull out with 60 days' notice.
>> status quo, if indeed they do something different.
>> they are still talking.
>> is this an appropriate time to ask a question? Or can we talk about the direction that we may want to find ourselves regarding continuation of some of these areas where we are in a position to assist the health care district? Because I know when we first got the health care district started there was a lot of work out of legal or out of the county attorney's office, out of the auditor's office , audiblecontinued to be some of purchasing. But frankly there are some issues and the reason the e-mail started and that there is an issue is because we do receive -- the general fund receives money for the contracts -- or the contract that we have with the health care district. But quite frankly, there are issues regarding some departments wanting to take those dollars and distribute those things as lump-sum payments to employees of the department. I mean and that is, quite frankly, the reason -- I mean there's no use us talking in code here or secrecy, that is, quite frankly, the issue that is -- that's the reason we have the issue with this purchasing thing because we have $75,000 that the health care district pays Travis County for those services. And the purchasing agent, quite frankly, would like to take, and maybe rightfully so, take some of these dollars and distribute it to people for the work that supposedly is being done for the hospital district, and apparently there are some of these hours that seem to be taking place after hours. And I for one on the purchasing board, I mean Margaret and I sit on the purchasing board, and I have had issue with that because I think that it puts us in a spot where it's uncomfortable where one department can do something for people outside county government even though I guess you could technically say the health care district is really sort of part of us I mean since it is the Travis County health care district. But I mean it's its own taxing authority. So I'm a little confused as to how we should deal with this thing. But that's where we've gotten the issue-wise with the purchasing department and the work they do for the health care district. So I'm more than willing to talk openly, you know, about this, or maybe this is something that we should agendize and talk about --
>> I think so. I don't have any problem with broaching the topic so you can know how to agendize it in the future. The health care district is saying we would like some services from the purchasing department. So that's in the agreement right now. And what happens in step 2 is, okay, how is the purchasing board and how is the Commissioners court going to deal with the funding of those services. And that's a choice that the purchasing agent has tried to make and there seems to be some conflict with the purchasing board. So that's a different kind of agenda item, whether that's a purchasing board agenda item, and frankly that's where I think it needs to be right now because that's where the conflict seems to be. But there's no reason that I can see to hold this amendment right now any further because the purchasing office is offering those services to the health care district and the health care district is taking them and that's described in the document right now.
>> but educate me here. Don't those dollars that come in off of this interlocal go into the general fund?
>> it's going into a --
>> it goes into the general fund. It does not go like at the city where if something comes from the pd, it stays in the p.d. This goes in the general fund. It doesn't belong to any department to redistribute in any mother nature it was supposed to do -- in any manner that it was supposed to do, for the cost of off setting some of these services. The first year we kind of said we want to be helpful. It's not going to be full dollar recovery because we're just trying to be helpful. I know we've tried to move toward the true cost of service. One reason the auditor's office has said you guys move your own way and on. I know david in the county attorney's office has bumped it up more to truly reflect the cofs services primarily for stacy and for whatever support that's there. But this doesn't belong to the performing director to distribute the dollars. It's not her money. It goes to the general fund to off set the cost of those employees. And if people aren't staying within the hours that are designated, that's a management issue, that is not --.
>> was this the only department that we are dealing with as far as services? A lot of money that the district is giving back to the county for --
>> [multiple voices]
>> in getting money back for them. But this is -- this is kind of a you meek way that the purchasing office has decided to end all that.
>> I guess my question though at the startup getting the hospital district rolling down the road, I was under the impression that after a certain length of time there may be other service providers that may be available in 2 t. Future.
>> right, similar to what sherry just described to you is that they no longer need that planner so that's being taken out. And there are fewer services that are provided this year than were provided the year before. [multiple voices]
>> some type of phasing out type of situation.
>> and our office may be the only one that would continue on. I'm thinking because that's a statutory law.
>> statutorily you are the attorney for the district.
>> itself under the impression when we started this, looking at this hospital district that lit be a phasing out type of expenditure type deal that they would have to deal with the county. In my mind that's the way it still is.
>> you are correct.
>> and then at some point, though, we ought to be able to say, well, these things will fall off the table and Travis County will no longer have to deal with that. And where we are in that particular arena, I don't really know at this point, but at some stage of this we should have some independence established in this whole thing. And I mean money independence as far as that relationship.
>> right. As they become stronger and stronger from a taxing standpoint -- [multiple voices]
>> exactly. Exactly.
>> you need one person to speak at a time.
>> thank you.
>> I assume there are people in the world trying to listen.
>> I understand, judge. Thank you. But that was my only concern, judge, when we first started this out, I was looking forward to one day saying that they could stand on their own two legs and we go from there. So I was just trying to question exactly where we are in all of that. Thank you.
>> I'm mary mays, investment manager from cash investment management. We are providing in our office investing and cash management services to the heiveg health care district and we've been doing so since the beginning. And I guess I just wanted to say I don't anticipate that that would phase out like next year or in the near future. It's a very specialized kind of help, not something that I think they would be able to do for themselves in the near term. If you want us to phase out, of course, we can. But it's been I think a good partnership and we're fine with it.
>> well, there are several models to consider. Seems to me we ought to chat with the hospital district board about various options and try to land on one. But we can transition toward whatever decision we make. Some of these areas I don't know that it makes sense for the hospital district itself to assume full responsibility for when they can do an interlocal with us and achieve the same result. But if they are spending the same amount of money, my guess is they would want to bring it in-house and do it themselves. If we can just add it to what we're doing, it may make sense for us to do it for the hospital -- or the health care district and Travis County.
>> well, we didn't add any staff so it's obviously not a full-time thing. And so I think it would cost them more to do it in-house and I know it would cost them more to do it at a private company or something.
>> it's their call though.
>> oh, certainly.
>> my guess is we ought to let them know. I mean I have forgotten how many services there are. That we're doing for them, but seems to me we ought to put them on notice that we're just looking at the agreement and have a discussion sometime during the next few months and try to head in the direction of whatever decision we make. I don't know that we have to make one decision that applies to all of the services. It may well be that we continue to be some of the services and that they bring others in-house and do it themselves.
>> a la carte.
>> I think, judge, that would be true of the planning services. Certainly hhs was very willing to step back and allow the health care district if they wanted their own employee. If at some point that doesn't work for them or they may be between employees, we are very willing to enter into an agreement with them to provide those services on an interim basis or however they would want to. We did not hire personnel, we actually assigned someone who was a part of our department to support the health care district. We did, however, use some of the funding to kind of backfill with temporary staff on special projects. And so I think you will find that every department used the whatever revenue was generated in different ways.
>> yes, sir.
>> let me say that -- in defense for cyd and purchasing, her e-mail did not just come out of left field here. I mean it was really probably because being a member of the purchasing board, I made the comment to her as the precinct 3 Commissioner that if I were going to be put in a spot where I had to weigh in on this $75,000 coming to Travis County and that money being able -- or being distributed to people in purchasing, that I was not comfortable with that and that I would rather see us, you know, get out of the purchasing board business with the hospital district. I mean that was just something -- I mean before -- if I've got one or the two, I would rather say hey, maybe we ought to sit down with the district and say trish, why don't you all figure out how to do your purchasing. That being said, that was just strictly my opinion thinking that probably would have to come before the court and determine, you know, how we wanted to deal with that. But I don't want purchasing to feel like that they just, you know, started this notion of hey, we want to pull out of this business. I think it was probably because of the comment that I made to them that I was very uncomfortable with that. But I do think that it probably is something that as a court, judge, however you think that we need to discuss that because there are some feelings, you know, where some department -- there are dollars that come in to the county, there have been dollars that have come into the county in the past where some individuals have gotten compensated for work that they have done for the hospital district. I mean not the use any names, but that being -- that having been done at one point in time, I think that that's the reason that the purchasing agent felt like, okay, well, I'm doing this work or, you know, my department is doing this work and I'd like for my people to be compensated. And that is strictly how this thing got started.
>> but the revenue is supposed to come in to off set the cost of hiring one person or I'll call it parts of people. You know, we always think of stacy as being the focal point in the county attorney's office, but there's a number of people in terms of billable hours that make one f.t.e. Even though one primary person is attached to. That but it was for them to hire folks. It wasn't supposed to be for overtime or basically still make it fit within the same number of people you've got. The dollars were supposed to go towards somebody -- toward a new hire, whether it's half of two people or, you know, however they are supposed to do it. It wasn't supposed to be make everybody else do a whole lot more work and then they will get the equivalent of overtime.
>> that was my understanding, you know, that I had.
>> hire the people you are supposed to get. That's certified revenue to justify the f.t.e. Sounds like a lovely discussion for another day.
>> we'll put it on the agenda at the appropriate time and discuss it. Move approval of this item.
>> second.
>> 35. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 4:29 PM