Travis County Commissioners Court
February 13, 2007
Item 6
6. Approve interlocal agreement with Travis County healthcare district for purchasing services
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, cyd grimes county purchasing agent. As you know, my office was doing the procurement function for the hospital district, for the past two and a half years and we transitioned that effective the first of February this -- this month, this year. However, the c.e.o. President asked that we continue to dispose of surplus property handled at function for them since they don't have a warehouse and -- and they haven't totally transitioned the -- the audit -- the inventory function. They also wanted to continue the use of our contract. So this interlocal allows that. It also generates $6,000 to us for providing those services.
>> judge, the reason that I have asked to discuss this is -- you being new on the purchasing board, over the last year, we have -- we've really had a -- a -- I guess a little bit of an issue as to what we do with moneys that are paid to the county. Actually, I guess to the purchasing department. For the functions that we have been performing for the health care district. I don't want to have another year of trying to decide what we do with this money. I called cyd yesterday, I said let's talk about this $6,000, what do you anticipate is going to be done with the $6,000. And I think that it is the intent of the purchasing agent to take that and distribute that to -- to individuals. I realize that we have got some real difference of opinions as to what happens whenever these departments get money. I mean is it distributed? I mean, is it -- does it go to the general fund? I mean having talked to a number of other departments, there are -- there are issues. And I just personally, since I still sit on the purchasing board, I would rather not get there next year and us decide what are we going to do with the $6,000. I mean if the court want to say hey, we are going into it with our eyes open, the $6,000 is going to come to cyd, cyd is going to be able to distribute that, if that's what the court chooses then let's do it. If not we need to let that be known at this date.
>> well, in my view what we ought to do is let the person know that there is an issue, post the item for a legal discussion, try to figure out what the law is, have them over one day for the discussion. We never have really had that. The discussion that we had on the -- on the conference room was much too formal. I don't know what the board did when I wasn't there. I was kind of promised no action would be taken. I have minutes that I haven't read. This doesn't really deal with the distribution of money. It simply deals with whether or not the purchasing agent will handle these services for the health care district. It seems to make sense not to duplicate a whole lot of stuff if you can avoid it. The main purchasing duties have been transferred to the health care district, right?
>> we are in the process, yes.
>> these are -- these are minor compared to those. I think there is a big question about what authority the board has as to budgeting especially mid career and as to allocating funds that were not part of the budget and in my view really how the planning and budget office interacts with the purchasing board, also. So sid made that, a better time would be for a full discussion. If we want to postpone this until then, it just puts a question on us to do it a lot faster. We ought to do this, though, standing alone, I don't know that I would like $6,000 stand in the way. We ought to clear the air on $6,000, because last time it was 70,000.
>> 75,000.
>> 75,000. And implicated was an additional 75,000 for another year. Whatever the law is on that, I can live with it. There's just different interpretations of it.
>> it may just be really much easier to just say to the health care district, do everything yourself. We take it off the table. Quite frankly cyd and I have talked about it, that would probably be much -- she would probably be much more amenable to that than having this unpleasant conversation about what we do with the dollars. But I'm -- lets postpone action and see how the health care district decided that the county should continue to doing this for them.
>> the only thing, though, that I see is that it's really a great thing for agencies to do away with duplication. For instance surplus, you know, everybody has to deal with it. So it seems that that's a good thing. And the money is another question that has to be settled by the -- I think that I have heard the issue and explanation, I have my opinions about what I heard. But there still seems to be all kinds of, you know, interpretations. So I think that has to be finalized, judge. But I think as far as trying to get agencies to work together, to -- to avoid duplication to the taxpayers, I think that we ought to do this separate from the money.
>> the money is not part of this. But if we want to postpone it, itment take two or three weeks I think to get a legal opinion, get the judges to look at that. We ought to be able to reach some understanding on exactly how we do the budgeting.
>> with all due respect, I -- it's been discussed every budget year. I thought it was discussed this past budget year and there was a legal opinion. I am very frustrated over this issue. We have saved --
>> [multiple voices]
>> thousands of dollars and --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> provided valuable service. We have cooperated and I with all due respect ask that I be included in the discussion in executive session on this issue.
>> you were in the only discussion that I have been in.
>> I believe there was one during the -- during the budget year when the question came up begin.
>> well -- again.
>> I think we do ourselves a favor to bringing this to a head and getting it clarified.
>> I wish that you would, with all due respect.
>> I agree.
>> that's number 22 on my list of things to do to be reached during the next two weeks. We will have this back. In two weeks. Okay.
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, February 14, 2007 8:07 AM