Travis County Commissioners Court
July 29, 2008
Item 21
Number 21 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the Travis County health and human services department interlocal with the city of Austin as follows: a, mid-year report on services provided by the city of Austin and b, city of Austin's request for additional fund fog fiscal year 2009.
>> good morning, Commissioners. Sheri fleming, executive manager for health and human services and veteran services. We're here with our partners from the city of Austin to review the midyear report for the public health interlocal. As you know, state statute provides the authority for you to conduct certain public activities. We achieved that through an interlocal agreement with the city of Austin health and human services department. So with that I will turn it over to chan non-jones, the acting director of the human services department.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. I'm here to give you that update in the report, so I'd like to start off by stating that join meg is melanie miller, who will be -- joining me is melanie miller, who will be helping in the presentation. On September the 25th, 2007, the Commissioners court approved a new interlocal with the city of Austin for public health annual services. As required by the interlocal, a midyear report were provided to the county staff on may 15th, 2008. I'd like to talk a little bus about the year to date expenses. Total year to date expenses, net of revenue, are $7.7 million. The county's share of those actual expenses as of March is 1.2 million. Slightly under budget. Seasonal expenses will bring the actual expense close to the the model and they will continue to monitor and manage for the year. However current year estimate indicates we will end the year close to the annual county share of 2.6 million. Let me share a little bit with you about the performance so far. We report on 83 performance measures. In December we notified the county of five measures where a performance would not meet the fy '08 budget due to changes in state requirement and changes in demand. Of the remaining 78, 40 met or exceeded me at year target. Of these 40, 32 exceeded the target. Many of the remaining measures have seasonal activity and will experience higher performance in the summer months. There are a few areas where we did not anticipate our performance will meet our estimates. Let me share with you some of the examples of our measures. The number of flu clinics held, we had estimated nine clinics, but we actually have conducted 14. Our immunizations at our shots for tots clinics as of March were just under 25,000 or 25 percent higher due to the opening of a third clinic. Anticipated year end figures are approximately 48,000. The number of retail food establishments permitted is up slightly, 26% at midyear due to increased mobile vending activity in the county. Some of the examples of areas where measures are seasonal and we expect higher performance in the summer months include swimming pool investigations, complaints and requests received by road and vector control program. And the number of animals sheltered and number of animals sterilized. Areas where performance will be slightly under, the average response time for animal control due to delayed implementation of additional officers, I'm sorry, and looking at other strategies to address issues with regards to animal control. Also the road and vector program complaints and requests are down due to a much drier spring and summer period. As we look forward to fydown, we have proposed the inclusion of additional performance measures related to Commissioners' requests. Our proepbd budget is 343,000 based on the cost methodology as in the interlocal. Some of our new measures we anticipate includes the number of bite investigations, the number of animals adopted, the number of animals returned to owner, and the number of county spay and neuter clinics per last year. Some of the cost drivers for fy '09 include the increase in Travis County's population of .98% to roughly 56.93% or roughly in term of dollars, $74,000. Other costs increases are the market review, pay for performance and insurance, and grant support. The cost model for fy 2009 was provided to the county staff as per requirement on March 31st. Just to reemphasize the interlocal goals is to clarify services provided, simplify management of the interlocal, establish agreements on how we would allocate costs. Cost model includes departmental costs. Our fy 2009 proposal is consistent with the agreed glucosely in conclusion, we are -- finally in conclusion we are requesting $2.9 million to fund the county's share of the interlocal based upon the approved cost methodology that we have put forth. And with that we'd be happy to answer any questions. Soeurbgs.
>> so the 2.97 million is how much above the budget?
>> the number I have is slightly different than the city's share. It's how the budget is set up within the target ratio. The additional increase is $336,413 above what's currently in the budget in hhs for 2009.
>> could you repeat that? I'm sorry. You just kind of went like that.
>> I'm sorry, I'll slow down.
>> the incremental increase is 336,413 tkhrarbz. $336,413 above what in the fy '09 target budget for hhs. The preliminary budget includes $42,330 towards that increase. The amount that's unfunded is $294,083 which represents the administrative costs that are included in the city's requests. And there's just a philosophical difference on whether or not those should be included. They're included in the agreement for this year. They're included in the e.m.s. Local agreement, but the city doesn't pay us administrative costs as part of the central booking agreement.
>> so the shortfall that you're suggesting is all targeted towards the administrative costs?
>> yes, sir, that's correct.
>> is that correct?
>> yes.
>> if I may, during our negotiations last year with the city related to this agreement, the agreement was approved for one year. And you may remember that there were several issues that staff raised and there was much discussion with court members about the costs related to this agreement. Some of those issues we feel continue, and in submitting this request to planning and budget during the budget process, the issue of administrative costs and whether or not the city and the city council it's your intent to charge each other the cost of your administration, the cost of your back shop fees. So that discussion surfaced last year. The court opted to follow staff's recommendation and approve the agreement, understanding that we would again be negotiating the agreement this year. And so again the issue of certain costs, specifically administrative costs in the agreement, has been raised. And has been raised not only by health and human services, but planning and budget.
>> so are we able to agree on what the $336,413 total would -- total increase would cover? There's no disagreement on that, right?
>> correct.
>> why can't we just get that on a sheet of paper then, a separate document so we can look at it. This issue of administrative cost does surface every budget cycle. And I think that we really ought to go ahead and reach agreement on it one way or the other. If we pay the city administrative cost, it seems to me the city should pay us that on contracts where we provide the services. It's not your fault, but it is an issue that has been outstanding for years, and takes on a life of its own during the budget process. As you indicated when the services grow and there are population increases and costs are tied to population, you're looking at numbers that get larger and larger every year. It's just that what's -- what's good for the goss is good for the -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So we with probably should take this up with the mayor and city council?
>> yes, particularly as it relates to this interlocal. This is the understanding we've been operating under, and the understanding of how we would proceed. So any changes that would have to occur --
>> in the last year it was kind of at the 11th hour, and it was -- and mr. Lurie was kind of --
>> do you recall that?
>> you were at the point where you paid us this amount right here and get those services or you don't get them.
>> exactly.
>> the issue didn't go away with with that ultimatum. We kind of said we've got residents that need these services, so let's put the services in place and work on this. In fact, I had hoped we would work midyear so we would be farther down the road this late in our budget process than we are today.
>> actually, judge, we did provide the information in March, so we're here ourselves somewhat at the last minute in an effort to try and resolve this issue and hoping that we wouldn't be here. So we're back at the same point we did last year. And I hope that we can get it resolved.
>> okay. Y'all are considering what you're suggesting here to us. You're taking that into the budget consideration with the city, aren't you? I mean, my whole point is that when we end up looking at this issue, the judge related to this spinks too, it has been an ongoing issue and this has to be a trade-off in my opinion. And -- but again, that is something that maybe could be looked at. It's a problem. It definitely is. I don't know how we're going to resolve it, but we need to put our arms around it. Sheri, I guess if we can get with the city and figure out -- there has to be an offset. It cancelled out each other, in my opinion in some kind of way. What do we get in exchange for that? If we end up doing it? , what does the county get out of the deal?
>> I'm of the opinion at this point, Commissioner Davis, that it is a policy level discussion. I think staff have sort of hammered away at this as much as we potentially can. And certainly we are sort of -- we're willing to do what we need to do, but I think what it continues to come back to is do the city and the county charge each other for administrative expenses related to services where they share or where they serve each other. So when we're serving the city in some capacity, are we entitled to the administrative costs of those services and then the converse of that is the city entitled to the administrative costs of serving county residents.
>> have we actually received funding from the city for any administrative costs that we incur?
>> the three services are e.m.s. And public health where the county pays the city. The other is the central booking agreement and that's where the city pays the county. And there's no administrative cost in that. And we haven't actually calculated what that would be, but using the roughly 10% number that's in this agreement, if that was supplied to the central booking agreement, that would be an additional roughly $480,000 that the city would provide to the county. But that's just a rough estimate.
>> if you were using the same formula, similar formulas.
>> but the 300,000 had plus is an '09 budget issue.
>> correct.
>> we think there's enough in the budget to get us through this fiscal year.
>> yes.
>> okay. Move that we authorize the county judge to draft an appropriate letter to the city manager and city council addressing the issue of administrative overhead basically. The three main interlocals, highlight the need for us to address this as soon as possible. And in the letter describe as many facts as necessary to describe the problem. As for a solution, we do have a draft that we have already that mr. Roes gave me. Let me look at that, share it with the court. Y'all get whatever why did you can legally give me. And we'll get that to the the city as soon as possible. Nand the meantime let's put this on our budget list. Discussion?
>> so travis or rodney, what do we have in the preliminary budget regarding this 2.97 million that the city is asking?
>> the unfunded amount is $294,083. Let me add that up real quick.
>> 2,673,000 # $800.
>> so that's what we have in the preliminary budget.
>> as of right now.
>> so it really is that differential.
>> -- differential.
>> we did that on purpose, the highlight that we recommend the increases that the city has proposed. The majority of the increases are gasoline, performance based pay, health insurance increase. They're things that we deal with on an everyday basis. We competely understand those. It was at a part of that 2.9 million number, the 294,083 with dollars is the administrative portion of that cost. We just haven't -- we recommended the agreement in full of the increases, just with the exception of that number.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
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, July 29, 2008 2:51 PM