Travis County Commissioners Court
December 30, 2008
Item 35
35 is to consider and take appropriate action to revise the Travis County health district financial policies to reflect the adoption of the provisions of government code chapter 2264, house bill 2365 for the accounting and reporting standards by Travis County.
>> thank you, judge. Just as a review for people who are watching, when the health care district was adopted, part of being the health care district, since there are no elected officials that are assessing property tax, that duty went to the Commissioners court. So the Commissioners court is the one that adopts the budget and therefore taxes the citizens. Because of that the financial statements of the health district are part of the financial statements of the county because you set the tax rate. So along with that, because it is property tax money and because it's on the county's financial statements, the county has the right to set up financial policies to make sure that that money is handled consistently the way public funds are handled, and that it is appropriately stated on the county's financial statements and we're in a position to get our financial statements out in a timely basis. And that's how the financial policies were kind of -- just as an overall parameter. So the Commissioners court adopted financial policies that were very similar to the kind of financial policies that we have in the county for handling funds. The fact that money has to be encumbered,' line item budget has to be adopted and the prudent way you handle funds. We are requesting a change, one single change to that policy today, and that is to make it consistent with 2365, which is the gasbe 45 relating law. We need that for the audit. Deloitte is coming in in January. We have been discussing this with the hospital -- with the health district. Since November there's been numerous e-mails back and forth. Barbara wilson suggested that we basically reiterate all of the other policies and put this one in. This is the only change that we are recommending. And the hospital district agreed to that schaing. In that conversation, however -- thrrl several conversations, the hospital district wanted to apparently discuss some of the policies that you had adopted in the past. Whereas I don't have much of a feeling one way or the other, we're really not in a time frame to do that now. So my preference would be that we change the one policy we need changed, and if barbara wilson feels that the best way to do that is the way it was presented to do that, and if in fact the hospital district has issues that they would like to discuss with you.
>> I don't have a problem with any of that. I'm more concerned with this report right now and the change we need for that.
>> okay.
>> stacy wilson, Travis County c-14-'s office. I am here in lieu of staff from the health care district because they could not attend today's session. A couple of things. Although the district staff and I have been in discussion with the auditor's office about changing these provisions and are in agreement with the changes that are proposed for the gasbe provisions, which are the ones that I understand the auditor is the most concerned with, there are additional changes to these provisions that have been suggested to which the district has neither seen more agreed. So that is why they've asked me to express that to you today, so just so that you understand that there are provisions in here that are new, that are different, and there are additional provisions that need to be changed that we suggested that in fact would be brought to you are just the amendments for the gasbe policy, but we are told that this was not possible. So I am just here on there behalf to make sure that the fact that they have not seen this particular draft, nor have they agreed to these particular provisions.
>> my impression is that this is what you have now except for the gasbe. Which ones are different?
>> there's an additional provision, number 13, under which apparently the district would -- has agreed to pay for an audit. If things aren't provided promptly, which I think is a new provision.
>> I don't believe it is. And the reason that that is -- that's kind of a fail-safe for the county and that is -- we are at the mercy of the health district. If in fact we're ready to go with our statement and have it audited, and our auditor has to look at those as well, if in fact the health district has not provided those on a timely basis, what it allows the county to do is get someone to get those statements together for our -- I remember that being discussed in detail, and it's a fail-safe for the county, should the district not meet the time requirements that we need to get our statements out.
>> but stacy, you don't think that that is --
>> I don't recall it being in there. There's an additional provision that requires that the audited financial statements be provided by January. I think it's the 20th or the 10th.
>> I know the dates have not been changed.
>> the district just hasn't seen this version and so the question was whether or not there had been adequate time for the district to look at it. I understand the auditor's concerns with having the gasbe provisions done on time. The query becomes whether or not by affirming this that in fact we can't have opportunity for further discussion about these particular provisions that are problematic to the district.
>> if they're problematic. It's speculation we just don't know.
>> we know that some of them are problematic. For example, it's impossible for the district to submit their financial statements within 20 days of rear end close. No one can do that. But that was in the original policy and that's one of the things that needs to be changed just because it's not practically possible. So as I understand it, district staff has been in conversation with the staff of the auditor's office about changing those. But no agreement has been reached at this time.
>> so is it the health care district's provision that they are all right about what we're going to do today on the recognition is that it's only one piece in a continuing look at the --
>> the district is okay with the provisions -- the changes that are being made for the gasbe provisions. And as I understand it, those are the provisions that are imperative to be approved by the end of this year. And the district is fine with the changes and has been fine with the changes that have been provided to those provisions.
>> and of items 1 through 13, which are those?
>> it is one where it says maintain the health care district financial records in accordance with the comprehensive basis of accounting consistent with state law. And down in 7, it says, prepare the district monthly annual financial statements in accordance with the comprehensive statement basis of the county consistent with state law. And 8, it says, provide the county auditor with -- every time it talks about a statement, what it says is a comprehensive basis of accounting consistent with state law in #. And in 11 it says, provide the county auditor with the district's annual financial statements, discloars sure and information that are prepared in complieps with, and here's the change, comprehensive basis of the county consistent with state law.
>> and they have no problem with that?
>> those are the changes that we need for this.
>> 1, 7, 8 and 11?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> yes.
>> let me make sure know. 1, 7, 8 and 11. And what it talks about is the basis of accounting is the comprehensive basis of accounting consistent with state law. That's the provision.
>> and the other items are previously existing items?
>> to my knowledge they are.
>> (indiscernible).
>> that was our impression that it was. If those need to be changed, I don't mind that dialogue coming at a different time. It's just we don't have time for that dialogue now.
>> we need the other ones.
>> what she's saying is if they review it after today, but need further discussion, we can have those discussions whenever the district wants to have them.
>> right.
>> that's all right or is it all right?
>> that would be fine.
>> that way the district -- a week is fine. If the district takes two or three months, that's fine too.
>> yeah.
>> I guess if you mull over them and think about them, they may be softer than they seem. But I guess the district wants to hear us say that as to changes other than the gasbe, if they look at it and have better or different language to propose, just bring it forth.
>> thank you. That way there's no time pressure.
>> no. Correct.
>> so consistent with that, we would approve what's proposed today with the understanding that on some of the non-gasbe related stuff, if the district has different language to propose at some point in the future, that would be brought to us, we will put it on the agenda and basically consider it. That's the motion. Discussion? Now, did somebody on the court have a question? Nope? Okay. All in favor? Show Commissioners eckhardt, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis abstaining. Thank y'all very much.
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, December 30, 2008 2:27 PM