Travis County Commissioners Court

June 5, 2012 - Item 14
Agenda

View captioned video.

>> 14, consider -- approve contracts for the provision of air medical response coverage for the Circuit of the Americas and Formula One Racetrack, a, contract no.
Ps 120222sh, Circuit of the Americas, llc, and b, contract no.
Ps 120231sh, Texas Airlife, Inc.
Any questions or comments?

>> No.

>> Mr. Reeferseed?

>> Yes, I'd like to object -- I'd like to object to the jumping of the gun.
By the way, many citizens said no earlier today, and to jump the gun, I mean, it's printed here in black and white, item no.
14 proves the shah raid of the so-called public hearing this morning on an already done deal.
And that's illegal, judge.
that's just not right.
here in black and white, item 14, on done deals, it's illegal to hold fake, so-called public hearings and then, look out, oh, by the way, we've already got it already in print.
it's item no.
14.
you know, I mean, public hearings should have some kind of significance as to what the public has to say.
so that's what I'm objecting to.

>> Thank you.
move approval?

>> Yes.

>> Discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> Will we be monitoring -- I totally get that we have enough capacity to do this and that the most likely -- excuse me -- effect of nailing down one of our three helicopters is not on our response time to Travis County residents, but will there be any effect on our ability to do interfacility transfers outside the county, or more discretionary service line?

>> So we will maintain our normal staffing with one helicopter 24/7 and one 12, so the staffing would be exactly the same as it will be today.
so we'll have the same exact capacity and those aircraft are not limited to what they would or wouldn't do like any other request.
we're just dedicating one aircraft -- the third aircraft, which would not be in service that day anyway, or those days, to that cota event.

>> But the third aircraft is usually used how when not locked down at the racetrack?

>> It is usually -- 40% of the time it is in maintenance.
one of the aircraft is in maintenance, so we have three to be able to maintain two in service.
what we're going to be able to do is manage that maintains to where we'll -- maintenance to make sure it's available.
if it was available and not in a minute maintenance.

>> Will we be monitoring our level and how it may be changed due to redistribution of our resources?
because the out of county interfacility transfers does to a great degree subsidize our emergency services in the county.

>> I'm not sure.

>> Well, no, I think what -- correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner, what you're saying is are we going to monitor the subsidy because we rely on the interfacility as well as the transports for the amount of revenue that's brought into the program and will we monitor this to see if it has any impact.

>> Yes, because the rationale for purchasing the third aircraft was to increase our abilities -- increase our capacity for interfacility transfers outside the county in order to drive down the overall cost of the general fund subsidizing emergency services, and that might --

>> that wasn't -- there were many pieces that made this a positive thing.
That was one of them.
However, the major piece regarding the facility transfers as well as transports is by having a third aircraft you're guaranteeing yourself that you'll have at least the 24/7 and the 12/7 in operation.
Before we had that aircraft then, as casey said, 40% of the time an aircraft is down, which left you with one aircraft.

>> right, and again I go back to we have a business plan.
We took a look at the business case for purchasing a third aircraft.
It did not include f1 at that time.
Now the f1 contract, if I read it correctly, it requires an event over -- is it over 40,000 that we would -- that we would provide the helicopter service?

>> no, actually that hasn't been established.
It depends on what the actual event is as to whether or not it requires a helicopter at all.
It's not really, I don't think, based -- unless you've had those negotiations, I don't remember it being tied to a number.

>> perhaps I'm misremembering because of the the other -- there was an ems contract, star flight contract, est 11 contract.
In any casey I would ask that we mon ea we monitor with regard to the business plan which was the rationale for the third aircraft, because because the racetrack was not included in that and now it is a large element, a large capacity user.

>> three days out of 365 a large capacity user?

>> the contract is not just for those three days.

>> we know about those three days now.
We don't know about the others.
What percent of our costs do we expect to be reimbursement -- reimbursed for?

>> for the standby at the cota events?
100%.

>> that's what I thought.
And I've been telling everybody zero cost for us.
We get reimbursed.
Hourly fee is based on that.
We ought to monitor that because if the hourly fee ought to be increased we should figure out a way to do it, in subsequent races.
Any other discussion?
Commissioner Eckhardt?
Did I give you a chance to finish?

>> yes, you did, sir.

>> discussion?
All in favor?
That passes by a unanimous vote.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you for your patience also.

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.