Travis County Commssioners Court
January 21, 2003
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.
Item 12
Number 12.
>> are those new glasses?
>> I want to be like david letterman. I broke my other ones.
>> milton berle would be proud.
>> on Thursday you had a work session of some length, reviewing a variety of materials that had been districted not only to you, but to all elect and appointed officials. What you have before you is a request to not only discuss the budget projections that were outlined during that work session, but also to review the document entitled framing the fy '04 budget and take appropriate action. You're being asked to approve it. That document very simply says that we will use budget targets as the basis for the fy '04 budget and budget target is in essence what departments had the year before, less any one-time costs, plus any analyzed obligations. And then all departments will identify options for a five percent reduction and their budget with the impact of those reductions. That there would be no new f.t.e.'s in the preliminary budget and that the preliminary budget would summarize any -- the opportunities and options for budget reductions as well as requests for increases. And then during the summer budget hearings and markup, which should occur in August September, the court would concur on the increases and decreases and the court would work with the departments now or whenever these parameters or the guidelines approved to work with the departments intensely between now and may to deal with not only any internal reallocations as they might occur, but also look at those reduction opportunities. Realize that it is still early and everything is measured against a test of reasonable and common sense. I said at the beginning of the work session that we were not in a crisis, we have a challenge. The jury is still out on a wide variety of numbers that are driven by the appraisal district, and we do have, as is mentioned, some challenges before us, but we're up to it. You asked some questions at the work session, and I distributed on Friday some additional material to you. One was a letter, one-page letter that basically outlined what the county's portion of the total tax bill. In essence the county's portion of the total tax bill is about 16%. For a hypothetical average homestead of 1 88,000 dollars, in particular that homestead of 1 88,000 dollars would have a tax of $4,418. The county's portion of that would be 781, with the city being $864. And the reason is because of the absence of a homestead that the city applies and then aisd, which emp knows is the bulk of the taxes that are paid at $2,762. And there was also some information about a commercial owner of a hypothetical five-million-dollar commercial building who would see a significant tax decrease because of the drop in taxable values that we are being told will occur from the appraisal district. You also received on Friday a document that was requested by the judge that in essence showed what are the potential range of contractual or statutory budget obligations. As you may remember, we thought we had an estimate of around five million dollars that might be necessary to meet various obligations, and there's a range because it's still very early, but health benefit increases and retirement benefit increases and our combined communication center obligations, management increases, property insurance. None of these are programmatic enhancements, they are simply doing business. And we thought we had a range anywhere from four to $8.7 million of those. It's a broad range because we're still going to be working with those departments that are involved, but five million is not a bad number for planning purposes. You also received a letter from me proposing some specific changes to the document, a title framing the budget process, and in particular we were proposing to add some language in the section about reprioritizing internally. And the purpose of this new language was to recognize that it is a higher priority it to fund new contractual or statutory obligations and other expenses related to maintaining current efforts, that those efforts should take priority over programmatic enhancements or expansions. Clearly there is an art and a judgment as to what is a maintenance of current effort versus a programmatic expansion, but what this intended to do is in a hypothetical department, if someone has some freedom internally to identify available resources, the point of this language was to say okay, don't come forward and internally fund a programmatic enhancement or an expansion of a program and then say, I have a statutory obligation, now add money to the department that you should be doing, the maintenance of your current effort first before dealing with expansions of programs.
>> christian, how did we handle the point that was brought up by alish sha in terms of how we're going to handle some of the centralized line items such as rent where they are basically the keepers of the funds on behalf of a lot of other departments because if we don't do it fairly, basically an increase that's really an hhs or sheriff's office rent item gets attach to another department who is really their bookkeeper.
>> in talking to acleesh aleash is a sha, it seemed available to her and it made sense to us to have central line items identified separately from the department operations so that alease sha or anyone else can say here are the implications of what if I had five percent less in postage and look at that collectively and have that be separate from looking at the operational implications of the department's base. She seemed be agreeable to that and it made sense, and so that would be the approach that we would propose to take. And the only other language that we're suggesting is rather than use the word funding needs, say funding requests, only it's a subtle, but not important difference because it's in the eyes of the be hold are what's the difference between a request and a need.
>> so we centralized all of the vehicle frchz from tnr. But also run that by joe in terms of that being looked at separately as opposed to that somehow tnr would have to absorb increases for the live sheriff's office.
>> we would do the same thing.
>> very good. Thank you.
>> so to a large degree that's a summary of the materials that you have sent -- been sent -- oh, there was also another question that the judge posed about what did the base for the inmate budget? And bill derry berry sent you a letter that basically outlined in written form and then there's a one-page table that shows the base from which the budget was established was 2721, twech nmates. And that was dropped by 300 to have a base of 2421. Now, as you can see, in the attachment to mr. Derlyberry's letter, there are monthly differences, so all that occurred was showing the actual '02 monthly numbers and then a reduction for '03 that budgeted. Bottom line is we're running an eye lash away from our budgeted numbers on inmates.
>> move approval.
>> commissioner daugherty?
>> christian, in 25 words or less, tell me why I should file on the budgeting process that we vote on right now which you all called budget -- what terminology do you all use versus zero-based budgeting?
>> it's called budget target.
>> okay.
>> start with the budget target as the base, look at reductions, look at increases.
>> so tell me why that versus going in and doing zero-based budgeting for the entire county budget.
>> because it's fair, because it's practical, and because it's realistic. Is that less than 25 words? Now, let me go from there.
>> that you can convince me of.
>> over the years there's been an extraordinarily intense and rather extensive budget process that has annually looked at increases and decreases in budgets. And when someone comes forward typically over the last, i'd say at least nine, 10 years, with a suggestion for increased resources, that triggers a much more intensive look at the base because then the question always comes, well, you're asking for a new x or a new y. Why can't you do that internally and look at your internal resources? That department then has triggered not necessarily zero-based budgeting, which really starts at as if the department didn't exist and you create a brand new department every year. That is an extraordinary endeavor to do right. It's an easy endeavor to do simplistically. So you then look and see opportunities to absorb internally for that department. There may be five other departments who are saying, I can live within my resources, that year, but then a number of those departments in the subsequent year or following years come forward and say, I can't live within my resources any more. Please, I want to do x or y. That then triggers another look, wait a minute, department x, let's look and see what opportunities there are to review internally. And frequently then there are debates. There are honest public policy disagreements between planning and budget office and the department or the planning and budget office may say we just can't include -- the resources aren't there, but it makes 17. They then talk to the commissioners court and show and discuss opportunities for programmatic reprioritization internally or having the additional resources layered on top. So what we do is an incremental -- and I won't call it zero-based because it really isn't, but we do an incremental base analysis triggered by request for additional resources, but it is true. If someone comes forward and says I don't need additional resources, there is such an intensity of analysis on those that where there are requests for additional resources or reductions for that matter that we put the -- we direct the analytic time towards those areas, not towards the entire county. It's possible to do an entire county and to an entire city. There have been attempts done across the country. I think the literature is filled with stories of those attempts having failed. To do it right for everybody. You can do it in pieces.
>> capital metro executed zero-based budgeting this year, and it seemed to work very well.
>> the reason I ask is I think that approaching this budget the way that the county always approaches it -- and I don't mean to come in here and redesign the whole system, but it would appear to me that there are going to be some real uncomfortable spots if we are asking basically somebody to do something versus someone else really not having to do something I mean so far as a cut. If you're starting out where I'm basically starting out from, which is my goal is to find $21 million' worth of cuts, whether that's additional revenues brought in and you have a deferential then, then obviously your cuts are less. Maybe I need to work with pbo and say y'all walk me through separate and aside what you would do if you were doing zero-based budgeting. Because i'd like to know when a department has x amount of folks, if that in essence is really what that department really needs to operate with. And I'm sure that there will be some real obvious yeses and some where, you know, it won't be as much of a lay down, if you will, that that's really what needs to happen. So, you know, I don't think that there's anyone that questions as to what I'm really looking to try to find in the budget. And if you think that you can work with me in a manner that, okay, we can -- we're going to show commissioner daugherty where these dollars really can be -- where you go in and you're not just really slicing somebody up and somebody else gives you a song and dance where you don't have as much cuts from there. Y'all have the history of doing this. I look forward to seeing that. I've used on the campaign trail a lot -- I mean, I think that we ought to look at zero based budgeting and I think that there are a lot of people who share that, especially when it comes to government. And if you can give me beyond that, then i'll look forward to it.
>> let me suggest a way to do it. You can look at zero-based budgeting on a program by program basis with preidentified programs, and I would look forward to the court saying, you know owe.
>> and I have been looking. I look forward to working with you on this issue because it's a good issue and it's a good yomplt kind of issue, but at the same time if the court said here are x areas that we are particularly concerned about and think that opportunities for substantial savings can be derived, and a way to do that is zero-based pujting in these one, two, three, six, whatever. We've never had that outcome before. And it would be delightful to have the court identify those.
>> I think we have been talking about that in terms of looking at some cost drivers of this budget.
>> yes.
>> and one of the biggest cost drivers is personnel. And if we're going to -- and personnel are driven by programs. And so the cost drivers then result in focused attention in a certain area. And so I would look forward to having the court identify areas that it particularly believes its cost drivers should get increased attention in terms of zero-based budgeting. So it's -- in the absence of that, then we do the best we can with the information we have, but having -- but recognize that one of our goals is five individuals feeling comfortable with a dget at the end of the day. I'm through.
>> christian, on the document that you gave us dated January 17th, the ones that actually itemize the bite on the taxpayer for n entity that has the ability to tax and have Travis County's 16% of an overall tax bite, aisd is, for example, 62%, city of Austin is 20%, acc two percent. But my question is when people receive their tax bill, I guess some folks go through it, but the bottom line is the total of the tax bill. And, of course, Travis County even at 16% of the bite out of the apple, it's still significant in my mind, and I'm going to try my best to look for ways to look at the current tax rate and go below that for this upcoming fiscal year. And I think there are opportunity that you mentioned in the framing of the budget, as you suggested, but even in question b, c, you need to go to that, b, c and e, it mentions about the flexibility and it talks about the cuts and things of that nature, five percent zero-based budget as far as some of the items that we're looking at, but my question to you is this. We have certain positions that have not been filled, and they're vacant. If the court decided to revoke or freeze at this time, what would there be as far as a cost savings, in other words, money that we don't spend. I think maybe if we unfreeze this, and -- tawb talk there are some things that you may have to just do anyway, but it needs to be based on needs and necessity. But across the board just for a freeze at this time on all Travis County position, what would that equate to be? $2,873,000?
>> how much now? $2,873,000 if all positions that are empty would have been filled at the beginning of their step or their range.
>> so about two million dollars?
>> 2.8.
>> just slightly under 2.9 million. To as much as 3.3 million if those positions would have been filled by midpoint.
>> can you rephrase that, please? Because you need to, a, exclude things that are already frozen, therefore those dollars are not being --
>> that's not in there.
>> and also which ones do not fly plooi to independent elected officials where you cannot go taking monies out of somebody's hands after the start of a new budget.
>> a large number of these positions and a large amount of that, those dollars, do apply to independently elected officials. The last time Travis County implemented a freeze, what the court did was say freeze positions under its responsibility and then ask elected officials, here's what the court is doing, would you please implement a I accordingly? And the information th I just gave you was summarized in material that commissioner Davis requested and was sent in a letter from me to the court on January 14th.
>> that's understandable. Understand about the elected officials. We know that. So what I was driving at is what -- hopefully everybody here in the listening audience, what we're saying here about the really tough times, and even though Travis County may not be experiencing tougher times than the state with its 10 billion-dollar deficit, the city of Austin, don't know where they're going to land as far as the shortfall that they're having. Aisd is another deal. We still have to pay -- we're still part of the tax bait and part of the sit citizens that have to pay taxes. What I'm doing is making sure that we do our part to not increase our taxes in what ways we would be doing that. So that's basically what I'm coming from. I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes, but I think everybody ought to realize that the economic climate is really not what it should be around here as far as -- and I hear a lot of complaints about folks about these taxes. So I'm looking to address it. So I want to point to the b, c and e, which given our flexibility -- we do not know at this time when you say cuts say of five percent, are we really saying back in there to give us the flexibility -- (indiscernible) when you say flexibility, are you really telling the departments, yes, you're going to cut staff in certain areas. We're looking for resources to reduce that, but, ferk, the most important -- not most important, but the most expensive commodities is personnel. So when we say that flexibility, what kind of signal are we giving to the departments? Are we asking the departments, all right, now you have to layoff employees in Travis County? So I'm having a problem with the framework where we talk about flexibility and you talk about reducing the budget, but how? If geese are going to be part of -- if employees are going to be part of that, layoffs will be coming. That's the last thing i'd like to do. But if the flexibility -- giving the departments rules to determine how they're they're going to do it.
>> can we have over lurchl to think about that answer?
>> yes, sir. I think that would be very appropriate.
>> they're trying to think of an answer for you.
>> I'm thinking of an answer to the question, but i'll be glad to do it at another time.
>> b, c and e of this framework.
>> of the guidelines?
>> yes, sir.
>> commissioner Gomez made a motion on this.
>> we didn't get a second?
>> let's continue and move it to another matter for withdrawal of a motion.
>> okay.
>> there was no second.
>> i'll withdraw my second and could I move that we recess until 1:30?
>> I second.
>> you can think of an answer over lunch. All those in favor, signify by saying aye? That passes by unanimous vote with commissioner go temporarily away. Thank you.
>> > now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County commissioners court. We are into a session of item no. 12, discuss fy '04 budget projections and guidelines, review document entitled "framing the fy'04 budget", and take appropriate action. We will be to that item regarding the [inaudible] collections real soon. Okay.
>> yes.
>> you had a question to mull over.
>> yes. I think -- I think the question was how does one reconcile the -- the sections in these guidelines, in these guidelines, specifically b, c and e, which talk about -- about [inaudible] budgets and prioritizing internally and strategies for balancing budgets with a 5% cut. Reconcile -- how does one reconcile that, with the notion of reasonable reductions in the budget. And I think the answer is we have got 55 departments, all members of the county family, slightly different, different mission, different outcomes. Those guidelines would result in a preliminary budget submitted in July to you that is a balanced budget. But that would show opportunities for reduction with the impact of those reductions would be an opportunity -- opportunities for increases based on needs and requests and what the impact of that would be. And then during -- during your budget deliberations in August and September, what we see is for you to have on your budget -- what we have called the budget preference worksheet where you look at a wide variety of -- of programmatic options, the last couple of years there have been hundreds of them, and you literally go through and say, okay, I think we should be reducing budgets here and increasing them here and -- and by that time clearly we will know much more about the -- about the appraisal district's information and clearly you will have had the benefit of any work sessions that will be occurring between now and -- and that time. And I would also just as an aside, urge that -- that members of the court who have been here on -- I count 30 years of experience among four people, identify any targets of opportunity that -- that members of the court wish to provide guidance on to meet the challenges we have before us.
>> well, I guess the question that I -- I asked my question, my points, though, when I left that question with you, to look over that, over the lunch hour was to, of course, address the freeze that I -- that the [inaudible] as far as not filling positions and this -- unless necessarily required to do so. The money that we could maybe realize there in -- and not knowing whether if not -- if not by allowing the -- the departments that we oversee not -- not elected officials now. Allowing them the opportunity of -- of coming back to the court, I think with justifiable necessary vacancies that must be filled. I think that's a little different story than -- than raising and then not revisiting that without an opportunity to unfreeze a position that we feel is really necessary. This quote is almost to save $2.9 million, I guess that's across the whole spectrum, including with elected officials, but separate from that there has to be maybe a smaller figure. And I would like to -- I would like to look at this because of the fact that when you say flexibility, that may not include, in my mind, the departments looking at the ratchet up effect as far as filling positions that will cause an impact on '04 budget. So that's basically what I'm looking at is looking for the savings, of course, and looking at many levels to pull down to stay within the current tax rate. That means many things to many folks, but the bottom line is under the current tax rate of .660, so -- so I think that's just one of many and I don't know if this particular framework is supposed to be something -- edged in stone, budget process, but I would like some formal action to maybe go forward to -- to maybe ensure that we do that with the -- I mean I would like to propose a motion, because there's nowhere in here that I think we have any control, have any say, on those vacancies that are out there now.
>> but if you ask departments to identify where that 5% may be taken, virtually all of them will be personnel if they do it.
>> that's right.
>> because most of our budget is personnel. 5% of 300 million dollar is 15 million. So we ought to have, if not 15 million, an amount greatly in excess of 2.8 million, kind of targeted if you meet your 5% goal. To be honest a whole lot of small departments will not be able to do that, if they do itronix will be -- it will have such impact on them and we will back off. But 5% is a much bigger figure than --
>> it is.
>> than freezing current vacancies.
>> well, I had --
>> you had a motion on the vacancies, I think we ought to go ahead and vote on it.
>> I got the numbers from -- you are pretty close on that. The 5% that really comes about 13, $13 million. I think that I would just maybe want to make a motion at this time and it's just basically to -- to freeze all vacancies -- with the exception of elected officials offices, but freeze all vacancies in Travis County and we feel those -- when necessary, would feel it's deemed necessary to fill them in the future, but right now I think that we have to start somewhere and I would like to make that as a motion to freeze.
>> how many jobs would that cover, do you know?
>> well, there are 38% of the dollars that are saved are court positions, commissioners court positions. And 62% are under the elected officials. The total number of jobs is 92. 92 vacancies in the county total. And -- and it's -- 27 of those 92 are -- are under the responsibility of the court. And the balance of them are under the responsibility of elected officials. In -- in -- your h.r. Department can probably give you a sense of --
>> the reason that I'm opposed to it I think that it's too arbitrary. That some of those positions may well be critical, others may not. I do think we ought to get word to department heads, elected and non-elected, that we expect time to -- times to get tougher than they are now. Be careful how you hire. The other thing, though, is that if we have to get serious about the 5%, we will pick up a whole lot more savings than we will through the freezing notion, and in my view you are kinding sending the wrong message. Because often what you do is you kind of make your employees start looking around, they are wondering whether they would be frozen or adversely impacted. So while I think it's necessary for us to start taking steps that would provide the information that we will have if we have to take some of these drastic steps, I think freezing position is probably -- positions is probably too -- too far. Is there a second to the motion before we discuss it further? I forgot to ask for that. Motion by commissioner Davis basically toreeze the posi vancs, under the commissioners court.
>> right. But with th caveat that we would like to get those positions, at least address those that we feel are critical, but of course that won't be until they are brought to our attention. But right now we feel a freeze is appropriates to do that. Of course there's no guarantee here that if we are looking at 5% cuts within the -- in the different departments and things of that nature, there's no guarantee that those things will happen either. We are talking about flexibility. But I think we have some control over some of this stuff. We are asking the department to come in with some flexibility, giving them more flexibility, but sometimes even within that that's not good enough, if we want to ensure that we keep the tack rate where it is. And of course I think this is something that we do have control over, per se, as far as freezing salaries. I think that's not even going to the departments. And I just think it's a good motion at the time to let folks know that we are in some serious economic times.
>> okay. Is there a second? Is there a good second to a good motion? That dies for lack of a second. Susan, are you here on this item?
>> can I have one follow-up judge. I think you were correct in terms of it's inappropriate at this time for this. However with that said I will be paying close attention to the things that are on list, be they from a department under our rection or an independent elected official, come July and August. If these things are still vacant there is not a reasonable explanation in terms of recruiting or some other reason, I would be taking an extraordinarily close view at that time. At this point I think it's premature, sends the wrong message. Departments now have been told stay within your budget, they may have already used that voluntarily as a tool right now to stay within their payroll budgets. And we do have an incredible opportunity right now to pick up some very talented people out there --
>> question --
>> I'm not finished talking do you mind?
>> when you are finished.
>> > I thought that you were concluding, go ahead.
>> when she gets done susan should be recognized.
>> go ahead.
>> thank you.
>> that we have the incredible opportunity to pick up some folks, especially when the state is saying things are dying down over there. We should not be sending a message that things are in a crisis and emergency over here and a freeze does exactly that. Saying that somehow we were not thoughtful in how we put together this budget. This budget was very thoughtfully put together for 2003 with a lot of ways for us to pull levers as christian likes to say, for us to be able to respond and we are not there. Now, does that mean we won't be there in April, may, June, July? No. But right now, it is -- it's really premature. Now I am finished.
>> well, --
>> go ahead.
>> this is some thoughts, I mean having lived through the last downturn, some things that worked and didn't. A couple of things that I would like to point out. First of all I'm not sure -- if everyone has to submit a budget with a 5% cut, that is going to take an enormous amount of work. There is no 5% cut that any budget in any department can do that I know that does not involve layoffs. So as soon as you've got that down on paper, you've got targeted people or positions that may be laid off. If that's seriously where you are, and that you think is the best thing to do, then that is the strategy to take. But there's some real down sides to that. And the last time that happened, you know, it was kinds of, well, this is a secret list. Well, nothing is secret very long. All of these are subject to open records. And I agree with the judge, what happens is your best people start leaving. They look for opportunities and they are not going to wait for the hammer to fall. I -- and it seems to me that what would be a better solution would be kind of what you all have said individually, but perhaps differently. And that is look at the work drivers, it seems that there are some big initiatives, if everyone focused their efforts on those, here's the ones that I just think of. Those are not my idea, these are ideas that are already out there. Vehicles, can the vehicles be reduced? Some serious effort on that. Secondly, the jail overcrowding, continue working on that and devoting resources serious resources to working on the issues involved with that. Process simplification. Look at the things that we are doing, see if we can cut some of them out, get rid of policies that we do not need, keep those things that are efficient so that no one is doing make work. It takes time to do that. Takes people to be able to sit down and focus on that. Focus on the central collections. That takes a lot of people thinking and resources. Getting the fax system up. We can hearing if fax is up, when fax is up. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to get that up. The big video pleas over in the criminal courts. The document management systems in the district clerk's office. There are a number of systems projects in its kind of the cusp of arriving if they can keep focusing on that. It lms seems if we could as an organization target some of those and really put our energy on those, that would be more productive than having departments work on five percent cuts across the board, which I don't think you are going to find are that -- are that effective. You know, I would rather, I can put together a budget with a 5% cut. In my own department, for instance, that's about a quarter of a million. That's four layoffs, it is. Or I freeze positions that go somewhere else. The other thing is when you talk about freezing positions, one of the things that I have done is I'm looking for some really top people, I'm not in a hurry to fill those positions right now. Also I'm trying to use that money for other productivity things that I think need to be done. If I hear that if I don't fill those I'm going to lose them, I'm going to fill them right away. I am. That's less money to roll over in fund balance if that happened. I think that giving departments flexibility with some amount of definiteness. For instance, if they know their positions will not be frozen. And give them some parameters to work in, I'm not sure that the best effort is not in those areas. Budget analysts could also be assigned to work on some of these large projects, put more time on it, rather than tying them up completely in the 5% review, which will be significant. Looking at that. Instead of working on a 5% plan, I would continue to work in the criminal court system that we have been working on. I'm not sure with the work that we need to do, better results would not happen if we focused on some very important initiatives that we have. They will all be diverted during the budget period. They will, because everyone is scattered off and they will be working on the budget presentations and those things will kind of -- skate through. Just a thought. Suzanne, I think we brought up some good points. When I fir started talking about this, I said the last thing in the world that I would like to see happen is layoff of course what you just mentioned I thinkings to the [inaudible] that I'm making with the flexibility left in the departments for 5%, we are talking about that may be possible layoffs. Just may be the way some departments have to meet the 5% as far as coming up with 5% below the base budget. In my mind, that is something that I was willing to do wrks the 5% flexibility, the best way to get there lay off four or five people, that's the way I can get there. Again opposed to the positions that you think are critical, things that you feel need to be filled things like that, as I stated earlier, I think we do need to initiate a freeze which will not eliminate folks. In my mind will have to do layoffs, I don't want to go there with that. I do want to have some control. I think we can still get there. That is to ensure that we do some things today and -- and as we go through this process, by saying yes we can freeze these positions and things like that, but of course [inaudible] folks that we laid off. That is one approach. It's a lot of disagreement I have with these guidelines and of course I think that I have stated my point, but my point is anything that's going to come above the current tax rate it's going to be hard for me to support i. And I'm trying my best now to lock down some numbers so we can do that. And as far as -- I think I restated this, I stated it this morning, I will state it again. When we send on tax bill to the residents out there, we are 16% of that. 16%. Of course when the people get these bottom dollar, they see the tax bill, they are looking at the bottom line. What is the total money that I owe Travis County. That's what we end up doing. In my mind I think we need to send a strong signal out there, other entities are probably in a lot more hot water than we are. But send a strong signal that we are trying to keep the budget whereby we will be able to serve you again, Travis County, right now I'm not in an agreement. I think we will come to an agreement later on. There are probably a lot of good suggestions, I think freezing positions right now and then unfreeze those that we feel are more critical. We can do it.
>> christian was the 5% the possibility to cover the commissioners court, also.
>> you will be asked to identify.
>> that's why I move approval of the guidelines.
>> of the guidelines. I was wondering. It's going to be tough for us. And this is not saying we expect every department to do it, to actually take the cut, but it is saying we expect every department to take it to heart, and for me to take 5% in the judge's office, I would name the person, but I would say, I would cut these expenses and instead of -- instead of four teeth, I would have three and a half or I would have three. Four f.t.e. If the time came where I had to implement that, I'm assuming if the situation were to get worse, we would be able to get to that point, but hopefully we won't. But still I think even the exercise forces every department to take a good look at its budget. And if there -- if -- I mean, I'm convinced that there are -- there are services that are so basic that we wouldn't even want to discuss cutting, but there are others that we could cut if we had to. Now, we seldom talk about the work loads of different departments, those have increased substantially. Just based on the population be even the people that ask you to cut the county's budget don't want to come down here and wait in a long line to get county services. [one moment please for change in captioners] -- it's a tough exercise, no matter what you do, it sort of sends the wrong message, but I think the possible five percent and how it would be done, it's better than -- than the hiring freeze. And anything else may not send as serious of a message as coming up with the 5%, the other thing that I would suggest at this time is I don't know that I would go as far as to name names, but if you can number the positions and estimate the amount of money that would be generated if they were eliminated, I think step 1 would be sufficient. The other thing, susan, is that the different programs that you mentioned there, I'm 110% behind. If we increase the revenue, then that's important, too. We have I ever meanted programs heading in the -- implemented programs heading us in the right direction, there's a lot more programs to make it more effective between now and the end of the budget process when we start casting votes.
>> I second your motion, judge. I ink that I would say I have my list ready.
>> I have a -- I have a couple of comments. You know, I don't know -- I think we are getting stuck on 5%. More than what I'm comfortable with because I do agree that you can't just take 5% every department. There's some that are skinny enough that you are not going to be able to get 5% of them. Some areas that we are not going to have any cuts because those people have to do those jobs and they need every one of those dollars. But it is clear to me that what we are asking of this community is to live within their means and they are asking us to live within our means. And the only way that I am -- I mean, you can -- one of my favorite expressions, you can put lipstick on a hog, but you've still got a hog. If you are trying to dress something up here where what we are really trying to do is beats around the bush and not really talk about doing the necessary cuts that we are going to have to do to please people in this community, I think people in this community are saying I don't have -- I know that I'm not going to have more money next year than I had this year. And I would like for the government to act the same way. And it is clear, whenever you give us these options, that option b, this is not even taken into consideration, if any of these things for the potential range of contractual, statutory, uncontrollable budget, if those things hit, you are talking about an additional $4 million there. So if any of those start moving that direction, then the 21 million is in jeopardy of not being the number that you really need to make. Maybe I don't know enough about this budget yet. But it's real clear to me that I would go to p.b.o. And I would say, you guys are the numbers guys. You guys are the ones that run this part of the county that -- that should come in as far as I'm concerned to a commissioner and say, here are the areas where I think that we need to take and that we need to cut. I still haven't seen the list of what are the statutory line items that government, that county government has to spend money on. I know that we get into that philosophical question about at what degree do you take care of that. I mean, do you take care of that at just a minimum, and obviously, I mean there are a number of things that we spent a lot more money and -- in taking care of these things than just the membership. So -- than just the minimum. So I'm really going to be leaning on you guys to show me how we get to -- to starting at 21 million, which means that we have got to go back to the point where we have to take the 466 down to .455. If that's the will of the court, I would urge a court vote to instruct the planning and budget office to remove $21 million from the budget --
>> you are --
>> we are nowhere near this, folks. This is like -- [multiple voices]
>> but -- [multiple voices] what these guidelines are for, to come up with a consensus early on, so that we can work with the department as a -- as a -- to implement, to -- the basic direction that the court wants to take, remember the analogy that I talked about, landing the plane. We are up here, and we are saying let's go over here. If we get close, all of a sudden we need to go over there, the closer we are on the ground, the more wrenching the exercise becomes. That's why we are here in January.
>> well, I don't -- I don't mean to create such a ruckus on the court, Karen, with regards to that this perhaps is a catastrophic thing because I think that there are some areas in here that we can increase revenue. At this stage I'm saying that I'm very reticent about saying that if -- if 5% and for whatever reason that -- that that seems to be, you know, some magic number, I just see that 5% doesn't get me to where I'm comfortable with wanting to go with the budget. Now, maybe I'm the only one that's sitting up here saying, I'm not saying that it's crisis, I'm not saying that we have to go out and start putting the fear in everything that they are going to lose their jobs. But I am saying that I think that people would like to see, I don't -- I know that I'm not going to have more money next year, personally. I think we are moving in that direction, I haven't -- if you gauge it by probably the most accurate thing that we have to do, which is sales tax, because that's really telling you how much money people are spending, that is a decent barometer in this community. That thing is not going up it's going down. So -- but I'm willing to work with the court and go through the learning process here. But I'm -- i' very reticent about saying, okay, well I'm happy with -- with this option or this option or what you all have presented here. Knowing that I'm -- that I'm looking for more than this. Now, maybe it's just -- just goes okay, do we vote four to one on this deal, that's the direction that we are heading, I continue to work -- I don't think that I'm going to have anybody on the court that will say let's just flippantly spend money. If somebody says here's the reason that you have got to spend those dollars, I think that I'm going to be pretty reasonable. I do think that there are places that we know we are going to have to cut. There are some -- I will say it. There are some positions that probably are not going to be here beyond or starting the budget in -- in -- in October. That's just -- I'm just guessing that's the case. I don't-- I don't want to tell somebody something that I don't really think that it's actually going to be the case. So -- so I'm with you. I think one of the most important sections related to budget parameters is j, future unknowns, commissioner Gomez and I just got back from watching the swearing in of the new governor and lieutenant governor, I heard many times how they are committed to not raising state taxes and raising costs on their side. I didn't hear a person say that they would not take any actions to directly or indirectly cause us not to have to raise property taxes or the city council's or the school districts of the state of Texas. One of the -- what are the things that we look overstate government. Inmates, we've had opportunities when state inmates have backed up in county jails and it was on the county taxpayers' tab until lawsuits got those inmates removed. Indigent attorneys, we are -- we get a very modest grant from the state of Texas. That could go away. And 100% could wind up on our shoulders. Yet we have a bill that says we will do that. Medicare, I don't even want to think about what could happen with medicaid, what happens with our c.p.s. Workers, with abused children, with the meds for the dual diagnosis folks, if things coming out of mhmr. Those are all things that could easily with -- with a pen get moved down to us. Then if we look down to federal or state grants may not be renewed. We are already seeing some of our department of justice grants out of the feds totally hung up, not in the president's budget. The alien, I know we all hate that grant program, that's something that could go away tomorrow. There are a whole lot of things that could be shifted down to county government to pay for. Finally the last one here is the number of reservists that we have on the payroll who may have to go place else. We just had 12,000 people called up from fort hood and other places for us to sit here and say somehow not only are we going to -- to not spend more money, but -- but and to put some -- I think some very unrealistic numbers out there of how we are going to meet our mandates, we don't know what's going to get landed on our lap or -- related to what our mandates are, how grim it's going to be. Caution here about throwing outnumbers, throwing out goals which are wonderful for us, each to have our own individual goals as we go through this process. But some of this stuff, I will use toby futrells word from this weekend. Scary. We need to start talking about a cut. All of a sudden that cut is not a cut, it's a person, it's a person's job. I just do notot want to send the wrong message that somehow the wheels have fallen off the train here, that we are not going to have a very thoughtful, reasonable process. But for us to set goals with us not even knowing what some of these unknowns are that may wind up on our table, we are not going to have any choices about whether we have x number of inmates in our custody. Because the state is not --
>> I am just --
>> I get it. I understand where everybody is coming from. I understand the passion each of us feels about this issue. But, you know, it's January. We have plenty of time to get to a place where we start sending messages about where we are and where we are going. But some of this stuff is -- I think, premature in terms of -- of alarming people about -- about what this budget process is going to be like.
>> the only thing that I wanted to be cautious about is that we needed to leave room in our budget to deal with those unfunded mandates, which is the budgetest one that I see on this list of future unknowns. They have a $9.9 billion shortfall. And I heard the governor say they will budget -- they will balance their budget. With no taxes, no increase in taxes. I will leave it to you to kind of translate that for me and tell me what I need to be doing. I guess just very cautious on putting an eye on what's coming down for us.
>> 5% or 10%, down to zero now?
>> I don't know. I think it should be very cautious, for those unfunded mandate that --
>> there's a motion to approve the approved guidelines as they are. With the 5%. Any more discussion of that motion?
>> I have a question about the motion, does it include the proposed changes in the -- in the --
>> proposed changes that were suggested in the January 17th memo that I outlined to you --
>> [multiple voices]
>> with different percentages of the tax --
>> no.
>> no.
>> which one are you talking about?
>> specific memo that had these little --
>> I outlined it earlier. In essence it says that with respect to internal flexibility, deal with your existing statutory --
>> [multiple voices]
>> unmet need, unmet requests.
>> the motion covers the latesest provision.
>> I guess that I'm still having some problems. I think that it is myself in a situation, I get myself locked down in a situation where I'm not able to wiggle out of. There are a lot of up funded mandates, a lot of things we don't know how we are going to solve. I think the taxpayers need to -- to be relieved of -- of [inaudible] taxes. Right now I'm -- I'm hearing different -- different statements about -- about the direction we ought to go and I really don't have enough information here as far as the number of levels that I think I should pull to make sure that we stay at or below the current tax rate. I are don't have the information that -- I really don't have the information that I think we need to look at as far as the mandated things that we are doing now that state requiring all across the board as far as Travis County is concerned, [inaudible], it's a lot of information that I don't have at this point to lock into any type of guidians. I think that I made a motion to -- to do some stuff, that consists, which I know would have freed up some money, but of course it died for a lack of a second. So I'm not ready to -- to deal with this until I get some more definite numbers and that's what I want to base my decision on, where we are as far as keeping this budget the way it should be under the -- under the --
>> okay.
>> all in favor of the motion?
>> I do have a question. One small piece of what we are voting on has to do with the property tax impact on homestead owners. With your motion are we making the decision that we are going to go with the homestead as opposed to -- to home? I think that's appropriate. In terms of --
>> is that in the guidelines.
>> no, but --
>> I hadn't planned to address it.
>> I think we ought to wait on it myself [multiple voices]
>> I am reading the process and you have a chart on page -- [multiple voices]
>> I don't know if it's necessary to answer -- is it.
>> no, it is not necessary to answer --
>> it's in here right then now, it's here. It's on page 2. Start with a, economic summary and forecast. And on page 2, it has property tax impact on homestead owner, so it's in the document that I thought we were talking about approving.
>> you have a choice to define it as a home owner if you wish, but that definition doesn't really have to occur for some time.
>> my motion takes out that definition.
>> okay. Simply to delay it until another time.
>> so we would delete that chart, judge?
>> christian, is so good with his charts the managers look forward to reading them --
>> show it both ways. Homeowners and homesteads.
>> the first time I heard that -- first time the court heard that from ppo was during work sessions. It never has been a big deal. I'm not sure that it ought to be now. At the same time, I don't know what impact it would have on -- on Travis County taxpayers. Or for that matter how they would perceive it. I don't want them to perceive that we are hiding something from them.
>> the last several decades, we have always used homestead, if we change that, then I'm going to make sure that I understand the reason why. That's why I would simply delay, it may be that we need to revisit and do it that way. It would be a new way, though.
>> I guess the clarification is right now we have a chart in here. Are you saying we should delete this chart.
>> keep talking about homestead.
>> or keep it the way it is, which is the way we have always done it, I'm for consistency, let's not change how we display. It's been homestead, keep it homestead in which case --
>> let's keep it home steady stead for the time being.
>> we demanded that you being more innovative and create active.
>> I'm not trying to be fussy -- [multiple voices]
>> trying toed in what --
>> time -- trying to understand --
>> would you clearly articulate to me what --
>> the motion.
>> what this motion is.
>> this motion is intended to authorize christian smith, our budget director, to share with the county departments, both elected heads, both elected, appointed, however they got to be department heads, the guidelines, which is to say start working with the planning and budget office and putting together your budget submission due early may, use these guidelines as you do so. Christian will footnote in a telephone call, I'm sure, that we do not control the state or national economy or the state legislature. And there would be changes that impact us between now and may 5th, that are beyond our control. And as those changes occur, we see the need to respond, we would stay in contact with them, right? This is like an initial I was about to say volley, but more like a -- like an offer of assistance. That says it's time for us to start thinking about next year's budget, here are the guidelines that we know now we would like to start working on. To put the draft budget in place. Now, the other thing is I don't know that we lock ourselves in one way or the other. There would be months to work and the commissioners court actually starts voting on different stuff in September. And I can guarantee you, in June we will have several meetings where we really discuss what the state legislature has enacted and most of which will be effective September 1, so in time for the budget, now maybe some good news, the state may come across a whole lot of mope they didn't anticipate, be able to say counties, here's your share. We will be able to pull all of that in.
>> don't hold your breath.
>> sorry, excuse me.
>> so the -- but the thing that's going to go out from christian is not going to get in talking about 5% and numbers.
>> it will be -- this document with the changes --
>> got it. 5% is in there.
>> it's the exercise of everybody going through, having to identify what would it mean if you were asked to go with an up to 5% cut. For all of us, ourselves included. To lay it out. That's where we all start. It may not be where we all finish. Any more discussion? I agree with every indication that that 5% will not be easy for anybody. I don't think there's a whole lot of fat because we have been trimming budget for the last four or five or six years trying to do the best that we could, trying to promote efficiency, effectiveness, et cetera. But if the money is such that you have got to get down to a certain level, and that level is roughly 5% or less than we have to spend now, we may have now choice. So four or five months to get there, we at least will know what road will take us there, then we have to vote on whether to travel it. The only fair thing about it is at this stage, we would want even the smallest departments to at least take a look at it and figure out how it would affect them. I would be real surprised if a department, if every department head doesn't come and say, that will be unbearable for me, here are the reasons why, have a list of reasons. At that point we have to start taking votes. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against show commissioner daugherty and commissioner Davis. Thank you all very much. [one moment please for change in captioners]
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM