Travis County Commssioners Court
March 11, 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 16
Number 16, approve budget amendments and transfers.
>> on a-1, we discovered during the f.y. '03 budget process that 58,000 of revenue got certified kind of in a grant capacity, and we did not accurately budget for the expenditure. And with the sensitivity the court has placed a freeze on the allocated reserve, we had recommended that it come from the tobacco reserve, especially since it was related to health and human service department. There has been a question raised by one of your colleagues as to whether or not it wouldn't be more appropriate to go ahead and hit in this technical budget correction the allocated reserve rather than the tobacco reserve. So I think that is a decision the court can make, and obviously the money got certified and it is -- we didn't budget the expenditure so it would be in one of the reserves and allocated.
>> have we [inaudible] the allocated reserve yet?
>> on some technical things, yes.
>> [inaudible].
>> we hit it one time, yes.
>> how much was that?
>> $8,671.
>> I have attempted not to hit the allocated reserve personally. I know the facility is reserved -- facility reserves are a couple of amounts. But if we need to put it back during the tail end of the fiscal year, we would.
>> yes, and we can do that. We can rebill the tobacco reserve at the direction of the court once we get passed whatever period of time you desire.
>> it doesn't matter --
>> actually that was my concern because what happened here was we got the money in and it didn't get put in an expenditure tunnel. It did not get allocated to some other department. It really is sitting in the allocated reserve and will fault our ending fund balance because it didn't have a counter part spending balance. I felt strongly it not ought to come out of the tobacco reserve because that's one-time money. That's not what you hit, $58,000 worth of stuff for what we're trying to build up for a technical budget correction and the money truly is sitting in the allocated reserve needlessly so. If we had put the expenditure item on, the allocated reserve would have been $58,000 smaller on day one of the fiscal year. What will happen is that money will fault ending fund balance and be swept away and will not get to go back into the tobacco settlement unless we say can we not get so hung up here; that really was money that was intended to be put in the correct budget item and it unnecessarily got put into the allocated fund because it wasn't cost. That's what I'm trying to avoid is not to have this come out of the tobacco settlement.
>> so this does what with it?
>> this uses the tobacco reserve for 58,000 to set up the expenditure line items in h.h.t.s. -- h.h.s.
>> number 2.
>> number 2, i.t.s. Has some temporary backfills for the i.j.s. Process. Those were budgeted during the '03 budget process for a six-month period of time. As you are aware, i.j.s. Implementation is extending longer than had previously been projected and joe harlow has recommended that $88,947 of his reserve that the court approved during the f.y. '03 budget process be utilize to do extend some of these temporary i.j.s. In various departments.
>> okay. We authorize joe to use that reserve as he saw fit as long as they were i.t.s., Correct?
>> that's correct.
>> next.
>> we started out at, like, 150,000, and working with the departments, you know, on a timetable of when [inaudible] is going to come up with those departments and whittled it down to this number.
>> the old popsicle, once you eat it up, the reserve is the same way. So as -- okay, t-1 --
>> t-1 has to do with j.p. 2. The dispositions are up. Revenue is up. They have a three quarter position out there that they have permanent salary savings meaning that the base salaries are -- they hired lower than what they had budgeted. And to totally fund going from a three quarter to a full-time slot number 8 out there, a clerical position, and so that's the judge's request was to go ahead and make that full time and reduce the overtime that they are having to run out there to keep up with the disposition rate.
>> they will be able to do all of this and then generate the salary savings that we anticipated.
>> that's correct. They are going to 100% internally fund this conversion. The reason we put it on, it's already in the line item, but any time we increase the f.t.e.s in any of the departments, we bring it back to court through budget amendments and transfers.
>> and we appreciate that. Bs-1.
>> that's facilities related to the potential acquisition of the new building.
>> I can go over the component parts. It's 151,000. What facilities management is proposing to do is to internally fund that temporarily through its utilities, and it would need most likely reimbursement for these expenses. 75,000 of that is earnest money, that if we have a reimbursement in place in the next 60 days, the proceeds would reimburse the general fund for that 75,000. 26,000 of that is miscellaneous environmental testing, appraisal and due diligence costs. And 50,000 is related to planning and preliminary design. This is a new item. This is the reason we placed it on discussion to alert the court of this item. It is our understanding that these costs are reimbursable from the proceeds as long as the building is indeed purchased. There is a risk there if the deal did not happen that they would not be reimbursable. Pbos recommendation is the court direct the department to incur any external planning and design costs until it is clear that the building purchase transaction will actually occur, and that's just being risk averse. I'll let roger talk about the planning.
>> reimburse facilities from the c.o. Funds.
>> right.
>> in my view, this will enable us to have one reimbursement resolution for whatever the reimbursables are.
>> correct, and we're working with the county attorney's office forget that on the agenda. And there might be other departments that need reimbursements under c.o.s resolution.
>> roger.
>> good afternoon. We are asking for about $50,000 at this time. It's to just go ahead and if we want to hire a mechanical engineer or plumbing engineer or a mechanical engineer to help us and do the planning and design for this project. The [inaudible] engineer and the structural engineer we have under facility management and also architect curl, we're going to do all of this in-house. At this time we'll set aside funding in case we need those folks come on board early on so we can move on with the project. The reason we're trying to say let's move it pretty quick on that is the advantage if we can finish the design early so we can start the renovation early so we can save on the lease for f.y. '04. So there's a risk in there that yes, we might not purchase that building, but we're going to minimize the risk on our part and do everything internally, but that 50,000 we'll set aside in case we need those engineers to help us. And that's really what we're asking for the $50,000.
>> okay. Move approval of a-1, a-2. 2-1 and d.s.i.
>> a-2 through 43.
>> are you saying to use the tobacco settlement, judge? Because I don't mean the put the --
>> let's have that motion cover everything except a-1.
>> thank you.
>> we'll take a-1 separately.
>> thank you, judge.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> judge, on a-1, I would feel strongly this really ought to be coming out of the allocated reserve which is really where this money is sitting and cannot be moved over to h.h.s. Because it was not appropriated the right way during the budget process and this was not the fault of the tobacco reserve in terms of how this is being handled.
>> so your motion is take 58,000 from allocated reserve.
>> which is really where this money is actually sitting. It is not in anybody else's budget. That's really where this money is sitting and can't be spent.
>> all right. This is tobacco reserve.
>> yes, and I'm saying it ought to come out of the allocated reserve, not the tobacco reserve.
>> but how does sitting in the allocated reserve if this is tobacco reserve.
>> this is what they originally proposed it as and I raised serious questions about why a p.b.o. Technical correction of a budget was coming oust of the tobacco reserve.
>> I don't have enough information on it to fight. What's your motion.
>> my motion is that it's to come out of the allocated reserve rather than the tobacco reserve and that p.b.o. Give us the appropriate line items that make that happen.
>> so we take $58,000 from the allocated reserve.
>> yes, sir.
>> right.
>> this leaves 58,000 in the tobacco reserve.
>> that's correct.
>> second the motion? Any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all very much. Also thank the -- [inaudible].
>> if you can get the appropriate numbers to melissa.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM