Travis County Commssioners Court
June 3, 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 20
Number 20 is approve budget amendments and transfers. One item seemed to require some discussion and that was from facilities, the recommendation as I take it to for facilities to try to fund these requests internally and the facilities run out of money before the endf the fiscal year to come back to the court at that time for reimbursement.
>> that is correct.
>> the recommendation is that the money be taken from utility line item?
>> that is correct.
>> the other recommendation was for -- for facilities at some point to come to this court for discussion about the expo center.
>> that is correct.
>> any objection to that recommendation?
>> I would like to hear what facilities have to say.
>> that's who I'm asking.
>> good afternoon, roger el khoury, facility management department.
>> speak up a little bit, roger. They need to -- they need to increase the volume --
>> the volume.
>> okay. I -- all right. Only for item no. 1, I would like to talk about the -- again, I agree with p.b.o. Recommendation on that. Except for item no. 1, which is the emergency repair for satellite septic system drain. I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. I saved some money from a project on palm square. This is -- this deal with a sewer system. We asked one time for $15,000 for emergency funding to -- to repair the system with our own forces, you know, it's in-house. Because the contractor has given us, you know, high price about like 39, 42 and $45,000, so we -- the facility did the project in house because we have [indiscernible] plumbers, with some folks, we finish it successfully really did not cost the $15,000 we asked for. It did cost only about like $10 plus or minus. We take that savings from one project to apply to another project if we have any project in need so we don't come back and ask for any fund. That what I been doing all along last year, this year, also. The issue right here is should I continue to do that? Or should I also, you know, look from fund internally when I have a new project or emergency project come on board. That's what was my project don't ask the court from additional fund, I will do it from saving from other projects. Now I think you know we do have some fund in the utility. You look at utility as really not an exact number. It's just projection. It's weather dependent. I'm not sure if we are going to be 100% or not, but we can come back later on and get the money if we are short.
>> just to provide some additional information on that first item, that is the emergency repair for satellite 1 septic system drain, it's $4,519. The reason that we brought this back to court because roger is correct, under the budget rules any item under $15,000 that is reasonable that comes to p.b.o., It is done as an automatic. The reason this one came back to court is because the funds that are involved came from the car reserve in February, not very long ago. So we wanted to make the court aware of that since they were funds not allocated during the budget process. However they were funds allocated from the car reserve. Either way it would be -- I think it would probably be acceptable to -- to get this -- this system drain corrected. So that is -- that's the reason we brought it back to court.
>> let me ask this question, roger. Can you tell me specifically, on the [indiscernible] 3, what this money would be used for as far as repair is concerned?
>> sure.
>> can you tell me who that repair work would be and at what facility?
>> yeah. That repair at the satellite 1, there's a drain [indiscernible] right now that's not operational, satellite 1 road and bridge at johnny morris road.
>> johnny morris, right.
>> there's also a valve right there that's not operational, so we try to redo the field, the septic field. That's what's costing us about $4,500.19. Right now, if we keep it as is, I mean, then we have contamination of the ground water so we don't want to do that.
>> the total amount for all that work is to be -- about $15,000.
>> 4,519.
>> 4,519 to that particular --
>> just, you know, it don't -- you know, what I'm asking, though, should I continue really to look for single project and apply to new project coming in or should I always look for some saving like what to have on the utility front because the utility fund has been -- we have been taking fund from utility, you know, little by little.
>> I think p.b.o. Is obviously in support of using car savings for those sorts of items and once again, the only reason that it came back is because it came from the car reserve and it was allocated during the legislative process.
>> I don't see no problem with it myself, but of course if that's the [indiscernible] that you all are bringing before us --
>> what's the recommendation as to gs 3.
>> gs 3 is what I'm looking at.
>> I'm sorry, gs 1.
>> gs 1. Roger is saying 4,519, he received, he -- he saved, he wants to use that to take care of another facility.
>> I don't think there would be a problem with using the budget adjustment the way it's presented here. It was just making sure that the court was aware of that fact because it came from car reserve.
>> oh, move approval of gs 1.
>> I second that, judge.
>> any more discussion of that one? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> on the other two, ds 2, ds 3, the recommendation is facilities fund those from utility line items.
>> that's correct.
>> if they run out of money with that line item before the end of the fiscal year, let p.b.o., The court know, basically reimburse the line item.
>> that's correct.
>> thank you.
>> okay. Is that I guess pretty much acceptable to that department as far as --
>> that's correct, thank you very much.
>> okay.
>> any issues with a 1 through a 6 or t 1?
>> I think captain clark is here.
>> thank you.
>> county judge is here if there are issues, I guess. Any issues.
>> I believe that she doesn't agree with the p.b.o. Recommendation for fy 2003.
>> in that case I move approval of t 1, ds 2, ds 3, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now going up to a 1 through a 6. Ds 2 and ds 3 would be coming out of utilities.
>> [indiscernible]
>> right.
>> okay.
>> mr. Dana debeauvoir? Are we -- are we discussing all of these in a or just one?
>> I believe it has to do with the temporaries that the -- [papers shuffling - audio interference] one thing that I wanted to say up front is that -- is that we had a messup in p.b.o., We didn't get the backup to the county clerk, she didn't get it until yesterday, it was very late for her to take a look at it. So perhaps it should have been posted as a discussion rather than an amendment item. But that's why we are here and she wants to talk to you about the temporaries.
>> what allocated reserve fund is this?
>> pardon.
>> what allocated reserve fund is this?
>> the general fund allocated reserve.
>> is this consistent with a vote that we took last week or the week before?
>> yes, sir. Where we borrowed the money from the records management fund to get us through a crisis and what I would like to do is reimburse that fund so I can then do the projects that that fund is already designed to do. I do appreciate the apology for the late notice. I had started calling p.b.o. On Friday morning asking where the information was and did not receive it until yesterday afternoon. The disagreement is that -- let me see if I can just put this in a nutshell for you. Basically, what the recommendation to you is that for the time period when I was trying to get a handle on the problem, figure out how big it was, that time period right there and the time when I requested a work session to discuss this issue, that I should basically just eat that. That's -- that's the upshot of what the disagreement is about. The accusation is that he sort of went off on my own and took care of this matter without advising the court about it. What I would like to do is to repudiate that. I did not do that, I would not do that to the court. If I had then I believe that you would have issue with me. What I did do was when this issue came up, this is the exploding workload that also came with it, a whole lot of revenue. Okay. That happened in the first quarter of our fiscal year, rather than just whine, say I have a problem, I don't know how big, I don't know how long it will last, how long it will take to fix it, I carefully monitored what the incoming work loads were, measured what the problem was, developed a plan that matched the resources to what the problem was and by the time I asked the -- for the court to talk about this, it was in the second quarter, when we came up with firm numbers and a solid evidence of what we were facing, including the additional revenue, and brought it back to the court, I had already consumed some resources out of the records management fund. At all times I coordinated with the auditor's office to make sure that in no time was I ever putting the court in any sort of position where we did not have sufficient more than sufficient revenue to cover what I was trying to cope with at the time. I was trying to keep a lid on what was a problem and not let it become a big problem. And always I try to bring to the court the problem with the solution. What I would request --
>> [indiscernible] need to take action? Do we need to give you a all a week to get together?
>> I think the philosophy that they just want me to eat it. I would request that we not use the record management fund in this manner. It's pretty clear --
>> we have received 8 pages and listened to p.b.o. [indiscernible] formed --
>> I understand. I felt the same way yesterday afternoon.
>> can you all -- what I'm asking is can we take one week, put your heads together. You all may work this out --
>> I'm not optimistic. I do believe that it's going to be a policy decision about the properties of the records management fund. I would appreciate it if the court could take action on the part that is not in disputes, so that we will not have to lay temporary workers off and then have this problem --
>> what --
>> partial refunding.
>> what part that.
>> that's everything that's on here right now. The only thing that isn't on here that we are not recommending the transfer from the general fund allocated reserve is for the portion of the temporary employees salary and benefits that already occurred between October 1st of this year -- of last year and -- and April 30th. And that's not in here, but all of these other line items are what we agree on, what's already here. What we agree on, the disagreement is the amount that's not included which is about $137,000 in -- in temporary salaries and benefits that have already been expended.
>> I believe that the court looks at the idea that these employees were used exclusively for general fund ongoing duties of the county clerk, then why is part of it okay and part of it not.
>> my recommendation is that we see you all next week. And also instead of 6 or 7 or 8 pages, two pages for me would do.
>> the document that you have before you is what I previously presented to court.
>> all right. Is this what we approved in court?
>> what was -- you didn't approve a product per se because it was a non-voting work session for starters. The second thing is that what you, judge, asked for p.b.o. To do is to prepare a memo discussing any line items surpluses in the clerk's office, identify the source of the requested funding and responding to the memo that the county clerk had --
>> move that we authorize the county clerk to keep the temporaries on board and authorize the county attorney to pay them at least one more week, how's that? We request you all to try to get together, work it out. If you are able to not to reach agreement let us know. If you reach agreement [indiscernible], we are left with the impression that additional revenue had been generated to --
>> more than cover.
>> you did present that and show that that revenue that would be projected in the future --
>> yes, sir, about three times the revenues.
>> I'm sorry, what did you say?
>> about three times the revenue.
>> in other words, we are offsetting whatever we do by this projected revenue. I think that was a part of what the discussion was the last I can remember.
>> that's correct. You remember correctly.
>> all right.
>> let us know by noon Friday whether you have been abilities to resolve it.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> christian?
>> Commissioner?
>> I was going to try to keep things simple. I can guarantee that there will be no disagreement about what is already on as transfers a 1 through a 6. To the degree that you can approve those you will make our lives much simpler because it will focus our attention on only one issue, as opposed to many issues. So I respect your desire to have us work it out, but I think there's no question that a 1 through a 6 will end up back on the table. There was only a question as to whether there was going to be an a 7. It would be most hopeful if we could only focus on brain power on a 7 which doesn't exist right now. The county clerk would like an a 7 which is an additional transfer. We have some apprehension about that, it is a policy question. That is a simple one.
>> but a 7 is not --
>> doesn't exist yet. So --
>> just asking.
>> asking for you to approve what is on the table. It will make our lives much easier.
>> and that -- I do agree with that. As long as I preserve the opportunity to say this is incomplete.
>> right.
>> come back with the difference.
>> so there's agreement on what's on the agenda today?
>> well, as incomplete, yes, sir.
>> you are saying there's more. We can look for a new a 1 next week, which will be -- which will be what would have been a 7 today.
>> that's correct.
>> move approval of 5:00 1 through a 6.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all. That covers all of these items, right?
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 4, 2003 9:52 AM