Travis County Commssioners Court
September 9, 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 19
Let's see if we can pull up number 19 before we take the medical examiner's office. 19 is to approve personnel amendments. We have several folk here on that item.
>> a question I was going to ask would it help to wait until we address the i.t. Centralization before we approve positions to business consultant?
>> we have been -- i.t. Has been gathering information from all the various departments. In review of that information, i've spoken to joe and he's here to address that. But we believe that the role that those network analysts are doing is really a business consulting job. And joe, do you want to elaborate on that?
>> I think when we get through the analysis, what we're going to find is that the network-type job description and the duties for the network are things that we're really doing with support of the network and the server. And that most of the tasks out there in the user departments are going to be business systems consultant-type tasks.
>> so they don't need to be centralized? They are not part of that family that would be centralized?
>> yes, they would be looked at that for that as well, but I'm saying the job description piece is going to be more like business systems consultants, which we have in our shop as well.
>> oh, okay. All right.
>> we think no matter where they are, they will be doing the business systems consulting.
>> right ---business systems consulting-type duties more than anything.
>> yes.
>> on facilities that was last time a question of source of funding more than anything else, right?
>> yes, sir. And what we are recommending is that we bring up all employees that are green circled and that means they are being paid right now below the appropriate classifications. The cost of that to do that for all employees, both at the expo center and facilities, is around $16,000. Have you the exact number in your backup. Facilities management submitted a budget that was almost $60,000 under budget for f.y. '04. We would like to request the court consider roger's generosity and grant his request to take about $16,000 back. That would still leave him submitting his budget 43,000 plus under the target.
>> but we still have the issue related to the utility transfer from one piece of add op to another piece.
>> yes.
>> which I'm comfortable with, but we need to say it out loud there is still the issue of the utility transfer.
>> oh, yes. And there is that issue, and the court has agreed to make that. We can come back with a number. We're kind of waiting to get our August bills in so that we have a much better number, get some more revenue from the expo, but we can do that next week. And get that -- get that done. That is not going to be an issue. We will have money in the utility line item this year to cover both exposition center and facilities management with the transfer from or the reclassifications of the exposition center utilities items.
>> p.b.o. Is just like -- would just like to note as is indicated on page 10 of the preliminary budget, there were 18 departments that submitted bunch et cetera under their target total -- at $436,000, is incorporated in christian's memo to the court on September the 4th indicating that you have $4,901,057 of ongoing resources. I can assure you that if in fact the court takes actions on facilities requests, that you will have departments that gave back 161,000 coming back wanting to spend some of that money. Or 130,000. So I just want to make sure --
>> we won't know about this until after October.
>> yeah, we've raised questions about -- about the use of those funds and the equality between the 18 departments that submitted their bunch et cetera. And that's p.b.o.'s -- budgets. That's p.b.o.'s position.
>> so we've been approving these throughout the year.
>> you have.
>> this is just coming in late. [multiple voices]
>> t.n.r. Did fund their green circle employees and submitted their budget 161,000 below target.
>> and we would have too if -- roger can talk about the information.
>> okay, roger with facilities management department. Yes, we have turned in a below budget about 59,243. Now, this is above and beyond the 5% that we are requested to present. This is -- we turn in for f.y. '04, this budget went conservatively more than $550,000. So this is an addition. Only time this -- when we turned this in to p.b.o., I did not know I could use that money to bring my [inaudible] until jessica sent me the preliminary budget. I think the first page it says, you know, on 6-27-2003, that I did not use that money to bring my green circle employees to the proper target. So from that time, we said, okay, let's do it with this money and [inaudible] our system. And p.b.o. Did not approve that as part of our asking to get back, you know, our money, like from $16,000 --
>> I don't understand. Repeat what you just said because it just went right by me.
>> sure. Sure. All I'm trying to say, Commissioner, is we had about $58,000 below -- turning in below budget target. And what we did is before we submit our preliminary budget, we did not know that we could use it to [inaudible] green circle employees. Then after June 27th, 2003, we get a memo from p.b.o. That the department did not use that money to take care of the green circle employees. Truth of the matter, we did not know we could use that money. After 6-27-2003, we knew that we could use that money to [inaudible] green circle to -- to bring green circle employees to the proper level. I've been asking right now the $59,000 to be rest to do $42,000 -- reduced to $42,000 and six in facilities management and two at the expo center.
>> just in response to that, I think the budget manual is very clear that departments can reallocate within their budget target amount. I know that t.n.r. Did that. T.n.r. Was advised their green circle and they did it. We have to have a cutoff point when departments turn in their budget below budget target that we take that number, and that's what we generate our numbers from. You know, I guess the question is his facilities know that they turn their budget in or add ops.
>> you are saying the [inaudible].
>> there are other departments that use the money that way.
>> I just -- I don't agree with the rigidity of doing that. And especially a department that has really worked to save a lot of money for Travis County. And if there was a misunderstanding, then it's just a plain misunderstanding. And I think to be rigid is not --
>> and our purpose is not rigidity. It's consistency. And -- you know, and that's our --
>> we can only use this money one time.
>> that's right.
>> if we authorize this, then we have to subtract from it the total we've been working with in the budget process.
>> move approval of the personnel amendments.
>> I second.
>> let me ask this question. Because I'm still trying to get to the heart of the issue because what I don't want to see happening, what I'm trying to prevent from happening is for something to occur next week, next month. Budget session is not over with yet. And what I'm trying to see, what is the policy of the county as far as the deadline to set aside those [inaudible] before you submit -- turn your money back in. What is the deadline on that? The date.
>> the deadline for increasing the green circle?
>> yes, in other words, so satisfy green circle employees.
>> I don't think there is any deadline. The court approved departments internally funding green circled employees on into '04. If departments didn't have it internally in '03, they would use that's to bring it up. I think you had requested a status on green circle employees. I don't know if linda was able to do that.
>> what I'm trying to look at is situations where we may have done it for one department and then we have to end up doing it for every other department. If that's the case, then we have a problem. Because the numbers will significantly change. And the point is now, if the green employees, circled employees are still outstanding in other departments and they have satisfied that funding level to bring them out of that particular status, then I don't know what that situation is. I know I requested some numbers, but heck, that was yesterday.
>> Commissioner Davis, the numbers that you requested as of yesterday, there are a total of 188 positions slots that are currently still green lined. That number does include some 71 vacant positions. So really we're talking about slightly over 100 filled positions that are still green lined.
>> and what would that cost to bring them up -- do you have an annualized number?
>> the annualized number thats do not back out vacant positions is 773,500-plus dollars. And we have copies of course.
>> I would recommend to the departments, the departments if they have the money within their department that they use that.
>> yes.
>> and that was approved [inaudible] parameters that were presented to the court on may 20th, I think it was, that departments were to use permanent salary savings to make these adjustments. That the court --
>> and indeed the $60,000 that were -- roger came in under his budget were permanent salary savings.
>> so -- so -- so the departments in essence could actually satisfy these if they want to go ahead and fund them internally and I guess leroy saying there wasn't no deadline on them. Of course we're still looking at a situation where we had a targeted budget and then how much percentage do we want to come under the targeted budget. And that was the goal. And my whole point is now in an ongoing thing then, I'm having a problem with ongoing cross policy because we never will get to the bottom hraoupb of an absolute con -- line of an absolutely concrete number we can deal with. It can change again. That's my concern is the movement of that number. The $4.9 million is ongoing savings to the county is $4.9 million. That's what I set in my head. Combined with the other one-time expenditures over 9 some odd million dollars which is a one-time deal. $11 million to the county.
>> we submitted facilities -- facilities management submitted the 5% that was more than half a million dollars, and -- savings. That was part of their 5%.
>> okay.
>> okay? On top of that, we submitted the 60,000. That would have been permanent -- [multiple voices]
>> on top of that 5%.
>> yes. Yes. That would have been $60,000 in permanent salary savings.
>> okay.
>> yeah, there's no question that the submission under target, permanent ongoing savings, in conjunction with green circled employees, I submitted and copy the court some questions to h.r. That p.b.o. Is receiving daily. And I have not received at this point an answer to those questions.
>> you got it yesterday. It was sent to you yesterday.
>> this --
>> yesterday afternoon it was sent to you.
>> a different light based on the 5% target. This is not fighting that early effort that we asked all departments to do. And this is beyond that. And this is basically in a savings situation which was basically $60,000 above the call of duty that we asked folks to do.
>> that's right.
>> now, I guess my point is still, though, is there any other departments that would still be in that same similar situation dealing with the green circled employees as facilities are before us this more than. And I need to know that.
>> p.b.o. Has not received the green circle report that I think just distributed to you so I can't answer that question.
>> the majority of the big dollars are in your county attorney and district attorney office. Counseling service. I'm not aware of how you -- whether any of those departments came in under budget and if those consisted of salary -- of permanent salary savings.
>> I talked to mr. Escamilla about this yesterday and they do not have the dollars to get there. They can make a certain amount of progress, but they will not make to it the full green circle amount. Related to leroy's question though because i've been getting the same kinds of questions of can we do lump sums, something that won't be ongoing, can you share that information, linda?
>> we'll be happy to do that. The response to leroy's question did get out yesterday. I don't know if the computer virus ate it or not, but -- [multiple voices]
>> well, departments have to generate permanent salary savings and they have to come to us with a request. Then we have to approve it. Then part of that would be looking at the amount and the date. If the $16,000 is not -- not 160,000, that makes a lot of difference, I think. The other thing is today is September 9th. The end of the fiscal year quickly approaches. So I mean I would think we would have to factor all of that in.
>> sure.
>> but if we approve this today, that means we have 16,000 less to work with starting [inaudible] basically.
>> that's all it means.
>> motion to approve and a second. Any more discussion?
>> yeah, the other difference it does make is if, like you said, if this generates everybody, you know, to go back and look and those that do have the dollars to come in and take the green lined folks, we're going to see this number ratchet up most likely from 16,000.
>> yes. I can say that, you know, the county attorney that has the largest, I think, group or [inaudible] did not turn a budget in under budget targets.
>> if he we do our markup as we annually do, those permanent salary savings will be spent Thursday or Friday of this week. So if you are working on an agenda item for next Tuesday, my advice is wait until after October. When we'll have a new budget in place. And that is -- those are the facts basically. We start markup Wednesday afternoon. Whatever available revenue it is, we will budget it one way or another. We are scheduled on Wednesday and Thursday, and if we need additional time we'll recess until Friday. But before next Tuesday, whatever revenue there is in this year's budget and projectioned for -- projected for next year will be spent. Meaning will be budgeted basically.
>> well, I applaud facilities management for making the 5%, first of all. That's a big difference. You know, it is -- I'm sorry?
>> that 5% was a centrally budgeted line item for leases.
>> and facilities management made it happen. Thank you.
>> it's all taxpayer money.
>> that's right. And so obviously there's been a mistake made on facilities management not recognizing that you could do this. Certainly don't want to penalize somebody for making a $16,000 mistake. But I can see where, you know, this gets back to that accountability of the departments of saying -- of understanding what really needs to be done whenever you submit these budgets. I mean because it really does put us -- it puts me in a spot where I don't want to deany this $16,000 -- deny this $16,000, roger, but I don't want a bunch of people running up here saying, hey, we should have the same ability to do that. So --
>> all in favor of the motion?
>> all personal amendments?
>> right.
>> t.c.o. Has classification changes and it includes those.
>> great.
>> anything else? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly in favor.
>> I'm going to abstain because I would like to have an opportunity to go through all of this and look at it and make sure that there would be no impact on spweubls. Anybody else. I think basically -- let me put it like this. I'll go ahead and support it, but let me say this to you. Let me say this right now to everybody. [inaudible] please give it to me in a timely manner. There's a lot of information. There's no way in the world I can sit here and review which what you've brought to me today. I just haven't had a khalgz to chance to do it. It would really help me out a lot because really I do not want to open up pandora's box here on some situations where we may have to look at messing with ongoing savings in the future. And that's all departments. I'm really serious about that. So please help me out by getting information to me in a timely manner whereby we'll adjust and review it and this is too much to rein this setting on this decision, but based on what i've heard, i'll go ahead and support it this time. I'm just letting you know.
>> show unanimous court supporting that decision. For those departments watching, you should know you start generating salary savings October 1. Right?
>> that's correct.
>> so whatever salary savings you had this year, you don't roll those over.
>> that's right.
>> you start generating new salary savings on October 1 whether the new budget takes effect.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2003 7:52 AM