Travis County Commssioners Court
September 16, 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 8
Number 8 is to consider and take appropriation action on outstanding f.y. '04 budget issues.
>> there are a number of outstanding issue, some of which you may be able to deal with today, some of which you can't. We have identified six of them so far that were discussed and recognized during the budget markup process. One is cell phones. You have identified element element.
>> did you give us back up?
>> there is no backup, the only back up you have on is scrubs. The cell phone...
>> what is the deadline for?
>> next Tuesday, because we file a proposed budget three days after next Tuesday, so we need to have line items.
>> okay. We'll have a specific item on Tuesday. And danny, we'll need the cell phone committee to give us the city recommendation. Last time we chatted with them we were looking at two options. Maybe they've landed on one or two others. If we can get that in writing as part of agenda backup within the next couple of days it would be good.
>> that -- that -- okay. That is cell phones. The second is the various discussions that have occurred in -- during markup in another form on records management, the court voted 5-0 to identify $250,000 worth of savings in the general fund. We've yet to identify the specific line items. That is an outstanding issue. It may be that you can resolve that today or not. But that is just an outstanding issue.
>> but since the county -- hasn't the county clerk been working with pbo in terms of trying to get to a reconciliation?
>> I think if you wanted to try to reconcile that issue today, you could. It also may be related to another agenda item having to do with a records management plan for the county clerk, but that is just a -- I'm just laying out the issues.
>> yeah.
>> they're all manageable. We have the records management issue. We have a potential issue of jp salaries because of the grievance tomorrow, the hearing, excuse me, tomorrow. You've got scrubbing of the capital certificates of obligation funds and you have a letter and jessica is prepared to walk you through. There's about $650,000 of available resources in two pot, 500,000 in one pot -- 561,000 in one pot and 100,000 in another. You have then any decisions you wish to make on further one time or capital funding or the establishment of reserve, so once you're through with the scubing and can identify the available resources you've got which are a little between -- it's about $960,000, then you need to land on how you wish to appropriate those resources and then the 6th item is the expo transfer which you touched upon in an earlier agenda item, how to set up the expo budget in accordance with the -- your desire for budgeting that particular department. Those are the six items that you've discussed so far. I believe alicia -- roger cory mentioned that alicia may want to present another item having to do with new furniture for one of the new buildings. So those are what is in my -- in our radar screen, and as I say some of these are straightforward. It may be that you want to go right into the capital scrubs, and at least have a sense of where we believe additional resources are available, and you may want to defer the records management discussion until you can link it where the other plan that is being proposed, or you may want to address it right now. We're -- we're happy to go in any direction that you choose at this time.
>> well, we know that on the jp's, and the cell phones I guess we're looking at next week.
>> right.
>> we'll know what is going on there,.
>> we're not doing those that have specific agenda items?
>> right.
>> and I would heartily suggest that we do the records management reconciliation when we get with item number 38 so it's just scoop that all up together, it seems to make sense, but that is just me.
>> okay. That is easy to do.
>> it's still happening today it's just in conjunction with that underwriter.
>> you then, that would move us to -- do you want to talk -- deal with the expo question outstanding at this point or do you want to go into the capital scrubs and the remaining resources available?
>> [inaudible] see what kind of balance we have left.
>> just to give heads up to everybody, i've got two other markup issues that I would like to bring forward but I would wait until all of the...
>> jessica, yesterday you should have received a memo from our office as backup from, using certificates of obligation for f.y. '04 capital items. This is a process, as you know, we do every year, we do it at the very end of the process and there's good reason for that. We first have to look at where we're at on the co funds before we can go through and scrub them, if you will. Going through and looking at the available projected allocated reserves in all of these co funds, pbo is making a recommendation to use some resources in two of these co funds, fund 456 and fund 463, excuse me, for projects and equipment already approved by Commissioner's court during this process. I have had informal conversations with the city attorney. If there are any issues, I will come back next week and let you know about these. I think these are very straightforward. I think there tr r only two things that we're doing here, the first thing we did is move over a $61,000 in funds from the current car list of replacement vehicles, and now we're recommending those be funding out of the existing co. We are also recommending that an intercom system for building's three for the sheriff's office be funded out of co. This is going to be split funding, that project t other intercom system will be funded out of the new co's. If you look at page 2 and 3 of the memo, it's the numbers that go behind this, and you'll see that most of these funds have a small allocated reserve that we're recommending not touching. Fund 456, however, I have listed the vehicles we're recommending replacing on that list or that source of funding. You will also notice on page 2 of this information under tnr fund 456, I have listed the sidewalk. That is the item that was approved during markup from this source of funding. Sidewalks were originally approved out of this source of funding so we believe legally it's viable, so if you look at the end on page 3, the total object identified is 913,206, however, what we consider to be scrubbed projects is 661 because we did not include that sidewalk since that was directly appropriated by the court into the old co fund. If there are any questions, i'll be happy to answer them.
>> when we got -- one of the questions was that to figure out which of these cos could be used for projects, you know, after the money has been scrub and a lot of the things, you know, there was determination that I was trying to look for for the county attorney to see how we could use some of this money and stuff like that, and I guess -- did we ever get any -- anything from the county attorney...
>> are you referring to fund 455 which was the cjc?
>> yeah.
>> I was supposed to get you a copy, I believe, of the language that sean o'neal, the memo, I don't believe if I did that, to be honest, let me make sure and do that again and pass it out to the entire Commissioner's court's.
>> no need to apologize, you're doing a great job. I just want to make sure that we had a chance to look at that because it's there's...
>> what the county attorney said to go back to 455, what was said at that point was that we would basically follow the guidelines of the official statement, which is what we do also in this process, and that once the project is identify bid Commissioner's court's, we'll scrutinize it a little bit further with the county attorney's help to ensure and the county auditor's help to ensure that that is eligible for that source of funding, but let me get you that memo today.
>> okay. I appreciate it.
>> no problem.
>> thank you.
>> the bottom line is if this is acceptable to you, the $661,000 of funding that would otherwise have been part of the general fund in car or in cos, you now can add that to the $300,000 -- $300,680 that was remaining at the end of your markup discussion as resources available all one time to come to conclusions on how to address...
>> what will the total amount be?
>> 961,680. 661 even on the scrubbing process and 300,680 remaining at the end of the markup.
>> okay. Total amount. Thank you.
>> I should note just for your information that currently the co as proposed right now is standing at 1.9 million and that takes into account the 3.2 million that the councilmember schuberts voted to reduce and I also took $100,000 project out of the -- of the new proposed cos into the existing co during the scrubbing process so right now we're at 1.9 million in the cos.
>> okay. Thank you. Now, you make sure to ask your final budget office for recommendation on the remaining sources or you may choose to come to conclusions yourselves without any recommendations. But you will need to vote on the $661,000 because we -- we have a recommendation on how to -- on generating that, and we will need your vote, but then the next question will be what to do.
>> what recommendation do you have?
>> if it were me, I would put it into a reserve for '05. If I were in your shoe, that's what I would do, because I continue to be worried about '05. But that is my perspective.
>> to me, we can talk about the strategy of where to put it, whether that is the final dollar amount I think we've still got some discussions here, but the strategy of creating what we'll call the '05 capital or the '05 reserve one time I think is a smart one and I would move approval of the scrubbing list and the strategy that these dollars go to create the '05 capital reserve.
>> i'll second that.
>> motion, two seconds. Anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Expo center?
>> the direction that pbo needs in the expo center is currently we're showing a gap, if you will, of 83,207. What we've done up until now is balanced that fund against the revenue estimates in the '07-'01. We will need direction on how to take care of that gap. I think christian has mentioned that pbo's recommendation is a trance frer from the general fund to the expo center for that amount, so that it sets the budget, it takes care of the gap and we proceed from thrsm I believe alicia has other recommends as well.
>> yes, really does not take care of the budget. The proposal, and given the increase in the utility funding would leave the expo center about $135,000 short. As we had the flexibility this year, all we're asking is for the same flexibility for f.y. '04 to be able to pay the utility fund out of the facilities management budget and then true up at the end of the year as we have this year.
>> just help me understand this so are you saying the amount of money is the same but you need the flexibility so you'll still be working within the same amount of money but have the flexibility related to the utilities?
>> no.
>> help me figure out what you're saying and...
>> really what we had this year is we had $269,000 budgeted for utilities. We end up spending about 322,000. Okay? Add to that the 26,000 that would be in the reserve which we have money for. If you took pbo's recommendation to cut the utility budget by about 83,000, you would end up with about I think 212,000, and that is what...
>> that is not a recommendation.
>> [multiple voices] let me try to frame it. We believe that it is appropriate for a department to have a budget with a number and that that budget is something that folks manage within at the beginning of the year. We do not believe sit appropriate for a department to have a budget that float, that trues up at the end of the year depending upon whatever the expenditures might be. You may choose as a special course of action because of the particular challenges that the expo center has to follow the model of a budget that floats, and that trues up at the end of the year. And there's -- the one can justify that under the circumstances. But our preference would be to budget the expo center in the way in which all other county departments are budgeted, and if it needs a subsidy, subsidize it, and if that subsidy is 130,000, 20,000, 200,000, or 4,000, whatever that subsidy is, make a transfer from the general fund from the expo center and then say your budget is now x, and please live within it, but if you can't, come back to the court for additional subsidy. That will be our normal approach from an architectural standpoint of how to finance an operation.
>> when we're talking about the subsidy, because we're being very focused on on going versus one time, in terms of the subsidy, would we consider this to be the ongoing variety, or as I would have in my mind related to something like -- because it seems to be all about utility, not about personnel, not about janitor, it's not about anything other than utilities and utilities to me is more of a one time kind of mode k because it can spike up and it can spike down depending on what is happening with your weather conditions. So help me understand the subsidy that you just said. Is that a one-time kind of a thing in terms of how we're trying to categorize our money, or is it more the on going variety?
>> I honestly don't know. Let me... [laughter]
>> asking the question.
>> I would hope that the utility subsidy would be a one time infusion of funds and that this time next year we would -- I think there's actually projections that would show that the expo center perhaps would not need a subsidy or -- but generally not the amount of the subsidy for '04, because of the revenue.
>> not -- perhaps not the amount. Even with the projections that we have which has increased from this year, and we have increased the revenue every year, not met the goals that we have set, but we have increased the revenue every year at the expo center, but with what you have in the budget, or what was submitted in the budget, it will not cover all the expenses that we project. One of the things that was not taken into consideration when pbo reviewed the budget is that again if you look at the utility line item, it has $296,000 for the budget for utility. Our actual expenditure for '03 is $322,000. So if you again take the $83,000 and that utility budget goes down to 212, we're going to be short. So if you wanted -- and it's not a floating budget. I think it is a budget that supports an operation of the county at 18% compared to parks at 66%, compared to bell county at 35%, compared to the irwin center at 25%, but if indeed you wanted to put a particular number on it right up front, the number would be an additional 135,916. Now, on our perspective we're saying we may not need that much because we're going to work very, very hard to increase the revenue. Right now the projected revenue is 950,000. The auditor has I believe approved 911,000 at the last revenue certification, so we hope that it would even be more than that. We don't want to take more than the general fund -- more from the general fund that we absolutely will need, and that is why we have the true-up at the end of the year.
>> and the reason I said I don't know is because if we are with every event not covering our utilities, in essence losing money with every event, then you have something more than just a one time. I know that everyone believes would be the proper thing to do is to have that subsidy, whatever it is, be as low if not to zero. It may take some time to do that. If the department believes that the subsidy required is 135,000, then my suggestion would be make that explicit at the front end, but then if there are savings at the end of the year, it will fall to the expo center's fund balance to be available for other purposes. And...
>> [multiple voices]
>> we just want to be very up front.
>> is there a possibility... At least let me ask you this: during the course of the year, is there any way that you can examine and let us know during the course of the year, maybe on a quarterly basis where we are exactly during the course of the year? How many times can you report to the court to let us see that?
>> oh, yes, sir, we can do it on a quarterly bay circumstances per event, per ek pens. Expenses.
>> is that a problem for your department to happen that way? No.
>> 'til we can get an idea of where we are?
>> no no, sir, that is not.
>> yes f.y. We do the budget subsidy of $130,000, what would be the source of funding?
>> my suggestion would be to take it out of your 961680 961680 because that is the most straightforward way to do it.
>> I'm sitting here thinking either way the invoices from Austin energy must be based. You're saying from a budget perspective it's better to budget the additional $130,000?
>> that's correct.
>> and to me, where I would have a comfort level is let us say that it's less than that, and I'm certainly hopeful that that is the same. If it falls to ending fund balance, I would prefer that it would fall to the expo ending fund balance to go toward the next year's utility situation as opposed to any other issues going on in expo, because I think the court has been very generous in terms of trying to take care of some ongoing one-time capital issues, and to me this is utility money and I would want it to fall and go toward '05 continuing the utility situation. And that's where I would like to be...
>> where is that budget [inaudible]
>> let me ask this court, then, how many times do we get a reading of rate increase by the city of Austin, in other words, during the course of the year? How many times does it happen, once, twice, three times a year for rate increases, or just once a year.
>> usually it's once a year. What we have seen, though, is passing on hikes from natural gas, and that is when about a year and a half ago you saw a real spike and that was because of the increased cost from natural gas and they don't consider that a rate increase. They call it passing on the increase to the customer so...
>> passing on the increase?
>> yes, because they're saying they're not getting any money from that, it's just what they have to pay, the increased cost that they have to pay for natural gas?
>> for natural gas?
>> yes, this coming year you have seen an actual increase in water and wastewater and eu'til.
>> going into the expo utility line item, coming from our one-time reserve we just did, and I hope there would be a friendly, if it's more than they need, it is only for utility purposes would fall then to fund balance for the next year related to the expo center.
>> to the friendly Commissioner?
>> I was trying to make it friendly as I was writing it. I feel very strongly that this needs to stay with utilities given the generosity of the court related to the other capital expenditures we did for ek poe already.
>> is that we can maybe see some type of report.
>> yes. That is friend. [multiple voices]
>> anymore discussion?
>> if I could make one comment, like to -- blane reminded me that when we do the transfer, the intent of the court's motion is to increase utilities by 130,000 in the expo center, if in fact the revenue and the fifth revenue estimate is below what we anticipate, I would like to have the court authorize us to do the transfer in an amount that would increase utilities by 130,000. I think that is the intent. I'm just saying when we -- when we look at these revenue estimates we need the flexibility to adjust that accordingly.
>> but this motion is $130,000 additionally in the utility line item for the expo center?
>> let's see the 5th estimate comes out and there's -- it's $130,000 higher, you wouldn't need the transfer, so to the degree that the 5th revenue estimate has some. [multiple voices]
>> once the 5th revenue comes out, we'll come back to you if there's any variation.
>> by this vote you will have established a very clear and direct principle.
>> anymore discussions? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> while we're here, you want to talk about [inaudible]
>> this under number 8?
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> it is. Good morning, today I want to present to you the issue on the fixture and furniture and equipment for those office buildings that we are building right now. They are in the budget process and a budget request for furniture for each of those two buildings, and pbo kept that to a certain number on the budget because I didn't have a survey to find out the existing furniture and we did not finish the section document to those two buildings. We have finished the krukd -- construction document. Now we know what the furniture take-off is. Then what we did is we went to survey the existing furniture, based on some criteria we established and we come up with a result, and the furniture we have, we included new furniture, and this is -- by the way, this is a survey, and turn out to be that we have on the community center building, we are short of about $39,000 and from the precinct 3 constable jp 3 office we're short about 61,247 total for both buildings, about 100,830, and that is basically what I'm asking for to just -- to ask for one-time money to cover for the shortfall for the new buildings.
>> roger, how much is the total brand-new furniture budget for the existing staff? You need an additional hundred. What is that additional hundred on top of?
>> the additional hundred on top of you already approved -- I mean the court already approved 88,000 and 95,000, so 88 and 95, so this is about 180.
>> about 180,000 of new furniture.
>> it's not just furniture. Furniture, shelfing, all of that stuff.
>> for the existing staff that are moving? And that needs to go to 280?
>> that is correct. Like we had it early in the budget.
>> very similar to your budget request that called for all new furniture.
>> not all new furniture, lots of new furniture.
>> after we did et evaluation, we have documentation like the pbo requested and the court come back with a survey and we had that.
>> let me ask a technical question. We are -- because both the precinct 2 community center, tax document, 3 were approved in the same issuance? We are rapidly coming to closure on the precinct 2 building.
>> that's correct.
>> are there any savings that will be in the precinct 2 budget?
>> there's a projected saving, yes, Commissioner.
>> about how much?
>> it's about 150 to $100,000.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...).
>> .
>> I have no objection.
>> can you also confirm --
>> a real close disclosure on the [inaudible].
>> anything else on 28?
>> judge, I have two -- the small item has to do with something I neglected to get to last week. It is on page 9 of your big markup sheets and it has to do with constables of precinct 2. And constable van came in with a very, very small item that is huge for him and he just -- it's totally out of flexibility to solve his own problem. He has an office manager reclassification where he did not come to this court a year ago and make a special request. He honored the process. It's $11,253, and this would allow him to reclassify a lower level position to have an office manager, the same as three other constable's offices, two of them smaller than his, already have. The second little small item in his would -- I would be considering one-time money because it is in his overtime line item. I think constable van would be fine with me saying he's really cheap when it comes to overtime, but this is a matter that has to do with the warrant roundup for his participation. He's very good at managing his overtime. It is very, very modest. He comps people out. So I would put a motion forward related to 11,253 and that's coming out of ongoing moneys and for christian to find the appropriate balance in one of our reserves.
>> we would take it out of allocated reserve.
>> thank you. And over time, that be part of a one-time money because it is a one-time line item, I will treat it as such.
>> how much?
>> over time is $2,347 and it is very specifically located in the warrant round jerusalem which in our fines and fees things is a good thing.
>> i'll second that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the second thing, and this is a big one, and i've not discussed this with anyone and that's dangerous in terms of trying to float an idea. In terms of where are we in terms of the sheriff's office. There's a great deal of discussion about whether sheriff phraser is going to be successful in identifying other resources to turn in to deputies on the street which I think all of us have great goals. I started thinking related to the resides request here which is approximately $750,000. If there could be support to the idea of within our allocated reserve, so we're not taking any new money, but within our allocated reserve, earmashing -- earmarking a challenge granted that basically dollar for dollar, every dollar margo can identify we would match it up to $375,000. If we can find 375 that can only go into sheriff's deputies folks, we would match it up to 375. If you look at this budget request, 500,000 of it, I just rounded off by 2,000, is ongoing money, the other is capital. So in terms of how we would split it out, that would be 250,000 would actually be against the allocated reserve because that's ongoing moneys, and $125,000 would be against either car reserve, this '05 capital reserve, but not one dime would be released unless it is certified, ongoing cuts to encourage the sheriff to continue to find things, but also to say you find savings, we will match you. And if she can find 375,000 of ongoing, permanent salary savings and we can match it, we can get these new eight patrol officers, one sergeant and the cars that go with it and work cooperatively to make the law enforcement package happen. But she's got to do herpes or it doesn't happen.
>> second. I would really encourage her to find a way to [inaudible] southeast and northeast. And -- because they are trying to cover too much territory with too fee people. And I jugs -- that's what I ask.
>> these --
>> is this conditioned upon the sheriff no, sir being able to find the full amount? Because in our deal, I thought the sheriff --
>> judge, i'll go even further on that. There is also a full request that she had given and I have no problem with trying to go for the full request.
>> I have no problem with funding part of this if the sheriff cannot come up with all of it. But I thought our deal left us with the sheriff basically trying to identify resources in her current budget, which is huge, to cover law enforcement, and what I'm saying is if she cannot do this, then this would be triggered. The other thing is during our discussions we suggested that we have a plan where we would annually increase the number of law enforcement deputies with a target in mind, and we would try to achieve that target in a time certain, but that would be part of an agreement that we would reach.
>> and judge, I'm fine with that in terms of that's the intent. I want her to find the 750,000 .but if she can't, then for evey dollar up to 375 of permanent savings she can identify, that this backup deal would trigger so that we can accomplish this. But we need her help to do it. This is not one where the Commissioners court says, oh, try, oh, you can't, okay, we'll pay for everything. No, this is intended to be a challenge grant that we all cooperatively work together, but the number one option would be please find the 750,000 on your own. But in the event that does not occur, I would like to see if we can create the challenge grants within our allocated reserve and the '05 capital reserve. These would be earmarks against those.
>> I can support this. This particular motion. Based on what I'm hearing from the community, similar to what Commissioner Gomez is saying, there's not enough patrol vehicles on the east side, southeast, northeast, due east in Travis County. I know like for example, 969, I get several complaints on that road both calling about a lot of speeding, even though we have the [indiscernible] east manned center out there really mplaining about a lot of spaoegt, not safe in that area. Residents are -- are very concerned. Legitimate concerns. And if this is an effort to help curb that, can I definitely support it. And challenge the sheriff for her to come up with $375,000.
>> all in favor?
>> judge.
>> [inaudible].
>> I prefer we take the vote. Because hi a couple comments.
>> that was it. Go ahead. Ed, Commissioner, thank you -- go ahead, Commissioner. Thank you. Fires of all, I think that -- first of all, I think the people of this community pay their taxes to get good law enforcement. I'm not opposed to asking the sheriff to run a good, efficient department. I think that all of us want to see that. Personally, I think that we ought to spend more money on law enforcement, and I can understand why the two Commissioners on the east side -- or two of the Commissioners on the east side feel the way they do about presence, but I will assure you that the west side doesn't have any less need than the east side. So I don't -- I'm not comfortable with, you know, the conversation going, well, I'm fine with this because I want more presence east. You know what, I want more presence east. I want more presence west. We ought to find -- and if that means that we cut in other areas, we ought to fund law enforcement -- I mean to every degree that we need it. We all know we need more law enforcement on the street, period. We know it costs around $72,000 a person if you throw in everything from salary and then all of the things that go along with it from the cars to all of this. We are going to have to as a court determine that we are going to -- that we are going to fund fully law enforcement, and we should. And I mean I'm fine with attaching some things like find 750 and we'll give you -- dangle us a carrot and we'll respond. Real what I we ought to be doing is identifying right off how many law enforcement people do you need on the street and fund those out of a $300 million budget. For us not to be able to do that, we are not doing the job that we ought to be doing as elected officials, period. I agree you need them in the east side. But we need them everywhere in this community. And so I'm not comfortable, you know, saying, well, if do you this, then we'll do that. I'm also not saying to the sheriff I want to you run as good, efficient a program as you can and department. And I know that there have been lots of ill feelings in the last few years with regards to how large the budget is for the sheriff. I don't know how to run a sheriff's department, so I don't know whether that's too much or too little. But I do know one thing as an elected official, we do not have enough law enforcement presence on the street in any part of Travis County. And I would hope that we would have some sort of a mind set to identify -- obviously we're not going to get it done this year, but to not come back next year with an eye on -- because what i've found is that people -- I mean law enforcement would they like to have overtime money as opposed to flex hours? Probably. But their number one asking is give us enough people to take care of the job that we need to do in this community. And, you know, we bend over backwards to do that with e.m.s. And we should because e.m.s. Is the number 2 service that taxpaying citizens look to pay their money in order to get those kind of services. So, you know, I'm not opposed to this motion, but I don't think that it's the message that we need to be sending to the residents and I don't think it's the message that we need to be sending to law enforcement that, you know, if -- if do you this for us, then we'll give you this, because we owe it to this community to take care of law enforcement.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any more items on -- under agenda item 8?
>> judge, I have -- since I haven't asked for a lot in this budget cycle as far as skimming goes -- [laughter].
>> we got the [indiscernible].
>> I'm so worked up about that rail district money, I can't see straight. But I know that one of the things that I would love to see us have the opportunity perhaps to do is there are some sidewalk needs we have in the wildwood and shady hollow area for a long time and if I didn't think we had found $110,000 to take off frate barker, which is in the area, I think it's somewhere around $180,000 -- carol, are you familiar?
>> [inaudible].
>> we need to throw knew the hrow knew the grease, carol. Jessica, since that was sidewalk, is that fund 252, whatever it was, was the wildwood --
>> the 252, as I understand it, is for the a.d.a. Issue on sidewalks.
>> it has nothing to do with [inaudible]. But I'm sure that it's probably something that's on the horizon that I just don't recall right this minute.
>> and I'm willing to go and get the definitive item on that and come to each member of the court and say here is what I would like to take a look at and maybe we don't have to decide -- christian, would we have to decide that today as to -- but I would like to alert the court that that's something that I would like to come back.
>> two possible funding sources would be existing c.o.s, depending on the amount. If it's a large amount, probably not. But the road and bridge fund still has an allocated reserve that I believe is quite healthy at this time. Carol can talk on that as well.
>> okay.
>> and I'm also seeing what's already in the preliminary budget there is an item for $6,000 for radar unit replacements in one of the constable's offices and I'm happy to squeeze that in the fight for your sidewalks as well.
>> second.
>> if I'm going to have to have a fist fight over precinct 3 --
>> [inaudible].
>> let me bring that back next week so I can kind of mount a force.
>> and I think there's some [inaudible] in there too.
>> thank you all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 16, 2003 7:52 AM