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 9
Number 9 to consider and take appropriate action for proposed ruled on f.y. '04.
>> that is part of the budget process every year, we make correction, modifications, and routine changes to the budget rules which are the operating procedure that the planning and budget office, the auditor's office and the departments in general use on processing most of the routine transactions of day-to-day life in Travis County, things like adjustment, travel rules or grant procedures. Most of the changes are routine language cleanups. There were quite a few what I consider to be very minor changes but I wanted to highlight them for the court and I did so in my memo. I can walk you through all of the changes, if you wish. We had five items affecting how the planning and budget office will process budget adjustments, in f.y. '03 we had worked on a restriction for personnel adjustments, planned to add a degree of caution related to the change in the fiscal environment. It produced a -- in some areas, some workload increases that we hadn't anticipated on routine matters that we feel are best handled in the budget office. Of course with all of these, if there's ever an issue that the budget office feels the court needs to hear, we raise the issue up and move to Commissioner's court as a discussion item. What we include was budget adjustments within grant funds could be done as automatics within the personnel line items, the same thing with bond funds provided they're consistent the bond covenants. Inside health and human service, they have a variety of health line items that have to get change and reconfigured to accommodate the billing for the health interlocal and we're recommending that those be approved as automatic adjustments. We have some cases where departments have transitional staffing that is pry maryly happens in attorney shops where one attorney gets moved to another division to handle a workload change on a temporary basis and of course if they move a person from one division to another there needs to be a change of funds and on routine matters that don't increase staff, we propose that those transfers also be allowed as automatic adjustments. Again, if there was any substantial change we would bring to it the court's attention and the auditor has also requested an item to speed up our ability to handle arbitrage payment, essentially that we can move bonds within bond funds to accommodate arbitrage fund.
>> yes. I'm not sure everybody got this. If not, we'll make sure everybody in the court did get it. There's apparently some county that is questioning the...
>> smith.
>> ... Related to the authority of the Commissioner's court this deligation to do these automatic transfer, and we are specifically mentioned. I know we sent it down to the county attorney's office. We need to keep track with what is going on with that case so we don't have -- so we have the ability to respond if indeed the attorney general, although that is just an opinion, it's not law, it's an opinion.
>> I think the assumption under that -- I took staff look at it as well. I'm not sure that that is going to impact us, I couldn't understand what their issue was down there. But I'm hoping it has no -- I mean, you know from, the persons viewpoint that is at the back end of paying these, I think what we've done is worked extremely well. There's nothing really hidden from what the Commissioner's court contemplated. You know, we've got controls in place with the budget office and hmrd. I think obviously somebody in another county is having a problem. That may not apply to us. They may be quoting us uncorrectly.
>> I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that.
>> we have a copy if anyone wants to see that.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> the next set of changes that are primarily related to travel rules and again these are just cleanup items on what are the current operations, we wanted to make sure they were spelled out clearly in our budget rules. Routine mileage reimbursement needs to be submitted within 90 days to the county auditor's office. Food and beverage purchases for in-house training isn't currently permitted, or isn't permitted. Reimbursement for meals can only be made if an employee has an overnight stay. Clarify the rules on recruiting high level employees to pay for food or beverages to entertain the applicants. And a cap on the maximum amount of item purchased for employee recognition to $50. The auditor's office requested these changes to cleanup the current travel rules. I wanted to mention the employee
>> ... Related to employee recognition, the way that the language is in the budget rules is -- states if the Commissioner's court approved a budget for employee recognition, the employee offices budgeted line items recognition expenses not to exceed $50, that could be interpreted to not include funds that were then moved mid year, since those wouldn't be part of the adopted budget, so we proposed to cleanup that I would like for the court to consider which is change the first part of that sentence to if an officer department has funds in an employee recognition line item, the recognition expense not to exceed $50 per employee. I hope y'all will look favorably upon that change. Grant rules, we had two minor modifications to grant rule, we had a requirement for 6 month grant status report. Typically the status requirement has been met by the current application and contract process, and additional work hasn't been needed on that area, we just wanted to clean up the rules to match current procedures. The second item was related to vehicles. It isn't very often that a conveyance allows the purchase of the vehicle, but because we don't like surprises related to grants, if a vehicle is in the grant that all the associated expenses are covered by that grant, but at the very least, but if they aren't we'd bring it to your attention promptly. Changes due to modification in the account structure. The budget rule, like I said, are our operating procedures, so if there are changes in reorganizations, they require us to make minor changes inside the budget rules, and we align them to match the new justice and public safety reorganization that occurred in f.y. '03 and also we mentioned that early in the markup process that we have a new account structure that was recommend bid the comptroller, that also created some minor line item changes in our centrally budgeted line items and departmental responsibilities and we've implemented those and the rule that I think we were most looking forward to in these was we've tried to create a language and this language was suggest bid the auditor's office that would allow the auditor's office to clear hole encumbrances that the department nor pbo, nor one that can be swept out of the system and with this authority we're hoping that things can happen on a faster basis than are currently happening. Those are all the routine standard changes in it, in addition to those, there was one fairly late breaking change. We had started receiving in our office a variety of requests for end of year expenses as we often do and restarted repeatedly getting questions related to lump sum payments from a variety of departments.
>> payments for...
>> employees. Sorry.
>> i] what?
>> we've been receiving requests in our office to utilize savings in departmental operations to pay out lump sum payments to employees as a compensation mechanism. We requested from hrmd clarification of what the current policies were on lump sum payments and received an answer which is part of the attachment from hrmd. Internal discussions within the budget office we were working on how to implement the current policy and it became apparent to us that the budget office needed more direction related to the compensation rules lump sum payments essentially providing us more clarity on what the court's intent was on such issues because we saw the possibility out there with the current rule structure which essentially would allow budget adjustments to be made on an automatic basis to line items that could then be used to pay lump sum payments to employees and we wanted to make sure that such changes were done consistent with how Commissioner's court would like such payments made. I drafted a budget rule and sent it off to hrmd and the auditor's office for comment, essentially what we've proposed is that a policy or procedure be developed by Commissioner's court for employee compensation and that lump sum payments be paid out of the 1501 merit pay line item which is the line item in the htec system...
>> you need an answer on the lump sum, because I think we need legal advice for one thing, don't we? It appears to me if we had an agenda item to cover lump sum compensation -- now, we have gotten several legal opinions in the past. I know a couple of years back. My thinking was always that historically we use lump sum compensation for red line employees because we had determined that because we were at the end of your grade we could not give you an increase that would apply perspectively. So we would one time you based on performance pay, right?
>> we have used it in the past for other than red line employees and it's been widely used by various department, numerous departments throughout the county.
>> it was --
>> we should clarify that.
>> on the lump sum compensation it was to -- enacted or established for that particular employee it would not have a ratchet up effect on next year's salary.
>> that's correct.
>> so that was the whole intent of that.
>> absolutely.
>> to make sure that you didn't have to recognize the ratchet effect for the next year. I know in my office I have used lump sum instead of performance based pay, i've used lump sum which of course one-time pay and if I used the funds, then that means I would have ratcheted it up for the next fiscal year for those employees as far as performance based. So lump sum can be used in that particular instance, not only for a [inaudible] but also for not increasing the ratcheting up effect on the next year.
>> just to clarify what alicia is referring to, this year only two agencies have provided lump sum payments. One is cocd, city grant and the other is...
>> could you repeat that.
>> the other is the auditor's office which, as you know, has its own unique rules and authority on the district judges. No other county department has provided lump sum. In '02 there were a wide variety of lump sum payment, a total of $10.5 million was added to the '02 budget, 7.9 million of which was for compensation t court in '02 asked departments to submit plans. You may remember that as part of the allocation of that $7.9 million, departments were requested to say, okay, here is how I propose to spend that $7.9 million and that was then submitted to the court and some of those included lump sum payment, so that the court would -- the county would not incur this ratchet effect t court approved those and that lump sum payment was made. The question on the '03, we had the experience that I just mention and '04 is wide open for interpretation about the court's intent and desire...
>> next year that we're looking at?
>> pardon?
>> looking at budget rules for next year?
>> we're looking at budget rules for next year. We need to do them by next Tuesday or on the latest at the following Tuesday because the budget rules are adopted as part of the '04 budget order so that you can say to a elected official, here are the rules that you must follow.
>> okay.
>> do you want everything except --
>> yeah.
>> a little bit more time on this issue. Now, if we could come up with the two or three specific instances where the lump sum compensation is desired, run that by the county attorney's office and get the legal opinion by next Tuesday, also there's a lot more background in here -- background info that I would like a little bit more opportunity to look at, just pull the items specifically.
>> I would like to [inaudible] I'm going to be out of the county next Tuesday on county business. There's this really great conference on electronic collection of revenues and funds. I thought you probably wouldn't care if I missed for that. But I mean I could have someone from my staff give our perspective or I can give you my three seconds now, whichever you prefer. I wanted to give you a heads up I will not be here on Tuesday.
>> and diana warner has already put in her memo to allen I think some very good suggested language that I would like to see be given to the county auditor.
>> yeah, we have that in the second berth, so we have a proposal on two versions of the policy...
>> I guess I need sort of accurate summary of our little history. I mean I may be -- I may have more negative recollection than the facts justify. But I thought it was very, very limited circumstances under which we authorized lump sum payments. I do recall, we told the departments give us a plan, we get the pn, if we go along with the plan, fine, but my thinking is otherwise lump sum was only used for red line employees that may well have been situations other than those.
>> judge, I think that one of the differences, and.
>> -- I'm not a proponent of lump sum, but I gave lump sums this year because there was no money provide bid Commissioner's court for raises this year and there won't be any next year. I think as a management tool, and as christian said, I kind of operated under a rule where the judges do give me very specific authority to do that. But I think it's useful for everyone to be able to do this. Particularly in an area where there is no money for raises, if departments can find internal resources that do not obligate you for the next year and can help their employee, I think that is a positive thing, just like you might transfer out of office supplies to buy some other productivity tool, so it's not as though giving that money to employees is an evil or bad -- or a bad thing, so I -- diana put in her memo and I whole heartedly agree, it's a useful tool particularly when there are very limited resources to reward employee, if you can find the money internally and it doesn't...
>> but the point is, though, on that, and that is a good point that you just brought up, auditor, but what also happens if you did it in your shop, I know I did it in my shop as far as paying my employees, it also generate add salary savings by doing it that way, because we had a certain amount of money set aside. We end up returning money back to the general fund because it was actually salary saving impact on that, so with that lump sum scenario so...
>> it's a valuable tool for a manager to have.
>> yeah, it's important for you to at least understand the tension that exists between the management flexibility and the appropriateness of dealing with compensations that are tight, and the implications of draining the budget through etion pend churches that would otherwise not be made at the end of the year, and I can give you a number of hypotheticals. I'm an elected official. I have 100 fewer inmates, I have a million dollars, I would like to give a $5,000 raise to 200 employees. I i can do that under the current law and that may not be the desire of the court. There are many other hypotheticals that you should at least be aware of that may occur in the absence for a wide-open approach. All this rule said was let us develop a rule. The rule said let us have a set of protocols and if you are going to do lump sum payments let's have accountability and put in it such -- that's all it said.
>> hopefully we can have the [inaudible] proposal for next week incorporating what kritstion said, here be careful, but allow for the flexibility, I'm trying to find that happy medium. Judge, I would move approval of proposed changes to the budget rules for '04 with the new one that allen mentioned that bob vann brought to our attention with the exception of what we just talked about here related to the item on the employee compensation that that particular rule be brought back for next week, but at least let the folks get it out the door, get it cleaned up so we have a very minor change to make next week as opposed to an entire document.
>> are you okay for no food for meeting...
>> we have been doing that in the past?
>> these are issues jose brings up that people are fighting about all the time and it's not a bad thing necessarily, but either provide -- it's either people... [multiple voices]
>> yeah, by the county, that is exactly right, I want to bring doughnuts on my way in for a meeting, obviously I can. It's out of county funds we have really been very strict about that.
>> second? So that is included in the motion, right?
>> then that includes the --
>> and before we vote on this, it's discussion... Then the budget nature, a question that was asked as far as looking at next year's budget, I think mr. Daugherty may have brought the question up as far as October 1 of this year, departments started looking at the budget for -- for, you know, going to '05, because if we look at everything we know we're going to have some very serious challenges going into '05, so that has to be applicable to a budget rule for the department to start looking at the individual budgets with the challenges that we have coming up in f.y. '05 to ensure that we can deal with those issues? Is that -- is that I guess the question is that a part of the process? Is that something that we just can give a direction on? I really don't know. But I do know that it was comments made to that regard.
>> these are rules that control and influence expenditures in '04. Not '05.
>> okay. So wouldn't be out there in '05 as far as... However, looking at the challenges that we know we're going to have...
>> right.
>> ... In '05. These are a way to -- that the bureaucracy works in a mechanical way to ensure the will of the court. Now -- and others. Now, with respect to the '05 budget, there are normally our procedure is in December to begin to work with the subcommittee of the court to explain the approach and strategy for '05 and then in January to have the courtland on how it wishes to inform departments about '05. There was a suggestion made that perhaps that should be done in October.
>> October. Exactly.
>> to prepare departments. And there are probably as many -- there are numerous opinions on whether to do that in October or in January. Some of it depends upon the degree to which you wish to constrain '05. If there's going to be some substantial con
>>
>> (change in captioners)
>>
>> The remainder of this item was not captioned. The motion passed by unanimous vote
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 16, 2003 7:52 AM