Travis County Commssioners Court
September 23, 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.
Itemw 23 & 24
Now, let's pull up the budget-related issues, and then after a discussion go into executive session to discuss the three that we mentioned. 23 is consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments and transfers. We cannot take all of that. Let's pull up -- I know we need 25 in executive session. We've already acted on 26. 24, consider and take appropriate action on outstanding f.y. '04 budget markup issues.
>> you have a number of issues before you. Let me just lay them out based on what we know so far. And how do you want proceed. You received our letter via e-mail and hard copy from me yesterday indicating that the fifth revenue estimate was now perceived, and based on that revenue estimate, there's an additional 1.1, almost 1.2 million dollars worth of one-time resources and a little over $400,000 worth of ongoing resources for 1,583,482 additional resources. So you have before you how you wish to proceed with the decision-making on those resources. And I just laid out three options for you. And these have been well discussed in some detail earlier and so I --
>> do we need to do that correction stuff again so we can --
>> yes, there is an assumption within that that the corrections list that we need to present to you is acceptable to you. Leroy is going to walk you through a corrections list. It happens to be 16 pages long.
>> we've already gone through --
>> we have another set of corrections since last time. Most of those are minor either cost neutral changes. There's a couple of pages, though, of technical budget changes that leroy needs to go through with you totalling $411,000. That $411,000 worth of -- I'm sorry, $379,000 worth of additional budget corrections, leroy will be able to walk you through. So your million five of additional resources already has assumed these corrections.
>> okay.
>> so that's the second topic. You've got what to do with additional resources. The second is corrections. Have you a letter from the county attorney regarding an augmentation to his budget based on some additional revenue. And you have the j.p. Salary issue before you which is on a subsequent agenda item. You have a request from i.t.s. For an additional $10,000 to deal with a lump-sum payment that you will be hearing about. You have a decision on the retirement rate that hasn't been made yet. It has no fiscal impact, but the decision on the retirement rate you are going to need to vote on it. And then we're going to ask you for -- to give us guidance on what happens in the next three days before we file, if there is any last-minute remaining resources that we trip across, where to put them or where to remove them. Typically we put them or remove them from the allocated reserve at this last minute, but you may wish to do this out of your '05 capital reserve. So those are the -- that's the array of issues we have at this last minute one week before you adopt the budget. And I don't know --
>> can we address the issues that don't have any fiscal impact?
>> the retirement rate. Whraoe roy.
>> the court has already approved the financial impact of maintaining the retirement rate at 9.82%, and we just need a vote of the court which I failed to get whenever you approved the financial.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> would you like to go through the corrections now? Because that will have an impact on remaining resources in some of your other decisions.
>> in terms of walk being it through it, can we hit the big ones?
>> pages 1 and 2 of the general fund corrections, and pages 3 through 6 are the other fund corrections. Pages 7 through 16 are cost new tral changes. In other words where they were moving things around. There's no impact to the total budget of the department. Let me walk you through page 1 and 2. If you look on page 2 at the bottom, it says general fund total. Under operating there's an increase of 127,738. Let me give you the two pieces of that is that once we receive the fifth revenue estimate, I had to recalculate the unallocated reserve due to the increase in revenue. That's 150,000. There's a 25,000 increase in maximus budget since we got additional funds out of title 4. On the -- on the capital -- the far side over to the right, there's an increase of 251,894. As you recall, the fifth revenue estimate included 613,000 for scap and our recommendation in that was to use the above c.a.r. Items out of scap. That's if in fact scap come in during the '04 process, and it did. Notice the last five entries on the bottom is where the j.p.s were moving their c.a.r. Items over to fund 50 which was included in the fifth revenue estimate. If you go to page 3 through 6 on the other funds, let me summarize those for you. Most of these other funds are adjustments based upon the fifth revenue estimate. We balance the expenditures against the revenue for every single fund. And you will notice that the health insurance fund, which is on page 4 of 16, that is fund number 526. The total of all of those adjustments total 218,504 the 2 . That was just balancing to the fifth revenue estimate. The f.q.h.c. Has a 249,092. The -- let me look at one other. Expo, you recall you had the transition, 187,843 where the court approved the transfer from general fund into the expo center. 038 is your b.c.p. Fund. Basically the expenditure estimates changed in the fifth revenue estimate and therefore there's a $1.4 million increase in that fund based on the lack of expenditures during '03. The change -- now, if you look on the next page on 5 of 16, the big number is fund 475. We do not budget the 400 accounts, which are your bond projects. The court voted to roll those balances forward. However, fund 475 is an interlocal account where t.n.r. Performs work for other municipalities, and we have to budget that in the adopted budget. So the 8-point the million of the total -- 8.9 million of the total capital corrections relates to fund 475. And then basically at the bottom of page 6 you will see that fund 050, the justice of the peace 1 through 5 is where we're having that fund picked up, the 27,585. Those -- the items that I mentioned account for about 95% of all the numbers at the bottom.
>> okay.
>> are there any questions that I can answer? [multiple voices]
>> 7 through 16 are basically cost neutral?
>> yes. If you look at the last page, page 16 of 16, you look at the total, it's zero. That's what the dash means.
>> all of the cost neutral --
>> just like we did before with corrections. This is typical. I know it is not enjoyable to be looking at all of these separate transactions. They are not programmatic. They don't raise policy issues, they are not programmatic directions. But this is when you have thousands and thousands of line items, this is putting the dollars into the right spots.
>> I might mention that starting on page 9, all of these h.h.s. Transfers in the cross neutral, this was a recommendation from the county auditor's office that we establish unique account numbers for all the county reimbursed amounts that we reimburse to the normally the city of Austin. So -- and we were able to do that in the last two days and move all those amounts into their own line items. The total cost of everything on these cost neutral is zero.
>> so we're asking for you to approve this so we can move forward when we file the proposed budget Friday afternoon.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> motion and second. Any more discussion? Motion basically is approve all the recommended changes on pages 1 through 16. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> that leaves you -- leads you now then probably to the question of the appropriate use of resources. This -- these resources, which are already included the technical budget corrections that you just adopted, are prior to any further changes you may wish to make for one-time or ongoing resources. And you have some options before you. Related to using all the resources for tax relief, using all of them for one-time purposes, or doing what you did before, which was use ongoing resources for ongoing tax relief and one-time resources for one-time purposes, or any other combination thereof.
>> should we address the few outstanding markup issues?
>> that's another way to go.
>> starflight security.
>> yes, sir.
>> we could either identity now or next year. We could do it out of allocated reserve for next year. Which would be cleaner for p.b.o. Or does it matter?
>> .
>> '04 appropriate tkpwaeugs so appropriation. If you identity now, we can move forward and execute it without any financial issues.
>> christian, isn't there a typo error on the bottom?
>> yes, there is a real typo error that I appreciate -- I'm very much -- I was glad to see that the Commissioner -- [multiple voices]
>> Commissioner Daugherty, d-a-u-g-h-e-r-t-y, the tax rate. This is your dyslexic executive manager. Tax rate has not -- it's 4918. 48918. -- 4918. Thank you.
>> I was --
>> this thing came out real fast.
>> no, it's 4918. Sorry about that.
>> see, the starflight security issue --
>> that's one-time money, one-time problem, and I think it makes sense to budget in the '04 so they have an established budget and can move on it.
>> second.
>> what's the dollar figure, judge?
>> it's 40,000.
>> second.
>> isn't it?
>> motion by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. This is for the fence and the --
>> card key thing.
>> that I understand are fairly serious items.
>> yes.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> question on that, do you wish us to take it out of the allocated reserve or the capital reserve for '05?
>> either one is --
>> I would say it's a one-time.
>> both are one time.
>> the capital items.
>> you are going to at a time out of the balance of resources you have available. That's perfect.
>> yes, it's one-time money.
>> I have one that I need to maybe address now. We haven't gotten to item 19 dealing with the swimming pools, a whole lot of other things. Of course, we haven't called that item up yet, but there is some money that needs to be tied to this particular item, item 19. And of course if we're going to deal with that money, in my opinion, it should be a one-time resource. Money. In the amount of $25,000. I would like to go ahead and see if we can do that now or wait until after we discuss it, I can go ahead and do it now. Set aside $25,000 for one-time resource for 19-b, which is the operating maintenance.
>> for the pool. > for the pool.
>> joe; that the right number? 25?
>> yes.
>> we do need to fund that.
>> yes.
>> any more discussion? That's $25,000 to an operating account for east metro park.
>> and it's a one-time gig.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. What about the county attorney's request?
>> judge, I think it was in two pieces because there is a piece related to david -- excuse me, mr. Escamim want to go get rid of green circle issues and the career ladders in his office taken district attorney's office. Going off his memo is 52,000 for his green circle issue and a combined 48,024 each -- 48,000, 24 each for the career ladder program. Move approval of all of those and those are the ongoing dollars.
>> right. And 48.
>> 52,000 for the greene and 24,000 each for if career ladders and district attorneys. Grand total --
>> it would be 76 to the county attorney and 24 for the d.a.
>> and that's ongoing.
>> ongoing for a total which would drop your 411 down to 311.
>> I second it.
>> a motion and two seconds. For the departments watching and wondering, the county attorney needs to get the auditor to certify additional revenue. And that amount was how much?
>> [inaudible].
>> 140,000.
>> so that amount was in excess of the request here.
>> right.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of that motion? That passes by unanimous vote. [indiscernible] probably the 2% we already have in the preliminary budget and so it's accountable.
>> you are referring to the 2% in -- for --
>> county employees reimbursed.
>> that part is in the [indiscernible] what. Is not in the budget is anything dealing with '03.
>> all right, now, so the request was for 15,000 for county starflight folk.
>> that's all caught up in the lump sum question.
>> right. But I'm thinking budget the money and how we spend it, how we do it will be later. So we have 15,000 for '03 dollars is the request, right?
>> you don't have anything budgeted in '03. And you will be receiving counsel on that issue.
>> I'm suggesting that we would want to spend the money and the question is how, which we will decide after an executive session conference with counsel.
>> okay.
>> but we may as well vote $15,000 now, right, is what I'm saying?
>> that's your call.
>> it's basically to put county starflight people on the same with city starflight. That's why I move to allocate $15,000. We'll come back after executive session and --
>> decide whether it's twao er at is proposed right now is $15,000 for -- to match the city of Austin's lump-sum payment that they paid out in the current f.y. '03. I think there's another issue that's been talked about which is a 2% pay increase for Travis County staff for -- in the star light program to match the pay increase from the city of Austin's, and I don't have the budgeted figure for 2% increase for both staffs. I can run --
>> are you saying city starflight got a 2% lump sum plus 2% next year?
>> I'm saying that the city of Austin e.m.s. Got a lump-sum payment of f.y. 2003 and in f.y. 2004 they are getting a 2% pay increase as well.
>> so I think the issue that's before us is, okay, we're talking about lump sum related to the starflight folks so that he would be equal footing with the e.m.s. Folk. We've already got it pre-budgeted related to the e.m.s. County reimbursed folks, and then a separate question would be is would we want to treat the starflight folk the same way as all of the other e.m.s. Personnel related to the 2% for next year. So there are really three separate issues. One is already budgeted. One we're fixing to decide whether the 15 is this year or next year. The unresolved is the 2% next year related to the starflight operation.
>> the Commissioner is correct.
>> which means we need that calculation.
>> yes.
>> yeah, you would have to have it.
>> today.
>> uh-huh.
>> that would be an ongoing.
>> [indiscernible] desires to match the 2% with starflight, you can make a motion to direct p.b.o. To calculate it and put it in the budget and tell us where to off set that amount. But I don't know what the amount is.
>> no, I would have to go run and -- it won't take me long, but I would still have to go up and do it.
>> that's on the 15,000. Basically take it from -- I guess it would have to be one-time funds. That's the motion that has been seconded already, right?
>> uh-huh. Strictly the lump sum.
>> right. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now we need another motion on the 2% for starflight if we want to treat county starflight personnel the same as city starflight.
>> well, city e.m.s. Personnel. I'm going to go ahead and make that motion because I think if there's anything we heard related to discussions related to starflight it really is part of the consolidated city-county e.m.s. Structure, and if everyone else involved in the city-county e.m.s. Is getting the 2% raise, I would hope that we would also do that for every starflight person to get the same 2% so they are all treated equally.
>> now, this is not keeping up with the joneses, this is equity and parity.
>> equity and parity. To treat it all as one consolidated system and they are treated equally.
>> the motion [indiscernible] to treat county starflight the same way the city starflight -- treats city starflight folk. Allen will bring that number back to us before the close of business hopefully.
>> we believe it's going to be in the 10 to 15 thousand dollars range. That's a high level conversation of quickness. We can give you that number fairly quickly.
>> pilots, mechanics and one office person.
>> the city of Austin pay increase is also effective January 1st. I would have to confirm that is correct but I assume you would also want to model that as well. That any pay increases on the city of Austin would go into effect at the same time for the city of Austin employees -- or for the Travis County.
>> that would be my motion related to the timing and the percentage would be exactly the same as the city's.
>> if the court would vote on the motion to match what the city of Austin is doing for starflight personnel, we can come back after lunch and give you the details and you can pin down the specifics.
>> all right.
>> the question that I do have is we're about to get caught up in one of two things. In keeping up with the city because we're in bed with the city with our e.m.s. System, or what do we do once we start giving our county employees raises, that they are also county employees. Now, Commissioner Sonleitner and I have talked about this and you do get caught in a little bit of an issue here. I mean it's -- pretty soon, you know, we may create a situation for the city that they are going to have the same problem that we could see ourselves having right now. I mean if we give a county raise, all of a sudden I will tell you that our starflight county folks are going to come to us and say, well, we're county employees. We would like to have the raise. And the city is going to be probably called over saying, wait a minute, I mean what's going on here. So at some point in time we need to understand -- I mean is the starflight crew, are they really under one umbrella that sort of we act independent of the city versus the county, or what do we do? I mean because I can see -- and I don't think we've finished our conversation, Karen, unless you've got some word on that, but what are we going to do? Are they county employees? Are they starflight employees? I don't have a problem right now of dealing with this, but I can see us getting put in a real crossfire at some point in time if we across the board started giving county employees a raise, all of a sudden it's like, okay, we'll take that raise as well.
>> I think in this particular case the differentially see is this is not like, for example, our top scale of us trying to keep pace of what's happening over at appeared. Appeared -- a.p.d. To me I see this as a consolidated system and we have very few people. What I'm hearing back in terms of feedback from those folks is they would like to be treated like everyone else. They are not going to be the first ones to whine if all of a sudden county employees get a far greater raise, let's just say, next year and the city is more modest. They are going to go with whatever the group is going with.
>> then that's fine. That's [indiscernible] to handle records. Because I could see that --
>> we've already had that lecture. You can't pick whichever is --
>> okay, I just think that that needed to be out.
>> but I think in this case we're going to try to be fair, and I think to be fair they ought to be treated like the other Austin-Travis County e.m.s. Employees related to -- because they really are the ground people in the air. I mean many and at this time folks who are the ground ambulance folks are getting the 2% raise, the folks that actually fly the air ambulance ought to be getting the same kind of treatment, and the mechanics and our one office manage ear and I don't have a problem with that. I think we just need to do have the discussion ---.
>> I would be the first person to say, tphoerbgs no --
>> we ought to get input from county starflight folk. It doesn't matter which they choose, but I don't think they ought to be able to have both.
>> that was my point.
>> we already had done some preliminary discussions and they said they will pick one.
>> so here after every year we will know exactly what we will do.
>> we're happy to work on that.
>> subcommittee.
>> we still have an on going [indiscernible].
>> that was seconded, that motion.
>> the three.
>> Commissioner Gomez seconded that. Any more discussion? We'll get that number this afternoon. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> the remaining items that we know about that there's some documentation on are the question of the j.p.s salary, which you will be dealing with later. Then there's a request for an additional $10,000 related to evercom and the lump-sum payment from alicia perez. I assume that's all part of --
>> why don't we go into executive session on those three items and we'll be ready to finish up.
>> I have a couple. We did get a clarification, we had asked for an additional week delay for the f.f.f.e. Money and we got memos going back and forth between roger and jessica. Yes, indeedy, there is 100,000 that can safely be transferred from the precinct 2 project to the precinct 3 project for f.f. And e., And jessica has talked to david about which fund it must come out of. We have to buy everything we need for the precinct 2 building before the funds are officially freed up. But we are very close to having that building completed. It's a November occupation. And so that will be in plenty of time for the appropriate decisions to be made for precinct 3, scrubbing it and making sure it's a good number. But we don't need to go with an extra allocation related to the ff and e issue at precinct 3. Savings off the precinct 2 buildings will provide that to go way a.
>> we'll provide you with pwaupblg et transfer at the beginning of the year once everything is locked down and it should be a routine matter given all the visibility of this topic.
>> one of the ones I want to ask, judge, I don't know if we've gotten a figure from the project access. That seems to be a budgetary item in terms of lump sum of some amount related to the prescription medicines. I didn't know if they had even floated a number with us that we wanted to keep in the back of our minds related to project access. Or they would do the medical care if we would cover the meds. I know there was a number that we needed to --
>> I think we'll have to talk to them before we -- they are coming back today.
>> got it.
>> and my office, if you will let me know whether they can come this morning or whether they are still on the 1:40 schedule. Any other markup issues?
>> yeah, in terms of the sheriff, we had been prodding her related to try and scoop up the moneys. If there is additional money to throw into the challenge grant, because she was asking gee, if I find more than 375 can you guys meet me. If there is any way to increase her challenge grant, just say $500,000, rather than 375, I would like to throw it out there. If she finds more savings, we will match it dollar for dollar up to 500,000 rather than the 375.
>> does that mean some of that would come out of one-time money?
>> right, we would not split because --
>> 300 from the elbowing.
>> and some of that is one-time money because it's cars.
>> so far your vote was an ear mark.
>> right.
>> it was not an appropriation.
>> this is adding to the earmark.
>> adding to your challenge grant.
>> just increase the challenge to 500,000.
>> yes, sir, with the appropriate splitoff related to how much would be ongoing versus one time for the cars.
>> do you have anything on there about sidewalks for me in precinct 3? Wildwood. In the wildwood area.
>> are you asking the people at this table?
>> yes.
>> no.
>> judge --
>> joe may have an answer to your question.
>> joe, what is the amount of sidewalk money needed for the wildwood sidewalk project?
>> 245.
>> 245.
>> that would be a c.o. Item, right?
>> it is a c.o. Item.
>> it is a c.o. Item.
>> it is not on the list of c.o.s that we currently are carrying t.c.o. Amount currently 1.9 million. You are not required to land -- I mean let me put that another way. In the past, the court has added items to the c.o. List that it feels are appropriate after the budget has been adopted.
>> I'm happy to deal with your sidewalk when we're ready for the c.o.
>> and I never know when to jump --
>> if that's something that you haven't really [indiscernible] to do, tell us to do it and we'll do it. [multiple voices]
>> now --
>> how much you said -- [multiple voices]
>> that's something I would like to know about when somebody tells me now is the time. [multiple voices]
>> I'm sorry. I was trying to hear what --
>> $245,000.
>> $245,000. Thank you.
>> we could take a motion to use the other alternative, to use one-time money and add in your [indiscernible] to 245. Or you could take a vote now to include it in the c.o.
>> there's a motion -- was that a seconded motion?
>> I seconded -- for which one?
>> to increase the --
>> yeah, I second.
>> any more discussion of that motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Is there another markup motion?
>> I'm going to go ahead and we got lots of one-time cash. I'm going to move the one-time $245,000 sidewalk item for Commissioner Daugherty.
>> is this the time?
>> this is the time.
>> second. [laughter]
>> as long as we have the money to do it, I want to pay cash, not borrow money.
>> I agree.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> you got the sidewalks. [applause]
>> now, we will have items for discussion in executive session.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:52 AM