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.
Item 24, Afternoon Discussion
24. Consider and take appropriate action on outstanding fy 04 budget mark-up issues. I know that we have not covered the rules yet. Are we doing the rules under the 24?
>> no. It's a separate item.
>> okay. Anything else under 24?
>> 24 is budget markup.
>> right.
>> you have 297,508 remaining in ongoing money and I can -- how you got there was the $100,000 transfer to the d.a. And county attorney and we have a -- we have a number on the star flight, which is 13,591 for the 2 percent for star flight. So that -- you subtract those two numbers from the 411,099 that you had at the beginning of today, you have 297,508 remaining of ongoing money. In terms of one-time money you have a total of $747,383. That was the million-one this morning less star flight fence, east metro pool, the star flight $15,000, 245,000 for sidewalks and the 100,000 for project assets.
>> then in terms of what we did related to the challenge grant, that's simply increasing the earmarks so we did not touch any kind of full dollar --
>> however I have to remind the court if that challenge grant is exercised for $500,000, that's a substantial commitment against your reserves. You have the reserves. But it means that if you make that commitment and you do not do anything else with your reserves, it will substantially -- have a bearing on them for the remainder of the year, depending upon what happens, the timing of what happens, the amount of the sheriff's ability to find savings, et cetera.
>> and related to whether it's ongoing money related to people versus the capital because it's almost about a two to one -- it's about $500,000 in terms of if they go ahead and get to the one. And -- half that amount related to capital. So we are in actually pretty good shape related to our capital piece of all of this stuff. We are -- we are loaded with one-time moneys.
>> so I believe that you have answered all of the -- there may be other issues -- [multiple voices]
>> I have one more question that I need -- [indiscernible] the judiciary fee, the result of that, if I'm not correct you correct me, as a result of that we have [indiscernible] dollars left, remaining, out of the judiciary fee, are they available? If that is correct I would like to -- I move that we put that in a judiciary fee reserve for that remaining money.
>> I will second that. The intent here Commissioner is that we want to put a fence around it. We don't want it swept into other general fund kinds of discussion issues.
>> discretionary, right.
>> those are resources within the general fund at this moment that were placed there as a result of the -- of the one-time infusion of resources through that lawsuit plus additional resources on an ongoing basis from the eustachian sherri fee. And I think what -- judiciary fee. I think what the Commissioner is referring to those funds are there in the general fund, they are right now fungible, as the Commissioner is suggesting, put a fence around it and establish a reserve for future appropriation as the courtesies fit.
>> exact -- as the court sees fit.
>> what do you think will happen if we don't put a fence around it?
>> well, it depends on --
>> what's the danger, I guess would be another way to word it.
>> it depends -- the danger of not putting a fence around it?
>> right.
>> it will get spent for something else.
>> wiped out.
>> that's the point.
>> that's -- that's always the danger. That's why you put fences around things. And but on the other hand, you may not want a fence around it. Sometimes you want fences and sometimes you don't.
>> before this year did it have a fence around it?
>> no.
>> it didn't exist before this year.
>> it existed we just --
>> didn't know it.
>> didn't spend it.
>> we knew it was there, we didn't know whether we could spend it. Six of one, half dozen of another, though. All in favor of the fence? [laughter] Commissioner Davis Davis, Sonleitner, Daugherty -- unanimous court.
>> unanimous vote.
>> put a fence around it there christian.
>> how high? [laughter] I will put up the fence.
>> I have one more that I would like to float and see if there's any support for this or not. Under the sheriff's office the one thing that you've heard me talk about a lot during the process and markup, et cetera, was my continuing concern related to the market situation on our 911 telecommunications dispatch operators, our csi folks, the crime scene specialists and a few other [indiscernible] employees. H.r. Has worked with the sheriff to come up with dollars and this gets people up to the minimums. This does not -- this is not one of those compo ratio things, it is simply to get people to the minimum. We have already lost two 911 operators to the city of Austin because of the money situation. I would like to take some pressure off of that situation to see if we can get support for the 56,704 specifically for the 911 telecommunication operators, 2,074 for the ongoing moneys for the csi, $69,885 for the green circled employees. These are rank and file folk in the sheriff's office and to get their situation fixed and we don't lose very valuable highly trained folks to the city of Austin because we can't get them to the minimums of their new jobs --
>> [indiscernible] our deal with the sheriff?
>> yes, sir, again this is taking pressure off the sheriff.
>> they said give us a million and we backed off. I don't know whether it's a soft spot or not. In the court we took a vote and called it a deal and the sheriff said yes. So far we have not given the sheriff an opportunity to deal with some of these issues. It may well be at some point she comes to us and says I'm not -- i've not been able to reach these. The other thing is that to be honest I'm not sure how critical those were to the sheriff. I know there were a long list of things. I would just count -- counsel against it. The -- from where I'm from a deal is a deal f. The deal can't work you sit down with the party you made the deal with and talk about the impossibility of performance and the alternative. I just think that we make it incredibly easy and a lot of other departments that we would [indiscernible] with. That's my discussion.
>> another comment that I would have is I don't know that you are going to find a buyers market like you do today. If people are leaving this county for what I consider the insignificant dollars, there are a lot of people out there looking for jobs. Now, granted, you have got people that are there that they know what they are doing and whatever. But it is not the time, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, for somebody to put a gun to my head and say, you know, if you don't do this for me I'm leaving. I mean, I'm -- it is really concerning to me that -- because I'm starting to really understand career ladders and green lining and all of this kind of stuff and I will tell you that we are -- we are about to put ourselves in a position where I don't know that we have got any way, anywhere to go other thanening to ratchet up numbers of employees and compensation for them. And that -- it frightens me. I mean, I -- because we have got so many departments with so many green lined, you know, folks that -- that we are fixing to find ourselves in a little bit of a situation here. I mean thacialtiond be my biggest -- that would be my biggest concern.
>> incredible sensitivity especially related to the 911 telecommunications operators. Is that when these folks were working in separate buildings, that was one situation. But thousand they are all going to be literally working as close as you and I are right now in the combined communications center. And they literally cannot have to change their place of work, they literally will move two desks over and can get a higher salary from the city of Austin for less work. Because we require our 911 operators to do far beyond what theirs do. I'm not saying that to disrespect them but the jobs are very different. We have already lost two operators. Again to me this takes the pressure off the sheriff, if there's 100,000 that we save those to this particular item, that frees her up to apply $100,000 in savings not to this problem but to find law enforcement slots. That's what my goal here is to get the law enforcement slots. If I can take another pressure valve off --
>> why don't we hear from the sheriff on this?
>> I keep getting e-mails saying we're trying, we're trying, we're trying, but it's difficult and we are -- and she's trying to respond to the law enforcement situation and I don't want this to get lost.
>> this has been one of our priorities all along. But she also is trying to get more law enforcement officers on the streets.
>> [indiscernible] with the sheriff's department?
>> yes, it was.
>> I do not know where this fits in the -- in the dozens of priorities the sheriff has.
>> this was one she brought forward during her budget presentation.
>> I understand it's among her priorities. I don't know where it fits.
>> especially the csi employees have kind of been put on the back burner over and over and over.
>> that's just a $2,000 item [multiple voices]
>> kind of left behind.
>> but the 911 dispatch operators, that's huge.
>> if we don't move today how much is there in the department the sheriff can do over the next few months if left alone as we promised her? Our deal really was, just assign us a million bucks, then do what you can. If there are issues, just let us know. I guess that I would appreciate it if we are thinking about acting on this, let's just postpone it a week and hear from the sheriff. I mean, I don't know that -- that us appropriating amounts of money that at some point turn out to have a huge total without hearing from the department is -- is appropriate. Now the sheriff had a long list of things, but all departments are on that list. What we try to do is get them to prioritize and cover those. If these are priorities for the sheriff, and we have available funds, then we ought to help.
>> I think what happens, though, is that --
>> I need a week then.
>> that's -- the thing that happens with these folks is that they do all of the investigation, they go to court and they testify about what they found. It's really all important the tie-in. But what happens is they then, you know, are left behind and left behind because other things of grave importance come up as well. And so --
>> so we are looking at -- [multiple voices]
>> $100,000?
>> it's a little bit more than that. I'm going straight off the budget sheets, these were confirmed by linda Moore smith smaws --
>> how much?
>> 56704, 2074 and 69885.
>> these are from -- what are they -- what are they related to?
>> ongoing for 911 dispatchers, crime scene specialists and the green circled employees in the sheriff's office.
>> do those add up to about 130,000.
>> 120.
>> shouldn't our response be sheriff, we have 120,000 of available funds if we -- if we indicate to you our inclination to budget them to you, how would you spend them? Right? Would it be csi and dispatch or something else? That will be my question next week. That's why I asked for a week professional courtesy. The other thing that I ask for right now is a professional courtesy on any other expenditures given to us in writing, give them to me in writing by Friday, that will be fine, we will deal with them next Tuesday.
>> I'm happy to withdraw my motion, judge.
>> but we have $120,000 available. Let's tell the sheriff, come down and tell us how you would spend it if we appropriate it to you. If -- doesn't really bother me if she says okay I would spend it on 911 and csi, more power to you.
>> I will second your withdrawal.
>> and just my last word is of course I withdraw with the professional courtesy, is that I'm already hearing pressure if there's 120,000 she can free up, she's also hearing five of us say we want to get law enforcement officers, these folks have been left behind over and over and over again. I wanted to make sure that what dollars she finds can go toward the law enforcement because we will take care of all of the others. It's -- I think it's consistent with what we did for the county attorney today related to his green circles are all gone.
>> the county attorney generated $140,000 in new money.
>> I wish it were --
>> due to the county attorney's office.
>> I wish they were able to print money.
>> the sheriff's budget is [indiscernible] we are not singing the same song we have been singing since last January. In fact it is dramatically different. And we are basically making a mockery of the markup process with not in my view was fair and judicious anyway, but we are prostituting it even more. When does markup end? I mean, this is a year that we have never done this. Whatever markup items -- what other markup items do we have?
>> I withdraw my motion.
>> what other markup item does we have?
>> you have a decision as to where to direct us to place remaining resources --
>> it's hard to determine that without figuring out how much else we will spend.
>> well, if you -- depends upon -- if there's no more spending, then -- he.
>> where are we?
>> you can come up with totals.
>> after the 461,000 for the judiciary reserve, you have $286,383 of one-time money and 297,508 in ongoing money.
>> what's on the ongoing, christian?
>> I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry, I didn't --
>> after the $461,000 fence that you asked to put around judiciary so that it would be in reserve.
>> right.
>> you have $286,383 in one-time funds and 297,580 in ongoing funds and at this point if you are -- if you wish, you could direct us to place that into a reserve or multiple reserves, we will file the budget with that and if you have a motion to make to modify the proposed budget, you make the motion and change the proposed budget next Tuesday.
>> move that we put it in allocated reserve.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? On Tuesday whatever other issues we have we will bring up. Is this budget markup?
>> yes. [inaudible - no mic]
>> let's vote on this motion and then we'll hear you. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay.
>> it's a markup item related to a budget amendment and transfer and related to -- they are all circling around one another.
>> the proposal or the request that I have before the court is to ask for $10,184 I believe out of the [indiscernible] contract in fy '03 because we did not hire until late in the year, all that contract and as a part of the negotiations last year, we asked them, along with the 1.5 million and the 82,000 to let us have $25,000 for a liaison. I would recycle to out of the 21,000 that is left is request $10,184 to be placed in personnel line items in the i.t. Department for next year.
>> christian, where is that 21,000 now?
>> it's in your ending fund balance for '03. Part of the projected expenditures remaining at the end of the year that are in the fifth revenue estimate. So what alicia is asking is rather than have i.t.s. Not have that money appropriated in '04, which was remaining at the end of the year, to have an appropriation made so that the purpose is that alicia articulated can be expended for the employees related to evercom.
>> 21,000 total and we are requesting 10,184.
>> this is tied to the one-time payment policy we have on the agenda next week?
>> yes, sir.
>> where is the best place to check this if our goal is to have 10,184.
>> appropriate it out of now allocated reserve. Appropriated today, you can appropriate it next week or you can appropriate it in a month. You can appropriate it whenever you want to because all of the -- there is no more money left. It's in an aloe -- unallocated reserve. If you tell us reduce that by 10,000, put it in i.t.s. They will have those additional resources in '04.
>> why don't we do it next week after we look at the policy.
>> we can do that, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
>> what we are looking at for i.t.s. Employees is between now and the end of the year; is that it?
>> now and really January 31st.
>> okay.
>> so it could be the same situation that we are kind of working with on star flight in terms of making sure that something can happen, even if that might occur in technically fiscal year '04.
>> that's correct.
>> the only difference is star flight the appropriation has been made. In this case the appropriations still must be made. It can be made today, it can be made next Tuesday or it can be made sometime in October.
>> it's definitely falling to ending fund balance, correct.
>> yes. The money is there, it's your choice --
>> if we don't come up with a specific purpose for it, it gets swept up into what, allocated reserve goes because --
>> it is in the allocated reserve,, you just decided that. [multiple voices]
>> not appropriated yet for '04.
>> it's got a fence but a gate. [laughter]
>> we've had the request for at least a couple of months. [laughter]
>> I think we need to get a list of markup issues prepared by 12 noon Friday, circulated to the court. Two issues that we just know about, this one and sheriff's issues, if there are others I think that we would have to get a few days notice in preparation for next Tuesday. Anything else on item no. 24?
>> let me mention one. This is just a clarification. The action that the court took for the $500,000 challenge grant, I understand about 167 of that thousand is car-related capital. Your car reserve in the preliminary budget was $282,668. And oh, right now. So with the 166, then we had another 26. We have about $200,000 worth of earmarks against the $282,000 car reserve. So that's -- that's just point of information. There's not a whole lot of flexibility there.
>> he think we ought to have more in the car reserve?
>> in past years we have used more. The court could move some of the allocated reserve next week to --
>> okay. Why don't we on an item like this, why don't we just add those to the little list of markup and other issues, get those to us by -- because it makes sense to me, get them to us by 12 noon, Friday. And the -- any other similar issues to put on that list, circulate to the court, that way we know people can get access to them.
>> just a quick question. How much is in the '05 capital reserve?
>> 561,000.
>> because that's another possibility or not jessica is --
>> it's 561,000 was the starting point. That was from the scrubs process. We have also today as of the corrections list added another 200,000 plus, I'm not sure of the exact number off the top of my head. That is related to the east metro park capital. What we did was we took it out of the departmental reserve in carr putting a portion of that related to the east metro park capital into the fiscal year '05 reserve, around 200,000, thereabouts.
>> on top of the 561. [multiple voices]
>> my thought was it doesn't necessarily have to be just an earmark against the c.a.r., It could also be against the '05 capital as well. They are both one-time money. That's what we want to make sure that it stays pure. An earmark against --
>> it may be appropriate to have the earmark against car knowing that you have the back stop of the fy '05.
>> in my father's world there are many pockets. Just a little thought for the day.
>> markup will be back on next week.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:52 AM