Travis County Commssioners Court
September 30, 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 4
Number 4, consider and take appropriate action on request to amend f.y. '04 budget. We do have the county sheriff here, last time we talked about a couple of issues in the sheriff's office, issued that totalled $128,000. I did receive a visit from representatives from the sheriff's offices and I'm sure the sheriff came here to talk about those three, right? Let's jump right on to it, should we do what?
>> jump right into it.
>> jump right in.
>> for the record...
>> about the need? 911 dispatcher, is it green lines or green circles?
>> green circle I think is the...
>> green circle.
>> ... Is the term that we've chosen.
>> okay. The 911 dispatchers I think are of the -- all of them have a compelling basis to them, but the 911 dispatchers are probably one of the most compelling issues. We're about to enter into the -- move into the new combined communications center, and one of the issues that we have always talked about is the fact that we need to make sure, I don't want to be in competition with the city of Austin, but I need to be competitive with the city of Austin in what we pay our 911 call takers and dispatchers. And human resources has done a market study that reflects that we are somewhat behind the city of Austin, and that is an important issue when they're in downtown Austin and ours are sitting on johnny morris road, it becomes a critical issue when they're sitting literally feet from each other, and so it's dealing with the issue of making sure that we can continue, although in this market I know that unemployment is up and we haven't seen as much turn over, but quite frankly this is an area where it's a very petive market so I think we need to figure out a way to properly compensate our communications workers and 911 folks. Similar sort of issue, although not near as much money involved, has to do with our crime scene technicians trying to continue to make sure that they -- that we are competitive with what is paid in the area for crime scene technicians. The green circle employees is an issue that I know many elected officials have -- and appointed officials -- have faced for the idea being that there's been market surveys done and what we find is that we have employees that are not being paid according to what the market survey would show, and in fact they're not even up to the minimum and so the green circumstanceal issues at least get people to the minimum of that level as opposed to just saying to somebody, here is good news, you're not being paid appropriately but the bad news is there's no money to pay you. So all of those three total together basically to bring everybody up to the green circle level, doesn't deal with the issue of bringing folks -- some folks still under this situation would not see a true raise is right around $130,000.
>> have you seen christian's memo dated September 26th? He's got numbers in item number 4.
>> he's showed me -- he's pointing to the numbers right now. I don't have any reason to disagree with the numbers.
>> on the dispatcher is it true that we really need to take this action in order to retain the ones that we have trained and I guess to stop a strain from Travis County to another area entities that may pay a little bit more right now?
>> that's true. I mean it is a situation of where we train folks and then they are recruited elsewhere, and it is -- becomes even more crucial quite frankly when we at least used to have some different systems and they used to have to train them somewhat, now everybody will be on the same system, so these are very high quality folks who literally could unplug their headset from one cubicle and walk across and plug it into another cubicle and be able to go to work and continue the same job at a higher rate of pay.
>> let me run this by you and i'll be done with this item.
>> all right.
>> it seems to me that based on the conversation I had with mr. Hembe -- mr. Hembe or captain h mevment mbe.
>> he's just mr. Hembe. They call him admiral some days but...
>> this action needs to be taken now. I had in mind the deal that we cut. What about this idea? I know that, you know, how the budget evolves over the next 12 months to a great extend is within your control, to a great extent not within your... What I would like is a commitment that you will try to generate this much in savings, if you can. That we would budget the money today if you can generate that much, you'll try to, and I realize you've got the other law enforcement officers challenge. If you do, it simile rolls into the year-ending balance, if you don't, then I would like to know that a good effort was made.
>> well, judge, i'll make a commitment to you today, and i'll make this commitment to you each and every day, is that we're going to manage our budget as absolutely frugally as we can. We need to address this issue now. And it would be certainly helpful and then I -- my understanding from the other votes of the court, what I would say is we address this issue and then the first $500,000 in savings that we can have to go toward law enforcement staffing, I understand the court has not -- i'll get christian give me the technical term as to what the...
>> an ear mark challenge grant.
>> something new.
>> okay. That's a new entity.
>> it's a new creation of ours which is generated...
>> right, but I don't know how it's reflected in the budget, if it's an ear marked unallocated reserve.
>> no, a separate reserve.
>> all right.
>> held by the court.
>> all right.
>> one of my questions for the judge will be how do you wish to handle -- or how the court wishes to handle with the sheriff the enter play between a commitment to save money on the $129,000 and a desire to save money for the law enforcement goal.
>> and that is my question. I mean if -- if the idea is is that the court is going to allow me these funds and then the first half million that I come up with that the idea the court has come up to match that money with the challenge grant with the idea that first essentially half a million in our budget and half a million in the reserve goes to law enforcement staffing, and then at that point we deal with an entity or we deal with this amount. I just want to make sure this is not back into crossing this off...
>> this could be secondary. On the first part though, you generate the match. On the second part you try to generate. To the extent that pbo can capture that, let us know. If you can do it, you can't do it, we accept that as being part of life. But I would like to think that you're trying to do that. I know you always do. This time, though, we have a specific target there.
>> got ya'.
>> is it not correct that we did an ear mark that is totally over used, but did we not ear mark against the allocated...
>> I'm corrected. Depending on $2 million allocated reserve. Within that are ear marks which are the identification of the possibility of a transfer later on, and that earmarket totals $500,000 for this purpose which is to match one for one any savings. But am I right, the first savings would go toward this purpose of dispatchers, crime scene folks, and green circle.
>> no, just the opposite.
>> a half million dollars for law enforcement.
>> is first.
>> would be number one.
>> okay.
>> my understanding. Commissioner Sonleitner moved approval of this last week.
>> second.
>> I would move approval -- it's listed on christian's sheet so that people can keep track on this attachment b, that this would be motion 4, 5 and 6 and to incorporate the judge's excellent comments that this is -- she tries her best to find internal savings to cover what we are directly appropriating out of the allocated reserve and that that happened after any efforts toward the $500,000 challenge grant.
>> the total of those motions 129,417.
>> thank you.
>> that total again, christian?
>> 129,417 is the total of 56,825, 24, 29 and 70,163.
>> let me ask you one question with the tele-communications system item. Number 4. Is -- does that have any relationship to the -- to the central transportation combined and registered -- does that have any relationship? And the reason why I'm asking is it appears that the communication transportation emergency communication center is looking at these employees currently and they're going live, from what I understand, production, does that have an impact on what they're doing out there currently under live production as far as using these -- wouldn't they be in the role of that I guess is the course...
>> the very people who will go to work in that combined communication center.
>> okay. Then my question, we have an time 43 that is related to that.
>> that has to do with security at the communication center. We have 911 dispatchers. -- we have a contract with the combined communication center to provide the security there.
>> okay. Well, my question is would that be in a relationship with -- because all of them asked when that item come up on 43, will that thr be any relationship what they're doing right now as far as testing live on a production type live setting in the persons that we're talking about will be used in that test analysis?
>> some of those people are involved right now in the different things that we are doing to make sure that the system is ready to flip the switch. What we're trying to do in that area is make sure that all of the bugs and the kinks are worked out before we turn off the switch at johnny morris and turn it on at the combined communications center, and some of these very people we're talking about are involved in that process right now. All of them are involved as far as being trained to go to work in that new setting and all of these people will be at the combined communications center once it opens up.
>> okay. Well, it is a relationship. That's what I wanted to establish publicly.
>> the 911 dispatchers will go to work physically at the communications center.
>> and a part of the production effort is going on right no.
>> thanks.
>> certainly.
>> councilmember garcia has seconded the motion. Commissioner Daugherty?
>> yes, I just had one clarification that I do want to see more law enforcement presence in southeast Travis County. I mean, I remember your explanation of people not really calling in, the call volume was p there, but i've thought more and more about i, but people are entitled to feel safe,.
>> I agree.
>> whether they call or not, and if they don't feel safe they will start calling me, and I always refer them to you but for some reason they still call me, I guess one good thing about is is i'll know about your issue and how they feel about it, but I really want more presence there.
>> Commissioner, I definitely agree with you. I mean one of the problems that we have gotten to in the sheriff's office, when you're responding, you only have enough staff to respond to calls that you're in the reactive phase of law enforcement, you don't get to do the proactive phase, and the proactive phase is just what you're talking about, the presence of officers in the community, so yes, ma'am, we need to increase our proactive presence not only in eastern Travis County but quite frankly everywhere, because right now all these men and women -- I say all they're doing. We need to comment them for what they're doing. What they're doing right now is they're hopping from call to call to call, with the 500,000, the additional money, will enable us to be able to actually get back into at least some proactive law enforcement.
>> okay. I'll touch base with you on the issue and see how it's going along.
>> certainly.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> what is difference between the city of Austin's pay and the Travis County pay on this 911 stuff?
>> it's around 10%.
>> so 10% of 24,000, 10% of 38,000? What's -- 10% of what?
>> they make -- most the dispatchers make in the high 20 20's, low 30's.
>> so 3 grand?
>> yes, sir.
>> y'all, I think that we are setting a bad precedent for -- if we're going to respond every time somebody says we're going to leave, we're going to go somewhere else, I think that we better get used to saying, well, thank you for your services. I do know that there are technical jobs that these people are doing. We're fixing -- we're about to build ourselves into a corner with this thing that we're going to absolutely get taken to the cleaners. If we know we have an issue with grown circle folks, now, this process has gone on a lot longer than i've been here, but I do understand a lot more than I did a year ago, and I think we're a little bit of the same boat with that, but before we're going to have a gun put to our head and say if you don't give us this, we're going to leave, I mean at some point in time we've got to stand up and say, if that's what you're going to do, then go ahead and leave, and make sure that we've got somebody in training that can at least step in, are they going to be as qualified, are they going to be as good, probably not right then and there, but we -- I mean I have watched the process that we have gone through with taking care of employees. You know what? I mean I realize that some people want to make more than 24, 26, 28, whatever, thousands of dollars they're making, but the market, if that's what the market is, then we are going to have to draw the line and say this is what we are going to -- this is how we have to deal with this. Either that or we have less employees in the county so that you can give everybody their green circle and all the circles that you have here. I mean I -- I really didn't understand it ten months ago about what green circle and all this is, we know that the largest in the general fund line item is our employee base and we also know that we have got to continue to try to put more officers on the street, give the people that we know we have to employ the kind of salaries that they need, and this is -- this is very disturbing to me. I mean we've basically come in and asked you, sheriff, to cut your budget, and we're going to pretty soon creep back up, I mean, but, with 500,000s of dollars that is ear marked for this, and I'm not opposed to that if it's going to put officers on the street, because every one of us know that we need to do that, but I think that we're dealing with something very dangerous here, and I'm not supportive of getting put in a spot like that where we have got to react like that or we lose somebody.
>> Commissioner, I appreciate your concern, but this is a very small niche group of folks, highly technical. I spent rather recently an evening with the 911 folks over at johnny morris road and was absolutely stunned and amazed and awed by what they did in terms of balancing 911 calls of is so many things happening simultaneously and trying to listen into radios, and I used to have a pretty good tuned in ear in terms of picking up stuff on the scanners, I was just amazed. And these folks, it's not like, with all due respect to a clerk and accountant, you can kind of pick up and move over to another desk and another assignment and with a very small amount of retraining start to work immediately. But this is so different in terms of these 911 operators. It's just a specialized work and they're not doing it just because of the money. They have a deep commitment to public service. And on the csi folks, you couldn't pay me enough money to do that, and that is a very small amount and it takes a certain amount of training before they're even allowed to go into court to testify. I share your concerns about getting into a bidding war, but now that they're all going to be at the combined communication center and I appreciate linda Moore smith and the very rapid work they did over at hr to basically show we've got an issue here and this is not a bidding war, this is just getting us up to the minimum in terms of where folks are two desks a way for a highly technical job. Stark is dealing already with two folks that are literally gone to work two desks over. I appreciate your concern, but I don't see this in the same category as other types of jobs where we don't match, well, have a nice day, and I hope you have a good life over at the city of Austin.
>> well, Commissioner, does that mean -- so does that person just want to sit over that seat? If you don't think the's not the $3,000, why do you just -- I mean are you closer to somebody -- it's a deal where it's the money to me. I guess one of those people can come into me and say it's not the $3,000, but it sure looks like to this Commissioner that the reason I want to go over there is because I'm going to get 3,000 more dollars.
>> well, I'm going to say this and I'm going to conclude with my stuff on it, but that -- as I stated earlier, I asked the sheriff a question about the relationship between the 911 tele-communications employees, the relationship they had with the combined transportation emergency communication center, new name, now, anyway, I guess that's the acronym for it.
>> that's the acronym for the week.
>> and of course I stated earlier how this unique communications center, common to this area, very unique, is something we've been working on for a long long time as far as funding, investments that we've made, to ensure we bring a better service to the folks here in Travis County as far as the emergency services are concerned, the txdot folks being located along with Travis County, along with the city of Austin, capital metro aid having some interesting int in this thing, it's to ensure that we orchestrate and do the proper thing to provide a better service for the emergency situations here in Travis County, which I think is a plus. It's a model. I'm sure other folks are looking at us to see how we do. And I really feel that these folks, I asked the clerks about are they involved if they go through the process and testing and going live, which is very important, you got to get the kinks out of this when going live, and that's what they're doing now.
>> yes, sir.
>> so it's just not run of the mill situation, we're talking about a state-of-the-art type of service that we'll be bringing to this community this I think need the kind of personnel, the type of training personnel, the skilled personnel to operate in a setting like this and that is a very high profile technical setting. I'm not knocking anybody's opinion. The only thing I'm saying is that I think we need to put the right folks in the right place and pay them the right amount of money to ensure them they get the right service for this emergency for the entire area. That's why I have no problem supporting it. Now, of course, as they go through this process, rest ash insured, they're going to -- assured they're going to find problems with it and they're going to make those corrections. We need the kind of personnel there to do that. I have no problem with this. I'm looking at christian's memo dated September 26th, 2003. Where we have three distinct items that total 129,417, your motion also included the ear mark...
>> I'm happy to also throw in there, yes, the ear mark related to the corrections study.
>> yeah, we had to basically approve that. This is making the money available. That's what I'm taking.
>> it's rolling over the ear mark. We had an ear mark in this budget. It will get wiped away unless we reear mark.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? (one moment, please, for change in captioners...) .
>> that passes by unanimous vote. They all look pred straightforward to me. The only thing that's left is -- move approval of 1 and 6.
>> second.
>> any reason we should not do these come to mind?
>> no.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, should I just get clarification? I'm not going to bring anything else up because you asked to us air everything out, it's just a question. It had to do with certain things that were in our list of vehicles, et cetera, to purchase. I'm not bringing that up because it's my understanding those things will come back to the court when we actually purchase those various and sundry vehicles. Is that a correct assessment? Because, for example, the fire marshal had asked about getting a slightly different version of a vehicle [inaudible] stuff in it. I'll just leave that at that. I'm wondering if that was the appropriate time, and I thought it was, when they actually purchase the vehicles.
>> the money is still controlled by the Commissioners court. Once we have purchased the vehicle and allocated it to a department, it belongs to that department.
>> the vehicle money is currently in car would be transferred when the budget gets loaded, upon adoption, to t.n.r. For the acquisition of the vehicles that have been identified.
>> by fleet management.
>> which is controlled by the Commissioners court.
>> which is -- exactly. Under the management responsibility of the court. Then what happens is once the vehicles are acquired through the purchasing process, and that must go through the court, then the vehicles are assigned to the -- one of the departments.
>> but Commissioner Sonleitner is correct.
>> yes. Yes, if you wish to modify -- if you wish to make modifications to the vehicle specs, you can do so later on.
>> [inaudible] before we send it out to bid. [inaudible].
>> I guess --
>> but it's not something that we need to set in stone, and that's why I didn't put out a list of stuff we need to get settled today. My concern had to do with strictly the -- [no microphone on]
>> there may be a deduct we could take off of radars and light bars that will pay for up the grade on the --
>> judge, I guess before we conclude on item 4, I would like to, I guess, invite the sheriff to work with me as much as possible to see what we can do to address some of the concern of the correction officers. Some things have been brought to my attention. I want to make sure within this next coming fiscal year. Since this is the end of '03 today, '04 will begin tomorrow, I would like to work with you to address some of the concerns of the correctional officers that's been brought to my attention if possible for next year. Thank you.
>> anything else on item 4? Item number 5. Yes, sir.
>> I need a clarification. Your vote on 6 on christian's memo would include motions on attachment c 7, 8 and 9. That's just a clarification.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> it all ties back.
>> all right.
Last Modified: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:52 PM