Travis County Commssioners Court
December 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 21
[One moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> ... Such awards must go made within the existing budget as confirmed by planning and budget office. There have been a few temporary pay increases, but those were executed in accordance with the decisions the court made during the f.y. '04 budget process. Certainly after this policy, staff looked at the various ways in which one can establish a set of controls on does the department have a budget. And we realized that reasonable people could land on multiple squares. So what we did do, though, was provide a set of six basic criteria and identified where one might land on the most control and the least control from a budget standpoint. On whether or not the budget was available within the department. Something as simple as the total personnel and bun tpets budget, which -- budgets, which would include salary savings. My immediate reaction was, gosh, don't spend it until you have it. And then we all recognized, though, that there is a reasonable position that says, well, you can predict you are going to have it, you can predict you are going to have savings available in your personnel budget and that perhaps that is a reasonable place to land where departments, if they wish to award a lump sum or it's been called bonus, temporary pay increase, it's all the same basic element. That you say, well, show us a plan that you can commit to in writing that allows it to be shown that this savings will be available by the end of the year. And then another approach would be not to provide such a written strategy. Or not to require positions to be held open. What we did was say, well, you have this accordian from the least control to the most control, and as we began to discuss this, we realized there were a lot of other variables, whether a department has ear mark on reserve, for example. When a department might request to move operating savings into their budget. We get that kind of request. So we thought it would be useful to at least say to the court this is what the planning and budget office would do, given all of the variables and all of the pressures that exist, to consider requests as routine. Recognizing that there are always going to be circumstances where someone wants to do something or not necessarily within that routine characteristic in much case it would go to court and the court votes it up or down as a more specific item. But we are looking specifically for guidance on those circumstances where we could say to you this is a routine matter from a budget standpoint. And if you would like, I can walk you through the approach that we're suggesting, recognizing that you all may differ and that's fine. We can literally live with any approach you want. Because there is no right answer to this.
>> is there any that you recommend?
>> yes, and those approaches are articulated in your legal sheet and I can walk you through them.
>> are they the ones in the middle?
>> not necessarily the middle. They are bolded. And I can briefly walk you through each one. There's six of them. With respect to the status of a department's total personnel and benefits budget which would include the salary budget, we would say it's routine if we have a prorata projection that we will have savings that will exceed the salary budget and if the department exits to written strategy that would be submitted to the court on how to meet its total personnel budget. And that may include holding open existing vacant positions -fplgt that's probably going to be the most traditional way to create savings above and beyond the salary savings target, which is holding vacant positions open longer than you otherwise would do. So that -- and a department has that written plan and it's credible, which we would assume it would be, and it's a prorated projection, we would say that's a routine and we would report to the court this is a routine matter.
>> can I stop at this point? This would be the only section where I would ask that question because basically in our budgets it's stuff above the line as opposed to below the line, personnel versus operating. Is there information that we need to get about whether there may be different rules related to departments that report to the court versus an independent elect official's salary -- excuse me, independent elected official's budget so long as it's in accordance with what the normal budget rules about what we can and can't transfer between. I suspect that the only one where that is a pure kind of a question.
>> if your budget rules say --
>> turn on your mike.
>> thank you. If your budget rules say that you cannot transfer between operating and personnel budgets and they said that when you adopted the budget in September, then that is the conditions on which the money was provided and a transfer from operating to personnel would be inconsistent with the adopted budget.
>> right.
>> and the elected official wouldn't be in a position to do that and still comply with the -- their budget.
>> that's why I'm asking tkpor this line item here where it's talking about movement within your personnel line items only, where you are not crossing the line, where we understand fully you can't cross the line without the permission of the court.
>> if your budget rules had said, which I understand they do not at this time, something about crossing those lines, then the same restriction would apply. You can't mid-year say we're going to create a new budget rule that you all are going to have to comply with this year, but if you want to restrict that in the next budget year, you can amend your budget rules the next time around to accommodate that kind of restriction. At this point they would be able to -- if there's nothing in the budget rules that says they can't transfer between items within personnel categories, then they would be able to do that kind of transfer.
>> help me out.
>> budgeted rule number 1, thou shalt not overspend your budget. So you say you want to have a temporary lump sum and have I the budget and the planning and budget office says no, you don't, yes, I do, no, you don't. There is a circumstance where you -- I think the question that is being posed is does the elected -- even if there is a prediction that the department will overspend their budget, may they still issue a lump sum because they have the authority within the current set of budget rules. There is a circumstance that is -- it would be unusual, but conceivable.
>> and I guess where I'm trying to get to, kris kwra b kwrapb, there are a lot of elected officials that indeed have salary savings atpafpd to their budgets. And I can understand where that's an incredible question of gee, do they have enough money. But there are other elected officials and I'm going to use my office as an example. I'm not even going to be utility liesing this policy so it's irrelevant not to have any dollars. Let's say if I have salary savings and there is a vacancy that occurs for any length of time, then it's a like it is absolutely guaranteed there will be personnel dollars left on the table, would that hypothetical elected official have the ability to do lump sum or whatever without going through -- I won't say without going through p.b.o., But it basically becomes a p.a.f. Form.
>> the p.a.f. Will be submitted. H.r. Are call planning and budget and say is there money available. It would be a routine matter because under that hypothetical the money is there.
>> got it.
>> assuming the dollars relate to the vacancy. I mean so now I mean I can create a hypothetical where the dollars are so large and the vacancy, it wouldn't match, but that's where judgment comes in. You know, I'm assuming this is not going to be a legal issue. It is just -- especially since the working relationship with elected officials is, you know, does not get into you don't have the authority to do this. At least -- in our circumstance.
>> and we understand we hope it turns that would, but we talked about the hypothetical, are there ways they could bypass all that cooperation to be able to do what they want.
>> and my sense is that what we're looking at is what is routine. And if something is not routine, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it's not routine. In which case we would say god bless you, go see the court on a Tuesday.
>> but the question is where you could demonstrate the ability to meet and exceed your salary savings. And the question is should you be able to spend the money above budgeted [indiscernible].
>> yes on, a predicted basis as opposed to an actual. If you say you can't spend it until you have it, you would wait until the fourth quarter. If you say no, it's okay to spend it if you have a reasonable projection and a commitment that you'll end up making those savings, then -- and that's what we're suggesting is that the second one is the ability to transfer savings and operating expenses to the personnel budget t budget rules clearly put a fence around personnel. We would recommend maintaining that fence. And that it is not routine. If somebody wants to move operating savings to personnel, and as a matter of fact, our recommendation would be that's a very dangerous county-wide practice.
>> okay.
>> third is a little trickier. That's the status of the total departmental budget relative to reserves. Us a know, we have earmarks on allocated reserves. We also have some special reserves that are set up. And in both cases in essence during the budget process a department said, you know, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to live within my budget. I'm going to do my best, but there are circumstances beyond my control. And everyone recognize, yes, we recognize that. So we will have set up an earmark on allocated reserve or a special reserve. Now, and on each of those earmarks where reserves have different degrees of likelihood of being used, our knowledge of when they are going to be used is greater at the end of the year than at the beginning of the year.
>> put the reserves in place for a particular reason.
>> that's correct, they each have a logical programmatic reason.
>> [indiscernible] is not one of them.
>> I understand, but let me give you the hypothetical. That department with the reserve or that department with an ear mark, which might be 100,000 or $200,000 said I would like to provide a lump sum, have I the savings and let's say there are no debates that is correct department really is going to are personnel savings well above their budgeted salary savings. But they also have an earmark because in another set of circumstances they may have a deficit. Do you say that's routine or do you say, well, wait a second --
>> I say bring it to the court. Persuade us that it may well that we agree.
>> the fourth one is similar to the third one. It's the status of the total departmental budget relative to historical experience. We have had departments which have had budget deficits which are this transfers from reserves, fluctuations in difficult to control expenditures. What do you do in those circumstances and what we're suggesting is, again, a written strategy. Under those circumstances, yeah, I had a deficit for the last three years, but i've got it under control and here's how. That would be routine.
>> the rationale for allowing any earmarked fees aou don't need any more.
>> hu (.
>> you don't need it anymore. That's the rationale for lifting an earmark. I have my --.
>> but the department did not --
>> but the court did it in response to the department.
>> maybe so, maybe not.
>> in some cases, departments ask for something. I need more money for purpose x.
>> when we were asked to consider this policy, the departments that wanted it indicated the ability to identify funds in their budge total fund it.
>> yes.
>> what source of funding did they identify when we put the policy in place? Why wouldn't we make the department stick to that?
>> and that is their personnel budget.
>> huh?
>> that is their personnel budget.
>> the bold 1 and the bold 2 because that's what I recall. These are the departments basically that have gone out and pretty much in a routine manner generated savings above what we sort of expected them to do. See what I'm saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> so in terms of what's routine, I would say 1 and 2, and the rest bring to the court. I can be as flexible as the circumstances require. Before we act on this, let me ask one question. What are the departments asking to do light rou?
>> no ones -- right now.
>> no one has asked to do anything except for the ones approved during the budget process. We're anticipating that the departments are going to be submitting requests to us. And so when we get those requests, we want to be ready and act in a way that's consistent with the desire of the court.
>> my motion is that we approve the top one and the middle as one. And the one to the left under most control in 2, and that the other ones be brought to the Commissioners court. Now, I understand if we do this, based on what you are asking, we are telling p.b.o. If they fall within one of these, just treat them as routine and do it. Right? But let us know. Kind of after the fact.
>> right.
>> but if they are not one of these, they are a little out of the ordinary, so the department would just come to us.
>> that's fine.
>> and we're reasonable.
>> I know.
>> I think we ought to put that in place 90 days and see what happens. It may be the first two or three come to us are in other categories make so much sense we a d to it the routine list.
>> I guess what I'm hearing, judge and I'm cool with what you are saying, it seems like 3, 4, 5 and 6 are ones that it may be that they fall nicely and neatly into one or two, but they've got special circumstances, so they really do become seg to get kicked over here to the court. So you may have something that appears on the surface to be routine, but they got reserves so it kicks it into the bring to it the court category. But if you've got a pure there's no reserve issues, no bad deficit, no bad behavior in the past, all that kind of stuff, it becomes routine and we put the gigantic sense on below the line which is in accordance with you can't cross the operating to personnel.
>> you have personnel amendments and budget amendments and transfers. We can put these under either one because us a know you have routine budget items and routine personnel items. Would you prefer this to be under your budget amendments and transfers as routine or would you rather it to have under your personnel amendments?
>> I would say under personnel amendments with a note about source of funding.
>> and what we can do is we can say p.b.o. Shows as routine.
>> any objection to my recommendation?
>> [inaudible].
>> we're looking at the top one in the middle and the second one to the left.
>> yes, sir. On the second one, I think that's already a budget rule and one that everyone agreed to at the time that you passed on the temporary salary increase. That was discussed at length and I believe that the budget amendment was presented. I myself took it to the auditor of p.b.o. And touched base with several of you and passed it.
>> is it routine now?
>> we are not able to do that according to your budget rules.
>> this would authorize we do it. This would authorize p.b.o. To do it.
>> no.
>> you d't consider -- you don't consider it. The budget rule says you cannot transfer from operating to personnel.
>> we are reaffirming you can't identity.
>> is that true? All right. If that's true, that's true.
>> some of these others, I think we're just kinds ever confusing issues.
>> the second one to the left we took it off the table.
>> on the routine p.b.o. Prorata show personnel savings that exceed salary savings and that is is per year, per quarter, one that is correct is not clear. Secondly, what --
>> do you want us to claire prorata, we would identity on a monthly basis.
>> on a monthly basis.
>> yeah.
>> and given that, then it would be, I think, difficult for us to be able to do anything really till the latter part of the year is what you are intending.
>> no. This indicates that we would, you know, if you are one month to say a half year into the fiscal year, you would take half your salary savings, see that you are making half the budgeted salary savings and then show a written plan says I'm going to keep so many positions open or whatever and project what your savings would be and the difference would be your projected surplus and that's what you would do.
>> and we would hold the executive manager budget control point as the responsible, not the departmental level so, that if, for example, department a or division a has a problem, but department b or division b does not, it's the executive manager who's got the authority to move some things around so that if you I don't ever all are meeting your salary savings target and are going to be able to show savings, and let's say it happens to be indepth a and you want to use it in department b, that's fine. All we're looking for on a prorata basis is that the department says it happens to be February, but I can show you as executive manager of this group that I'm going have, I'm going to manage my resources in such a way toss to create this kind of savings and here's how I'm going to do it and it's very clear. With that it becomes routine. If it is not clear or if it is not --
>> if p.b.o. Grease -- isagrees.
>> then you come to court.
>> here's where I have a problem. Since i've been here, we've come here and the department [indiscernible] budget cycle and we're looking at a lot of things. There are departments that do come in and request for us to look at funding or look at probably getting additional funds and things like that where it comes from allocated reserves or other sources, there appears to be shortfalls during the course of the year. And of course if we're going to look at projections and all these other kinds of things, I would rather look at more actual things than some of these projections. I think it needs to be a combination of both. The historical things, there are a whole lot of things we've done in the past because sure enough as I'm sitting in this chair, come the next budget cycle, somebody is going to come up in the department and say I'm short. It happens every year. So I'm trying to make sure that whatever we're doing here that is correct doesn't enhance -- whatever we're doing here that doesn't enhance this particular situation we have to deal with every year. And the departments have short comings and I don't want to revisit that as much as possible, and if this is part of that process. And of course it's going to be hard for me to deal with that. As it is every budget cycle when departments come up and say we're short. You know, this came up and this came up. And the bottom line in all of this is it's going to interfere with delivery of services. That's what we're here for is to deliver services to this community. So I have some real concerns on that. Nothing probably we can't do here, but I just want to make sure the departments understand that during the course of this year before the budget cycle starts again, make sure what you project and put in writing you can also take care of your shortfalls. So that's kind of my concern. Hopefully everybody will understand that.
>> the other issue from -- and joe has one that I think is pertinent, is to define and -- the difference between permanent salary savings and temporary salary savings. I've got two pieces of information, both from p.b.o., On one shows my department ended up with about $81,000 in salary savings balance for f.y. '03. Another one it shows 17,601, both pr- p.b.o. So I would like to get some clarity, and we don't have to do it right now, I think we can do it off line, as to what they see as a target, what all is included in personnel line items and what they see as a target for salary savings. And some of my departments of course it will be much more difficult to reach that target than in others. For example, i.t. I've just not had that sort of turn tphoefr at all. In fact, they did not meet their salary savings in f.y. '03, but some of the other departments were able to to make up for all of my administrative operations. But I think we need to clarify what is being counted as salary savings. And then when you adopted the policy, I skwreu it was just in fern nell budget -- personnel budget, if the court wishes to establish the salary savings as a bench mark or threshold to have all the departments to meet, what happens to those departments that do not meet salary savings or is there any downfall to not meeting salary savings other than you won't be able to take any personnel actions. Then there's some departments that have that salary savings and some that don't.
>> what's happened the last ten years?
>> nothing.
>> [indiscernible] I thought what we were trying to do was for the manage thaers really felt they had deserving individuals who had merely generated savings above and bee beyond the budget salary savings, we are trying to figure out a way to grant those managers the authority to take care of those employees. Now, I really thought this would be the exception. My thinking was not that this would be another way for managers to get paid. I mean I think our time would be better spent trying to get insurance under control so we can get a percentage for performance pay so all employees would be picked up next year. Now, we don't have to have these [indiscernible] we can just say everybody come to the court when you think you've got one. Beginning six months from October 1 would be January -- would be after March. I thought this was going to be a whole lot simpler than it's turning out to be. The top one there is, in my view, the classic no brainer entitlement to use your dollars. Above what we budgeted. And I say p.b.o. Ought to get with the manager. Reach agreement out, boom, get it done. Give us ex post factor notification. You degree between the twof you, come -- you disagree, come to the Commissioners court. If the outcome is right, my guess is phoefs us would come to court that day with our minds pretty much made up. So it would be faster I think than some of the items that we have sometimes.
>> linda smith, human resources. Just based on the way this is worded and the way the court is proposing to act on it, we're looking now at the wording that says that a written strategy would be submitted to the court. And this would be a routine action. Now as those requests come into h.r. They are submitted to the automated p.a.f. System, come into h.r. And we confirm the availability of funds. The question is more of a procedural processing funds, but those requests now go to p.b.o. Before they come to h.r. With the p.a.f. Associated with it, although it would still be a routine.
>> if the department wants to expedite something, they should send it to us first. However, fit goes through your system first, you call p.b.o. And say are funds available. We then say we don't know. We need a written strategy. Or we might say absolutely slam dunk we know this. So if we need a written strategy, we get one. If the department says they can't provide one, then we say it's not routine. That's how I see it.
>> and that's a clarification that I was requesting, that those departments would come directly to you first with that strategy. [multiple voices] we would send it either way. Now as it is, as a routine --
>> I think to make it easier on linda's shop, on these requests it ought to start and if christian can get his thing we need a written strategy or we don't, then it's going to make linda's shop life -- start at p.b.o. As opposed to the other way around.
>> that's fine. Do you want this under -- it starts with us, it ends with you, right? Because you've got to look at it from a competition standpoint.
>> we can't act on it unless funds are available. That's why it's important that it starts with you.
>> it sounds like we're going have a new section on our personnel amendments the same way -- [multiple voices]
>> and it's easy enough to do because we go back and forth.
>> and a strategy can be run line or two paragraphs. -- one line or two paragraphs. If you say I got a vacancy, I'm going to leave it open x. Number of weeks and generate x. Number of weeks.
>> it could get trickier than that because the department might also have a history of hiring at mid-point. So that department -- the department needs to also do is talk about its other hires that will occur during the year. That's are relatively straightforward. That's part of the strategy.
>> the reason the prorata is so important.
>> exactly.
>> okay.
>> any more --
>> I have a particular issue about the definition of what the salary savings is in the current budget.
>> okay. Give me four and i'll pass them on down for you.
>> the temporary salary adjustment that we wanted to make in i.t., We were planning on using the merit dollars that were approved in f.y. '02 that we did not spend all of. As it rolls into the salary budget, it looks like it's all part of the salary budget. And currently we're not meeting our salary budget target. But to me these were dollars that the court approved in '02 to be used as merit dollars. We didn't spend it all in '02 knowing that '03 was going to be a tough year and I got some major projects underway, I wanted to have some money to do something for some people in '03. So we didn't spend all the money in '02. Now, I think it's a little unfair for us now to have to turn all that in to meet our salary target. Our salary savings target. As opposed to being able to use these this year.
>> [inaudible] due bring this issue up?
>> I didn't know it was going to be an issue.
>> well, we did, sir, under the temporary salary increase. All that was lumped in that particular issue. When we brought that policy to the court, p.b.o. Had not brought all these issues up at the same time. Some of us worked very hard overtime to make sure to get that policy to you, and it was not discussed at that time, but those issues, those particular personnel amendments that joe is talking about were the impetus for bringing about the policy change.
>> approves this money right now. [multiple voices]
>> '03 is behind us. We now have a '04 budget.
>> i've been trying to get this done during '03.
>> there's a '04 budget and there are four departments that have general funds. One of them is yours. Each one has a budget. And there's about $13 million worth of person mel. There's a couple hundred thousand dollars of salary savings. The performance based pay was allocated to the executive manager and it's the executive manager's responsibility to divvy it out as they see fit. The executive manager has the ability to move money between departments. And I recognize that i.t.s. Four years ago had an enormous amount of vacancies, five years ago. Today it has very few. And obviously there's an attempt to try and match true salary savings with actual reality. We may be out of sync with i.t.s. We're not with other departments. So what I would suggest, I'm not sure the whole notion of '02 money that is currently unspent because that was two fiscal years ago. But when it comes to '04, I would want to work with alicia to be able to say, okay, if i.t. Has a lump sum need or a lump sum or a bonus payment, but in the budget from a streublgtly budget standpoint, i.t. Has not been meeting its salary savings, then you look at the executive manager as a whole, and I think it's fair to say that since you have eight vacancies already within administrator operations there may be more come, that overall you are going to be meeting your salary savings even though one department might not. That's where-that's one of the benefits of having the executive manager system. Because one department over here might have trouble and another department over here doesn't.
>> and perhaps it just is a matter of reconciliation, we can go back and do that because, like I said, i've got two documents, both from your office. One shows in '03 $81,000 salary savings, the other one shows 17,000.
>> and the different is compensated absences. One, it's a technical accounting matter about whether it includes compensated absences that are a part of the closing process. And you don't really -- no one is managing compensated absences. It's the cost of absences that are related to a liability that occurs. So that's the reason for the difference. Either way, though, you actually exceeded the amount of salary savings that you had throughout the year.
>> I exceeded it by 17,000, according to our books. Yours is 81. I like yours better, but we need to make sure we're all --
>> let me address where the money is. The way that works in the budget process, if you get a dollar amount approved as merit increases, that become part of your base. So whatever that number was if '02, that same amount of money is in '03 and '04. That's the dollar I'm talking about that was originally allocated. Tuned calculation we're going through now --
>> but have you that money. That money is in your budget.
>> correct.
>> and you have the -- [multiple voices]
>> even being operating.
>> it's in personnel. If the court recalls what happened in facilities management where they were told they could not roll over $45,000, later we came and asked for 16,000 of that for green circle employees, that was the same premise. Your target, if you didn't spend all your pay for performance and rolled over to the next year. And now it becomes part of your salary savings which it really was never part of your salaries.
>> I may regret asking this question and if I do I'm going to say forget it. Do most departments know that they have the ability to roll over [indiscernible] performance based pay?
>> it's rolled over in their budget target automatically. It's in their base budget --
>> here's where I'm going with this. The last time we had performance based pay was '02. I know when I awarded performance based pay in my office I didn't use it all. But I did not roll it over. It fell to ending fund balance and was wiped away from my budgeting target. It did not stay there. Irrelevant didn't use it so it didn't seem to me like I ault to keep something that I didn't need all of it.
>> those are not the budget rules that have been in place by the way we calculate budget targets. You take the prior year budget including any performance based pay that was ongoing, and you deduct any one-time expenses and cap actual expenditures and that's your starting base budget. So the f.y. '02 performance based pay that was not used, the 81,250 in i.t.s. Was included in alicia's consolidated base target for f.y. '03. And we can go back and we c show where those numbers tie out.
>> so joe has $81,250 and --
>> we did not deduct for -- we have never deducted for unapplied performance based pay. It goes into their salary base.
>> I think I can clarify this. I think. [multiple voices]
>> I'm so glad you got back in time for this item.
>> welcome back, Commissioners.
>> one of the confusions is that the salary savings is an arbitrary amount that the departments do not necessarily agree to nor are they directed they need to meet. So when someone says that to you, I'm looking at this handout here from I guess alicia, let's look at i.t.s. Or whoever did this.
>> the members of the court don't have that, and that was done --
>> well, let me just use this. What it says here is that for f.y. '04 in -- let's just use h.r. Because it's a smaller number. There is a salary savings budgeted for $26,000. In human resource management. But they don't go to the director and say do you think you are going to have those. What they tell them is it doesn't really matter. We put them in there to balance the budget. But if the director says but I don't have any vacancies and I don't think I'm going have any, they are told don't worry because you are not forced to meet that. Okay, that's one thing. So now when someone brings up an issue you've got to meet your salary savings, that will go up because they say had I known that, I would have perhaps said that's an unrealistic number or I don't think we're going to meet it or I can't operate my office that way. Set that aside. On the merit pay, the way that works is let's say that-hroets just use h.r. Again. Let's say that they get $10,000 for merit pay. That is ongoing. Every year they get 10,000. Let's say they use it all. Just moves forward. Second case, let's say they don't. They use eight, but they save two. In the year they save tworbgs that falls in the ending fund balance. But the next year they get 10 t. Eight they are paying out plus the two they did not use. So that two is ongoing. The two they didn't use is gone. For that year. So what has happened, and the reason I know this is we program that p.a.f. Application, in the past p.b.o. Has said if people make a hiring decision, ignore that salary savings, because we program that to stop it if it looks like the hiring did not let them meet salary savings and it's been no because you've got a whole year to work that oufplt I think what joe is now saying is you won't let me do anything now till I meet my salary savings, but you know what, I had money, merit money that's sitting there that before we started talking about lump sum, I could get out whenever because that money was given to me and I was not required to meet salary savings. Now that we've got this, there's a break on everything. Is that your problem?
>> that's it.
>> I think that's the problem. It's a separate deal.
>> and if -- if you take your entire i.t.s. Salary base and you whether or not at the annual salaries, are you telling me that you have 81,250 more in your salary line item than what you have people appointed against it? If that's the case, yes, you have preserved that.
>> that's what he's saying.
>> if that's the case, we'll be glad to do a projection for you ain't should show that you are sitting with not only 81,250 in temporary savings projected through the year, but 81,250 permanent. And you could -- I mean --
>> that's what I'm saying.
>> and I'm saying -- [multiple voices]
>> well, I understand that, but I'm just questioning if -- [multiple voices] if you have 81,250 and your salary savings I think is -- what department are you -- 12. Yeah, you have 132,379. So that is correct, that in your particular case if you have 81,250 sitting there on unappropriated, which I don't think you do, but we'll look at it. Then you are short. And you have absolutely no turnover, just like the departments that had no salary savings and have absolutely no turnover.
>> but at the same time it's the executive manager that is the budget control point because there are other degrees of freedom above and beyond i.t.s. I might add that this issue of salary savings is not inconsequential because you may remember there was a 900 and -- I think it was $665,000 appropriation that was made in the '04 budget to reduce salary savings throughout the county. In the case of i.t.s., In twao er it's down to 1342.
>> in the preliminary it was 70.
>> and the court did take action to reduce our recommendation.
>> we recommended 1.4 million.
>> right.
>> and the court said no, and you were a part, I mean we recognized you had a salary savings -- [multiple voices]
>> which is very different than the way it was four or five years ago.
>> but to get to joe's issue, if it's routine, it's just going to move it forward. If it's not, you bring it to the court. And I'm ready to get it either as a routine p.a.f. Or I'm ready to give it as exception brought to the Commissioners court and weigh in on whether we do it or don't. So it's like we don't need to decide that today. It just says there are parameters and if it's routine, it's routine. If it's not, come and see us.
>> susan's comment is accurate. We have not for the ten budget cycles i've been here, we have not held people to salary savings. Of those ten, I believe that the year before last was the first time that I missed salary savings as a whole. Now, we immediately with the slowdown in the filling of the positions, p.b.o. Got concerned, I got concerned that I couldn't bring the overall thing in and that's the reason we recommended to you in the preliminary budget to cut salary savings by 1.4 million. So that's the backup on this. I think as the turnover is tighter, as it is now, I mean lower, and that we have a policy that allows individual departments to use their surplus, obviously we're getting concerned about meeting the overall salary savings target if in fact all the ones that have balances are able to use it and the ones that don't meet their balances which some of them are out of whack, which obviously i.t.s. Is, then we have a deficit at the end of the year. And I think during f.y. '05 I think you will see another recommendation by p.b.o. To get more realistic on the remaining ones that are out of line. I mean we've got to go back and realign i.t.s. Because they are not having turnover.
>> because in terms of percent, I think that i.t.s. Is over 2%, whereas the rest of my departments are just like 1.1 or 1.4% so. The percentage of salary savings you are requesting from i.t.s. Is higher than any of my departments.
>> and we come up about five years last ten years the first taoeuf of those years with historical calculations and at that time you'll recall we had big turnover. We didn't -- and people were -- we put together some historic salary savings. Then what happened, we went to a theory of the budget target in which we froze salary savings. And that's how we got out of whack. Now, we have a temporary pay increase policy that comes along after we've adopted the budget. And therefore that's the reason for p.b.o.'s recommendations. We're attempting to live within the temporary pay policy and also live within your f.y. '04 adopted budget. So I think that's where we are. We'll be glad to look at joe's salary base and I think that if we looked at alicia's consolidated as we've recommended here, I think that it's probably okay.
>> [indiscernible].
>> beg pardon?
>> there may be some similar departments that have the same [indiscernible] as joe.
>> what you are counting as personnel.
>> well, let me just clarify that, you know --
>> have we picked all the meat off the carcass yet? I think we all get it, but --
>> personnel is everything in personnel except for hospitalization and compensated [inaudible].
>> in light of the [indiscernible] the assistant county attorney. We ought to take number 2 off the table. Which leaves the motion and Commissioner Davis' second. The motion basically is to declare those that meet the middle part of the top one, the bold part, would be routine. Others would be brought to the Commissioners court. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 17, 2003 6:46 AM