Travis County Commssioners Court
August 7, 2003
FY ‘04 Budget Hearings
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.
Concluding Comments
Now, in an effort to attempt to answer christian's concern, assuming that the ones of us who had specific ideas are supportive enough to work on them, I think we ought to take our list and try to put together a position paper that indicates pros and cons and whether we think it's workable and when. As I look at our schedule and recall the list of recommendations, it seems to me that we will be able to put together enough information by Wednesday, August 13th, on some of them. It seems to me that it would be very, very difficult to put together the kind of position paper I have in mind on all of them. Our schedule does have various slots available for scheduling, and for the county attorney's office I have the following question. Whether when I see available for scheduling we can put in there the budget discussion of our choice. Meaning follow-up discussion to opportunities to reduce expenditures or increase revenue. And my recommendation would be that each of us begin working with the appropriate county staff managers, et cetera, to put together more specific information on the recommendations to be presented. Next week looks like 1:00 to 1:30 and 4:00 to 5:00, if we can use available scheduling to cover that. I知 tempted to say let's change the whole deal, but actually I知 looking at Wednesday, August 13th.
>> the newest one, 1:00 to 1:30 is h.r.
>> yeah, I知 looking at --
>> we just got a note from alicia saying she did not feel the hrmd one was necessary. On the other hand, there's something on the table.
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, there is something on the table. This is -- [multiple voices]
>> it seems like this is more than just a half our discussion or even a one-hour discussion. I was looking at Friday, August 15th. There literally is nothing there and potentially two or three hours for us to talk --
>> it would be a whole lot to bite off in one meeting. I mean, I would take available opportunities here where we see available for scheduling, I would assume if we have follow-up reports we would use that time for that. See what I知 saying? So next Wednesday we would present -- whoever has something ready, we would present that. We only have an hour. During that hour, we would make good use.
>> is that 4:00 to 55:00?
>> yes. The question for the county attorney is whether as we put together follow-up papers we can use the available for scheduling times, and this Thursday, one or two supposed to be available or unavailable?
>> 1:00 to 2:00 is unavailable.
>> judge, we're over at a conference for urban counties luncheon. That's why that got --
>> you have a quorum, but just barely. And there was a respect for your other colleagues.
>> can we agree instead of -- we just don't put it down?
>> yeah.
>> that would be a whole lot better.
>> it will start at 2:00.
>> what day are you on?
>> on Thursday, August 14th. 2:00.
>> start at 2:00.
>> but like 4:00 to 5:00 where it says available for schedule scheduling, if there is a -- another second follow-up discussion ready, we would fill it with that. See what I知 saying?
>> we still have a budget hearing that night as well so we're already working late. 6:00 here.
>> the 14th?
>> on the 13th. Just letting people know that is not a short day.
>> okay.
>> so we may need that 4:00 to 5:00 slot to take a break and go eat.
>> I would work during it myself. On all of these, if we run out of steam, we just adjourn.
>> I would sure like to eat.
>> we heard 50, 60 specific recommendations. Some better than others. Some will require a lot more work than others als
>> I was trying to be cognizant of that. Ven if there are others, I would love to see the morning of the 15th, which says hold for scheduling, that we absolutely [inaudible].
>> well, do you want to put dinner down on Wednesday 4:00 to 5:00 and just have Friday follow-up discussion?
>> uh-huh.
>> which means basically don't meet 4:00 to 5:00.
>> and meet Friday morning the 15th.
>> you want to cancel the 4:00 to 5:00 on the 13th.
>> yes.
>> and have, however, 4:00 to 5:00-the 14th, plus all the morning of the 15th.
>> and I think whenever we can get ready on those recommendations we try to present on the 15th.
>> I was going to try to be getting with the same kinds of staff people. As much as I would like to get all this stuff done in two days, we have campo Monday night as well. We're all trying to get a whole bunch of stuff. Tuesday [inaudible].
>> is that 9:00 to noon on Friday?
>> that's 9:00 to noon, yes. Seems to me the ones that will clearly take until next year can wait until after [inaudible]. The ones that we need to act on in this budget cycle at a prior time.
>> give ten 40 or 50 ideas that were out there and the venting process, I知 wondering whether or not it is reasonable to try -- or to try to see whether some of these might be longer term, some might be shorter, some might be slam dunk easy, some of them might be let's just throw these out there and see how many cars run over it. That's an interesting way of doing business, but it's one that can be difficult in the time frame we've got. So I知 wondering whether or not how one feels with the venting of all the things that have been thrown out there.
>> some of these ideas are good ideas that position us for the future but are things susan and blaine and carolyn are not going to be able to certificate. They may be wonderful ideas we may say we want to proceed ahead with, but it's not going to get anything [inaudible] but it doesn't mean we shouldn't identity and we see what happens [inaudible]. But I think the judge has a lot of things on his list that are reasonable, doable and things that could easily fit in that Thursday slot. Things that we could say "good idea, let's move on." I think some of the other ideas the rest of us have are almost more positioning, philosophical. That doesn't mean they are not all darned great ideas. It's the big-ticket stuff. The [inaudible] are lovely, but the $500,000 items, the $1 million items, there's a lot to be [inaudible] and I would like to focus my first attention on what the judge has on his list because I think those are the big things that if --
>> let's just adopt the judge's recommendations.
>> and move on. [laughter]
>> we should have put this to a vote today.
>> I won't have a single vote the next time we get together.
>> but we're not known for doing that.
>> there's a lot of good, a lot of good talk here. And the big stuff, if it gets us a lot of good stuff, then some of the little nickel and dime things that only piss people off are only necessary.
>> we'll try to have the pros and cons for that.
>> judge, why don't we do yours on August 14th.
>> because there's two pages of stuff to talk about. Would we need to be scheduled -- do we have to be posted for that being a voting session, judge? Because normally our hearings are not posted as vote session, that doesn't happen until markup. I知 trying to see how we can give direction --
>> why not make it a voting session.
>> kind of like pre-markup.
>> for example, there was like the first one on the judge's item which was cut the emergency reserve by a million. If you all are agreement that's the right thing to do and that's what's going to happen, why not get it out of the way and move on.
>> yeah, that's what I was thinking.
>> and if we think it doesn't make sense, just vote to can aoeut you may have a lack of a second on some ideas. I mean I heard that.
>> that's why I知 wondering if on August 14th and on August 15th if those can be jointly done as not only budget work sessions, but as voting sessions, and that way we have flexibility to either say cool idea or we will listen for the sound of seconds.
>> 14th and 15th.
>> that would be great.
>> make them voting.
>> we have a protocol sometimes -- or you all have asked for a protocol that has backup material, like, for example, of the pros and cons distributed in advance rather than any surprises. No one likes surprises. And I知 just wondering whether you all want to establish among yours some agreement on how far in advance of a meeting on the 15th of August you all would share with each other and/or others that are affected what the pros and cons are so that it can be vetted. I don't know if you want to do that, but I知 thinking of some of the surprises that cause dust in the way of getting in the way of good policy discussions. [multiple voices]
>> go ahead.
>> I remember on one particular instance during the legislative session when we had referrals and information brought to us by a particular consultant, and there was a direct question and I知 glad the judge has it on his list too. There was a direct question asked by turn, the amount of money it would -- t.n.r., The amount of money it would take to ensure that h.b. 1445 would be immaterial of implemented properly by t.n.r. Joe, how many staff people will you need or what do we do, blah, blah, blah, blah, and it was kind of a gray area at that time. In looking at what the jerusalem lists for -- judge lists for an example, h.b. 1445 was a fee assessment with that. Now, what that fee assessment is -- and that's why I kind of also looked at some of these unfunded mandates, some things that we really didn't have a handle on as far as how much it's going to cost Travis County to implement some of these new programs. So I just really feel that there's still some investigative work. Still have to let us know what could really -- what kind of impact it would be on the department to actually carry out the implementation of the duties of the -- and activities for 1445. So and I think the fee assessment as far as what the judge listed is very appropriate. So there's still some other involvement that's going to have to be interjected with those departments according to what's on these lists.
>> well, my goal would be to have specific follow-up discussions with the affected county people, have enough specifics to be able to act on. And if it looks like it's still in the works, I just present what I have and we discuss it another time.
>> I think one or two people are watching us right now, and I feel certain that if there is anything that came out of my mouth that was silly and inappropriate, well, interesting idea, no, I知 going to have some lovely e-mails and voice mails when I get back to my office. I feel certain I知 going to get feedback which I知 happy to share with others. I feel certain others will also get feedback, which if there's not ccs, I知 sure there's going to be a lot of blind ccs going around. I do.
>> so our next meeting is Monday? No, Wednesday.
>> Wednesday, right?
>> Wednesday. We're posted through 4:00. The space issues.
>> and we start at 1:00?
>> right. Is that okay?
>> christian, you are going to come up with a revised schedule?
>> i'll come up with a revised schedule. Am I right we're not going to cancel the h.r. Discussion?
>> I guess not.
>> well, h.r. Wants -- well, you all be ready for the discussion on Wednesday? [inaudible].
>> come on, alicia.
>> I guess it depends. Really our discussion had to do with the risk management fund. I think there is a lot of issues still up in the air with that and we are just not ready to discuss it. It wasn't with hrmd with the proposal on the table, then I mean we could look at hrmd as a whole, but, again, you know, it depends where the majority of the court is. Sometimes also the other thing to consider is when you lay such big numbers on the table, that you are talking about layoffs. And how does the court want to handle such sensitive issues unless there is a majority of the court that rile thinks that's a serious proposal. So I kind of pose that to the court to respond to your question are we ready. It depends.
>> what issues did you have in mind when you put this on?
>> it was -- it had to do with the appropriate funding of the health insurance and the risk management fund vis-a-vis 5:00 you airly determined reserves and dan and the auditor and the management of hrmd and planning and budget had -- it's kind of a professional disagreement on the appropriate financing techniques. And the risk manager suggested it might be worthwhile to have a budget hearing if indeed the way the preliminary budget was established was going to continue. On the other hand, we still have open enrollment outstanding. There's some other issues regarding risk management that are still outstanding. There's the flurry daniel question which is para phoeupbt, if it gets resolved one way, it goes away. So I知 interpreting alicia's request this morning to pull it off the table just to buy some time. I don't think it had anything to do with h.r. Or some of the other -- it was really -- it's financing melt insurance. And that's -- health insurance. That was really the question.
>> and risks. There was a couple of questions.
>> pending litigation that I think are still up in the air.
>> the worst case scenario is people late hra eu out their ideas. We get to mull them over and come back on one of these other available slots and say, you know what, I知 ready to offer some opinions. But if there are differing viewpoints, I would like to hear what they are because it's important. It doesn't mean we have to, like, pick one.
>> are we talking about risk?
>> I think you need to look at risk maybe with the other ideas you want to move risk. But my concern just from a strictly financial basis is when you talk about an environment of cutting back other reserves, and, you know, puts a little more meaning on the risk fund because if you have things that [inaudible] then there has to be other money there. I知 not saying it's not a good idea, but I do think you want to discuss the risk [inaudible]. Don't you feel that way?
>> well, then I also need to go into closed session. Because --
>> yeah.
>> litigation. There's some litigation.
>> but I think that it's a big fund. It's important to be funded correctly. A lot of times [inaudible] technically hard to figure out [inaudible]. That may not be the first thing you want to discuss, but I do think it's something --
>> well, and the other thing is it may not be the time to discuss it because we've got open enrollment. We will have a much -- have much better information after the 18th where we are with open enrollment. We will also have better information where we are with the actual fund.
>> I would rather wait, judge, until we have a little bit more information.
>> but I do think you want a presentation on this.
>> what day are you looking at from the ones on this schedule?
>> yeah, that's the question.
>> we have time on Monday, the 18th.
>> that will be the last day of open enrollment.
>> when is that?
>> the 18th.
>> the 18th of August.
>> you will have better numbers then?
>> [inaudible].
>> that's what I was thinking might be better.
>> that's the last day, though. I would say especially on Thursday the 2 1 sth l. H. Had sday the 21st, if you want to swap with something else, on is there.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> kinds of stuff that's out there, it means departments either have to button some things, you all have to button this smings, we have to be very efficient or get more sometime.
>> I don't really see any problem here [multiple voices] if we've got some bucks on the 21st can swap with something where we have available time on Monday the 18th. We are there.
>> uh-huh.
>> I just I felt the need to say it because I知 worried, thousand that i've said it.
>> I think it would be very unfair for somebody to be moved up to this Monday if they have not been anticipating it.
>> that's fine.
>> so are we just following the schedule.
>> it only gives them one day.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> well, I have a question. It is real obvious to me that a few of the things that have been talked about as -- have started making a number of people pretty nervous. And I guess what I want to know, because I don't want to go through the motions here, if what this court really does -- I mean, if there's really not the intent of decreasing this budget, and I don't know how that -- so I知 asking y'all, I mean, what do you really do? Do you get to the point where you either push things to the point where you don't have enough time to say, well, I mean, you know, but if I had enough time we might have been able to work with that, which is the reason that I have always asked why don't we just give p.b.o. The dictate the here's how many dollars we want to generate, and you all tell us the best places to make the cuts. But I realize that's not going to happen because there are colleagues here that have ideas about what they want cut, what they don't want cut. But -- but I知 confused because everybody -- I mean, I think that i've heard more people say, well, yes, we do need to run a more efficient county government and we know that that's what the people of this community is demanding of us. So if -- and you are right, I mean, somebody said, I mean, there's no use ticking somebody off if something is little bitty and insignificant because you are not going to get anywhere insignificant which is the reason you started going to the millions, 500 thousands, this and that. I知 going to learn this over the next week or 10 days as to where people really are with regards to really wanting to cut the county budget. I知 willing to wait for a while to see that. They have to say somebody is going to stand the ground, say if you really want to cut a budget there's going to be some things that people really don't like to hear and I don't know how to deliver that message. Other than try to be consistent from the get-go and say this is what i've said, this is what I知 going to try to do, obviously I have got to get two people to go along with you for those things. But -- but maybe I知 asking the question too early.
>> I appreciate your enthusiasm. I appreciate your questions. And with all due respect, I知 going to go back to what christian and leroy did to start off this hearing. Travis County is not in a management crisis. Maybe people are so used to hearing the state was 9.9 billion in the hole, the school district was 185 million in the hole, the city of Austin is now down to 55 million in the hole. There's a reason we're not in the hole and that is that we have been so cautious and so conservative, but we never had a spending spree. We have been telling folks for the last five, six years, sorry, hard candy christmas. You know, we have been so conservative to position ourselves for exactly where we are right now. So --
>> uh-huh.
>> -- they haven't been out there spending money like crazy. We have been telling them every year, I知 sorry it's not this year. To be very cautious about what we did spend moab on to get good -- money on to get good investments. In terms of where you are trying to get to, how could we find those cuts, if we didn't have $89 million in -- $8 million in new expendtures related to our health insurance, well, there's 8 million we could have cut out, but you know that has to do with, especially on a second year not giving people raises, health insurance is a big deal, important things to me that I知 going to put that back in there, I知 not going to say no we're going to cut benefits. P.b.o. Has already found $7 million in cuts and have done some tradeouts related to things they have already eliminated from this budget. We have a net fewer employees than we did last year. I would love it that we don't have to spend another million dollars on -- but that life is cruel, legislature said you have to do certain things within a certain amount of time, some people don't have the resources, we have to gut it up. That is to right size, believe me we even turned to right size indigent attorney's fees for five straight years. We are still a million off, we are not getting the dollars that we need to cover our mandated requirements. Back to what Margaret was saying, what are we mandated to do. A million, I would love it we don't have to take care of poor people. Guess what we have mandated costs related to the health clinics and what's happening there. This county has frown in size. A -- has grown in size, a lot of what we do, our requirements only get bigger as this county grows. If you saw the statistics that we got related to the census, we had a lot of jobs of high paying people with health insurance, they have left Travis County, and the folks that are coming in are much lower level employees, so we are seeing some -- some demographic shifts here that shifts on us. I would love it with all of the annexation, I will wrap up, that -- that somehow all of the stuff gets shifted to the city --
>> Commissioner -- I haven't heard all of what you are saying -- [laughter]
>> but on -- on the stuff related to the annexation, as quickly as things get annexed into the city of Austin or Pflugerville or Lakeway, good golly they just make more. The number of accepted miles of county roads it's been about 1100 the whole time i've been here. It doesn't really change. So it's -- it's counter intuitive to think that we get bigger, you know, get people to stop abusing alcohol, get people to stop beating up their kids, get people to stop beating up their spouses, those are the things that are the cost drivers in this budget. All about criminal justice in the consequences that wiepdz up in our courts, if people don't have the resources to pay we get stuck with those bills. We don't get to choose what things we do around here. So I appreciate your --
>> we do get a chance to make a motion.
>> yes, we do.
>> just had a brilliantidea.
>> Thursday, August 14th, why don't we start at 1:30, and maybe have a work -- have a voting session item posted where instead -- where in addition to me laying out my stuff, we basically take motions on big items that we want to take follow-up action on. That's your point, right? He wants to know basically how do I get some feel for whether the majority of the court is interested in doing additional work on these ideas and maybe we can agree if we try to prioritize our recommendations that will help some, too.
>> we still had an issue there judge. The cuc luncheon, Margaret is an officer --
>> I知 sorry. We will start at 2:00.
>> but just do the -- that piece first and just shift everybody down.
>> that would be my recommendation.
>> I have no issues. We can respect the 2:00.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> really? [laughter]
>> that meeting will be really short [laughter]
>> I agree it doesn't make sense to spend a whole lot of time on them when there is a clear majority of us not willing to try to do something this fiscal year. The other thing is on some of these we may well decide this is a good item, but we really ought to give ourselves, let's kick it into the '04 work year, plan to build it into the next budget session.
>> right.
>> there's stuff that may carry on.
>> I don't think we can fix the expo center in three weeks, although I think scott Davis is very talented, but that may be worthwhile in terms of getting a work group together to talk about some strategies, I would love to get christian working on that --
>> [multiple voices]
>> the key it's more operations, really that used to be a two month a year facility, it's now rear round. The again -- year round. I share your concerns there to make sure that's a facility that starts carrying more of its weight. I think we can. I would love to get christian involved because of his experience at ucla.
>> you also I think need to hear what other counties do with their facilities. So that you have a broader perspective, I think, on the way these facilities are indeed -- so I mean [indiscernible], there are several other facilities. So -- there's options, though. You know, have them provided to the court before. So I think it's more than just looking [inaudible - no mic], there's everything from privatization all the way to letting it -- you know, run itself. I mean, there is very broad [indiscernible]
>> it's coming to the level of subsidy that we feel comfortable with. Do I think we can get there on 100% users pay for parks, no, I think counties ought to invest in parks. But do I think it ought to be 100% paid for give the general fund? Nope, I知 trying to find that balance with the expo center. I would love it if it was 100% sustainable, we might be able to get there if five or 10 years, but we ought to get to a level that we feel comfortable with on the subsidy. Right now I知 not comfortable with the subsidy we haven't done all we can to maximize some of these large events that are not paying what they really are costing. Making money out there.
>> judge, I want to make one more point. There's no use, you know, getting in tit for tat on this thing. What I知 basically trying to say that I think the people of this community want and I do think that county government is -- is a pretty good bang for the buck. I mean especially compared to the other municipalities in this region. I don't think there's any doubt about it. But when you have gone from 2,000 -- from $42 billion worth of appraised value to $60 billion, that is a 40% increase and I will tell you that there's no one that I know that is living higher on the hog than they were four to five years ago and people compare government to themselves. No, I don't think that we are in jeopardy of -- of, you know, ruining our -- our rates. I don't think that we are in jeopardy of having to have massive layoffs. But I do think that we have got to be cognizant of the fact that we do get swept up into this -- I mean, everybody, the sky is falling in. And I continue to tell people when we go out that, hey, you know, we are 16 to 17% of your tax bill. Even that being said people are still concerned about why government can't live like what they have to live. I just think that we have to be careful with that. And try to live within some means, go through some motions with regards to, you know what, we are tight tening our -- tightening our belt. There's no doubt about it. Unless we go below .4660, which I don't know that we can get there, somebody, you are all going to get a higher county tax bill than you got last year. Period. Now, if we don't have the will to go there, then we don't. I understand that. But I -- you know, I want people to understand that -- that we are cognizant of running as efficient of a government as we can, given that we are being asked for an awful lot more than what we have the resources to do. And so that's the reason that I just don't want to flippantly, go, well you just can't get there, we are not going to look at that, that's a sacred crow, we are not going to do this. But I知 happy with where we are at this stage.
>> I don't think we have sacred cows around here, I really don't.
>> the last thing that I would say, in terms of people doing what's in the private sector, some of our employee ifs we go by what we have got in this budget it will be two years without a pay raise, that would be consistent with what's going on out in the private sector. Two years without a raise. Also when I came on board eight years ago the rate here was 56 cents. It has substantially come down. Now, also in that same time, we have passed massive bond elections in '97, 2000 and 2001. 10 cents of our rate are the bonds. And we could say, you know what we are not going to pay attention to those covenants, we are not going to do that stuff. I actually think that it is wise, the same way when the Commissioners court did this in the late '80's, when they could have said times are tight, let's not go do those bond projects, interest rates are record lows, prices are coming down, labor market is good, this is actually a good time to be investing back in our community and for us to be up there related to work, contracts, good things happening out in the working segment. But 10 cents, we can knock 10 cents off of it if we didn't have the debt service.
>> I think this can wait until next week, when we get in there and start looking at specifics and taking action. We have had our say today. Anybody here who absolutely cannot wait until -- until your follow-up discussion with us?
>> what dares?
>> we will work out the scheduling on risk --
>> we will cover next week, have it posted where we can lay out some ideas, take some action about direction, how is that?
>> move adjourn.
>> thank you all very much.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Friday, August 8, 2003 8:52 AM