Travis County Commssioners Court
August 14, 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.

Revenues & Expenditures

Sheriff
Central Collections
Road & Bridge
Fees
Additional Discussion
Summary

View captioned video.

Good afternoon. Let's call to order this voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court. This afternoon we have two departments and a more general budget item. The first item is a follow-up discussion and action on recommendations to decrease expenses and increase revenue in the preliminary budget. And last week I indicated that I would go first today. So unless there are preliminary remarks, I will just begin to go through the list I had recommended last week and have a short discussion. And action. [inaudible].
>> ... But if we can kind of make a tally of those things that need approved by the court to be cut and how that will reduce from the effective tax rate as it exists with the amount of cuts that are being implemented to give maybe a running situation to see where the effective tax rate would be with the particular cuts we're dealing with as we go through the process? Can we possibly do that?
>> very easy to do. And the formula is pretty straightforward. One penny equals 6 million. For every one million you get a sixth of a penny. Roughly. And as we get through, we'll be able to -- we'll give it to you exact later on, but we can give you a roughout on where things --
>> where we're headed. Thank you.
>> okay.
>> thank you, judge.

>> we do have representatives here from the sheriff's office so let's take them first. I distributed a memo a few minutes ago. One recommendation I had last week was for us to work with the sheriff and reduce that budget an additional $1 million. Any preliminary budget p.b.o. Had worked with the sheriff I was for a reduction of I think $2.4 million so, this would be on top of that. Bill did put a few options together that he shared with the sheriff and the sheriff got back with us today with a proposal. That in fact would produce a monetary savings of a little bit re than a million dollars. And what I gave you a few minutes ago was a memo or the statement that the sheriff shared with me. We did have a discussion. The sheriff does have in her budget and has discussed with p.b.o. And probably the rest of the court last year and this year the need for additional law enforcement officers, and her belief is that if she were to offer up this million dollars plus and is authorized to look internally for additional money to fund law enforcement, then she would be able to get the job done. And I committed to her for one person, myself, that it made sense to me, and if we took this million dollars, we would authorize her to look internally based to try to meet the law enforcement need. That only came from me, but I did tell her I would share wit the court, and in my view it would be tantamount to sort of an agreement.
>> well, that's what I hear is a need, and so I am -- I would commit to that.
>> right. Now, I took this to be a two-sided agreement that if we agreed not to ask for further cuts in this budget cycle, she would try to meet the law enforcement need. So it's tit for tat.
>> all this is an amount the court would demand to go back in the general fund and be freed up for general discussions. She may still go back and look for additional cuts if those moneys would be reallocated to a new purpose and that is law enforcement. So I do want to give the sheriff credit. She is going to continue the cutting, trimming, swapping, moving around of things, so there is still very good budget effort underway in her office. It's just going to be recycled into a purpose I agree, so, one, two, three agree is an excellent, excellent place. The one other thing I did mention to the sheriff when she briefed me on this is that I still have the concern related to the 911 operators sitting three feet away from the city 911 operators to be very cognizant, get us some information about if there is a differential, that could be a very tiny budget item, but we don't want them to be able to move three feet away to get a raise and we lose some very good people who have spent a lot of time in training for us on duties far beyond what they will have to do if they become city operators. That's the other place that I wanted to have a little bit of a [inaudible].
>> and also having been briefed on and talked to the sheriff [inaudible] cutting into the budget, we did discuss law enforcement, and she can testify to that because -- and the growth throughout the county, a lot of new growth in precinct 1 and other areas out there, the folks are really demanding more law enforcement.
>> there is need for additional deputies out there.
>> all over the county I think probably that outcry is really happening. So even we're looking at this here as far as cuts and that nature, I think there's probably a consensus-type setting that law enforcement must be satisfied and I think we discussed that earlier, sheriff.
>> sheriff?
>> in order to -- good afternoon. I share with the judge and a couple of the other Commissioners that I was able to meet with today, you know, I heard the request last week that we look for an additional million dollars to cut in addition to the approximately 2.4 we've already cut, and the only way we can do that, quite frankly, is with the elimination of programs. And this would require the elimination of the core program or our boot camp program out at del valle. There's no other way just kind of get those large of numbers. It would also -- and I think that that is unfortunate because I think it's a good program and it's an effective program, but it also is a program that is not statutorily mandated. And just as we lost our drug and alcohol program due to loss of state funding, I think in hard times you make hard decisions and that would be the decision that we would have to make. And it offers some reduction of some other line items and then paying for some capital items instead of out of our federal refund money, I call it, that we get what's called the skat program which is the reimbursement for folks who are in this country without proper paperwork for when they are arrested and in jail. The other thing that's included is to make the purchase for inmate uniforms this time out of our inmate welfare money, which is a fund that I as the sheriff control. We already pay for the chaplains out of that money and all of our recreational supplies, and it's not an end lessors of funds, but at least this year I think we can do that. We are continuing to look at other ways we can reshape our allocation of the about 1300 personnel we have left in the sheriff's office, because we real I do need to address a very serious need for the need for more law enforcement officers out on the street. Like Commissioner Davis said, there is tremendous growth out in precinct 1 is putting in homes and wells branch continues to expand and it's happening. I live west, and I can tell you I'm amazed even in my neighborhood that they keep finding places to put new homes and more [inaudible] and so it's all over the county and so we have to address that need. And -- but what I would ask is that, quite frankly, we be allowed to undergo that discussion and make those choices where it comes down to where you are not trimming fat, you are down to trimming muscle and perhaps a little bit of bone. What I would ask is a commitment from the court that we be allowed to keep those resources in-house and redeploy those resources, because otherwise, quite frankly, what you have happen is that folks are not going to be very inclined to identify possible savings if they always find they lose them and it gets to be a feeling I have to do without so other folks can have. Well, I realize there's some people that felt that way with the jail population in the past, but I think that -- I would hope the court would acknowledge that we have done our fair share this year.
>> sheriff, in conjunction with that conversation we had earlier, this may not be the right time to discuss this, I know you are going to come before the Commissioners court with your concerns, but in the discussion we discussed homeland security moneys. I think it's very important for us to get a handle on that and I don't know exactly where we are per se on that, but between the time you come here from now and then when you are coming before the Commissioners court, if you could let us know where we are as to funding because I think the local governments are kind of in a position where they want some federal money to come down here to help us out.
>> right. There's not a whole lot of federal money getting down to the local level, but I will brief you, the efforts we've been making.
>> okay.
>> there's also one small item related to a replacement boiler, and I'm just wondering if that's something that might rise to the level of being an earmark on the allocated reserve. It basically says we recognize it might be out there and rather than us hoping that it doesn't happen that at least there is something out there that acknowledges -- [inaudible] it could be something that could wait until mid-year or it falls to ending fund balance or it never happens. My whole thing is I always feel better acknowledge whag our potential problem is.
>> we were hoping we would get to the budget without any earmarks in allocated reserves.
>> well, this is --
>> what I told the sheriff is that if an emergency comes up, there are reserve funds to deal with them.
>> I think we're all saying the same thing of we just want to be prepared. It's one of those facts that you don't want to advertise to everybody. This year I think we did a pretty good job of not hitting the allocated reserve for the full year. We hit the emergency reserve one time, but in a big way. And which convinces me that we can reduce the reserve funds that we have. But that boiler out there is a situation where if it does go out, the sheriff indicated we could move the inmates there to another building, but it would make sense to go ahead and replace it.
>> we had some flexibility because of the pact the patterson building is closed. We can move people to another building, but you would not want to get yourselves in the situation where you have, you know, you haven't replaced the ones that -- once it goes it. It at least buys us a little more time. It's not as bad as it was when we had every building occupied and we ran into that situation.
>> if this is in the form of a motion, I would love to second.
>> my motion would be we accept the million dollars -- million and $15 reduction in the sheriff's budget as set forth in the --
>> that would be a tee tall -- total.
>> at the same time that we indicate the court's agreement to authorize the sheriff to look for other possible savings internally to fund the law enforcement need and other needs that she identifies. So we basically would leave the sheriff's budget this place after this cut. For '04. That was pretty much our discussion.
>> yes, sir.
>> clarification.
>> yes, sir.
>> 731,420 is ongoing out of the budget, the operating budget. 284 is one-time, and that would be out of the car budget. I just wanted to make sure that that was --
>> I understand.
>> okay.
>> -- clear.
>> and the only other thing that's on your list that could potentially affect the sheriff's budget would be a discussion of salary savings. And inmates as inmates go up or down. I'm sure that discussion will occur when the sheriff comes back for her operating discussion that there's been some ideas floated about how to have some parameters of what happens if inmates go up beyond budgeted, what happens if inmates go down, and to have a manageable range in there, and I think the sheriff is going to address that. But that doesn't necessarily deal with this motion.
>> is the -- maybe I'm reading something in here that is not correct. Christian, were you trying to make the distinction that there's a difference between the operating budget coming out of the sheriff's department of being $731,000 and that the car budget was really the other part as how we were getting to a million dollars in that we were asking for a million dollars to come out of the sheriff's?
>> yes, and that is -- it is true that a million dollars would be coming out of the sheriff's budget.
>> right.
>> it is simply that and procedurally what happens is you've got this full car budget and then it gets transferred into all of the departmental budgets. This transfer would be $284,000 less so the sheriff would have $284,000 less, it's just not ongoing. To the degree that the sheriff finds resources internally, the primary test would apply for the sheriff and for the court is it ongoing savings above and beyond what was budgeted. She's got budgeted permanent salary savings, she's got a budgeted ongoing budge total the degree that that's -- the savings is there for additional law enforcement, then our test will be met.
>> and christian is good about dividing our budge net terms of what are the ongoing expenses and are the one time, and as we get through the budget hearings you will hear things people saying this is ongoing and she is offering up a million. One would go into one stack, one goes into the other. It's all the same amount of money out of the general fund. But we do make -- if we chose to resickle rather than to eliminate, you would want to make sure you matched the 731 to ongoing kinds of things and the 284 to one-time kinds of things.
>> I understand that. What you are asking of a million dollar in addition, does this satisfy you this is truly a million dollar cut?
>> I was asking for a million dollars from the sheriff's preliminary budget. That's what this gives us.
>> this is o and m.
>> and what we would do -- if this was the only thing that this court changed, you would see a million dollars reduced out of the preliminary budget. The car would go down by 250 and the sheriff's budget wouldo down by 730.
>> because the allocation out of the car budgets are things out of the sheriff's --
>> and when you adopt the budget, all that money goes into the sheriff's budget anyway.
>> that's what I'm asking.
>> and it's all general fund money.
>> it is all general fund money. It is not these other pockets that we have.
>> could I ask another --
>> yes, sir.
>> and I guess we're going to have a full session with you, sheriff. [multiple voices]
>> no, you go ahead.
>> i'll just say -- well, I will ask one question. For the money that you are wanting for additional officers --
>> yes, sir.
>> -- sit better in your opinion, sheriff, to have overtime money or money for f.t.e.s?
>> you have to have some of each. Have you to have the flexibility to -- because you are going to have overtime no matter what. No matter how well you manage things, will you have some overtime or working them overtime, and then you get into the issue do you always have those people flex or do you pay them overtime. We do a really good job of having some people flex, but when I have someone flex, say an officer stays late or his or her sergeant says flex that out tomorrow, what that means in realtime is there's one less deputy on the street the next day. And so I really think that we would be better off in some ways to pay the overtime so that deputy -- to that deputy and have that person on the street the next day. There really -- they really are two different issues.
>> well, the reason I ask is because after having sat and talked with a number of the law enforcement folks, it sounds to me like the pay is really what they are looking for. I mean, I can see where flex is -- flex is tough. I mean, flex is an unjust thing to ask of anybody. I mean, you know, given that, hey, I mean guess what, it's my anniversary, you are forcing me to do this and I can't do that. I mean I look forward to our discussion because i've got some ideas and some questions because I do think that the officers, you know, need to get paid. You know, it's just money, but I understand --
>> it's our way of -- we try to control the overtime budget, and flexing is a good thing budget-wise. It's not always the best thing as far as personnel-wise. It's one thing if you -- the law requires, although in law enforcement we have a 28-day window, although it's not a continuing 28-day window. Few work on the 27th day, you've got to flex out the next day. There's definite pay periods. But if it were a thing where I said to you, okay, Gerald, i'll put it on the books and when it is your anniversary you can take that day off, then that's one thing, as opposed to if you worked two hours it goes on the books as three. It goes on as time and a half. Where if you are flexing that, you only get two. And quite often we're determining when the two is. So it really is better to be able to give people the true option of would you rather flex or would you rather be paid.
>> the other issues I was hearing having to do with scheduling of this. In terms of somebody is on their way in and they are told no, don't come in today. That's not fair because they are already getting ready and they may have already made arrangements related to child care that you may not have that flexibility to cancel that because somebody else's paycheck is at issue. It's a scheduling issue where a full day doesn't really become a full day.
>> I think we have a situation where we have some sergeants who are trying to do such a good job and have done such a good job that as far as meeting one demand and that is to keep the overtime low, that in doing so, they, you know, they have caused a different issue and that's, quite frankly, a morale issue. But we're looking at that to get people to understand, listen, you know. But we have to have enough money in the overtime pot in order to be able to do that.
>> how much do we have budgeted for overtime?
>> this year, three quarters of a million dollars. Oh, with law enforcement, about 240,000.
>> 240,000 for law enforcement and another -- the other 500 or so --
>> in the other parts of the department, transportation, mental health, corrections.
>> we have less flexibility when it comes to [inaudible].
>> okay. Any more discussion or delay? [laughter] all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Let's take another quick easy one, you all.
>> I didn't think that one was going to be easy.
>> sheriff, do you want to cancel your Monday bonding with the court?
>> are you kidding?
>> just wanted to ask. [inaudible].
>> well, that's true.
>> now, on --
[multiple voices]

Back to top

>> on recommendation number 7, it seemed that we all sort of agreed that we needed more time to put together the central collection program. And so instead of budgeting the full program, this recommendation simply acknowledges about half of it. Which should enable us to save about $200,000, right? The other thing is that when we thought we had eight f.t.e. Coming to the pilot program, we had added one clerk to the district clerk's office and one clerk to the county clerk's office. My motion basically is to hire four instead of eight, cut the program in half, and also to pull out those two clerks that we had allocated in the preliminary budget. I do not have the figures for the two clerks, but the two clerks were clearly attached to the eight f.t.e., Right?
>> yes, and you are going to end up saving a little more than $200,000 and to the degree that we could feed that back to you, we'll calculate to it the penny. But it's going to be a little bit more than 200.
>> more than 200 plus two clerks. Which is 165 plus the two clerks. So my --
>> there was $80,000 for a space.
>> oh, I'm sorry, the clerks are going to be -- but the clerks are going to be around 80,000.
>> we're almost done.
>> hold on. Can I ask a question here and that is, judge, would you mind if we held off on any decisions related to the two clerks, because quite frankly, I would like to hear from the district clerk and the county clerk because I got the impression some of it was left over from adding the first two people on and implications related to senate bill 7. Not?
>> not.
>> > there have been some things that have had cumulative impact and I want to make sure amalia and dana have been properly heard from.
>> when we were going to -- propose to add eighth f.t.e., We were not considering the clerks and the two clerks convinced us there should be a tie. It was absolutely related to the --
>> yes, it was for those two, and my understanding is if you cut the collections program to four that is correct the tax office was only going to do the county courts. The district clerk for sure, there's no workload there from the criminal court collections.
>> my motion is about to be to cut both clerks. If they want to come back over and persuade us to put them back in, let them get three votes for that.
>> but do we have an exact number?
>> we have a combined general fund and capital number. If we can break it out separately, 292, 238.
>> 292?
>> 238.
>> okay.
>> and broken down between capital and ongoing as well.
>> that will take me a few more minutes.
>> we'll get there.
>> I can get there pretty quick. Give me your calculator.
>> do we have any estimation as far as when we'll see recovery as far as it actually paying for itself?
>> I can't answer that.
>> I would like to have that.
>> so would the 21 people that met today as part of the collections, fines and fees task force.
>> so --
>> it ought to be a ballpark, some ballpark time frame whereby --
>> well, I can tell you --
>> by this certain time of the year, the auditor, you know, can certify stuff and stuff like that. We should have it where it paid for itself. And since it's a pilot project, I understand that, but it ought to be some projection to suggest that it pays for itself at the certain of the time it was processed.
>> that's what I would like to have --
>> and you will get --
>> as far as I'm concerned.
>> if you ask six people you are going to get six answers right now because there's so much work to be --
>> how can we narrow that down?
>> well, we can probably have it by the end of -- [inaudible].
>> I think the request to the committee was to get a set of recommend on an improved fines and collections process by the end of December. So you should have a much greater understanding about how to improve that process as a result of this task force that first met today at 11:45.
>> so that comes later?
>> well, anyway, that's my only concern is that portion right there. Is that to have a full handle on when we start and realize recovery of the effort that we're making here, not that I don't support it, it's just that I don't think it ought to be part of what we're doing here as far as isolating, tying down to a date where we actually see recovery of the expenditures that we are about to make.
>> seems like every time I have a meeting about this, I leave with a whole lot more questions than answers. And one task force that we have in place is not even working with jps and constables. At some point we have to embark on that. My thinking was as soon as after October 1 as possible. I think if we put ourselves in a position where by the middle of next year we can sort of see the light and start getting ready for the next budget cycle we are in good shape. Now, the changes we can implement to improve collections immediately, I think we ought to do as soon as we can. But it's looks like we're looking at fundamental change, we're looking at implementation of some of the automation we kind of been planning for and hoping for as well as really understand what resources we have available, how we're using them, how to maximize them, then what we need to add. I don't see -- it will take at least until the end of December just for the criminal fines and fees excluding constables and jps. For but we ought to have a much better idea by the end of December than right now, I think.
>> and see, I guess, judge, I guess my point is -- and not that I'm opposing it, but looking at this as far as new revenue or collecting revenue that's fairly current as opposed to fines and fees that's owed to the county that's significantly old revenue, collections is something that haven't been the best -- I don't think we've had our best foot forward in this, and I'm trying to not only look at the new revenue or the most recent revenue collection efforts, but the efforts also that are outstanding, significantly outstanding as far as collections. And I just want to make sure that whatever we do here is in the same regard and as far as a time frame is concerned to make sure we generate that revenue. And I guess ought to be someone that can tell me since -- I mean, I don't know if enough experience, how long we've been doing with this, it's been a while, enough experience to give a projection. That's all I'm saying. Because I don't want some of this to slip into the category of the old revenue with the old fines and fees that we have not collected and it's very significant. I don't want any of that to slip through that and get over into that category. So that's my concern. And it just seems like we ought to have a better handle on a date, on a firm date of when it will pay for itself. That's the way it appears to me.
>> let me take a stab at something in case somebody -- I see what you are asking, Commissioner, but apparently what we are doing with these four people is we are embarking on something that we haven't done before. There's no use putting some projections there because it wouldn't be predicated on anything. After 90 days or 120 days or whatever we deem the right time, then we are going to have a definitive opinion about, you know what, we have four people and this is how many dollars we brought in. But given that we don't have anything to go on with regards to this kind of collections, we have got to wait for 90, 120 days or whatever it is, and at that point in time I will be the person that says, okay, for us having four other people in here, how many dollars have we collected for those four people. Then we will be able to use that as the basis by which to say, okay, you know what? Hey, we're not even paying for our four people. So there's no use, you know, kind of adding four more people when you say, I mean, hey, I'm losing $10, you know, for. [multiple voices] okay, let's bring in eight people so we can lose $20. I mean that's not going to happen.
>> and that's exactly the reason the county auditor is not -- has not certified revenue underneath the recommendation.
>> right. And she did speak to that point. But again, like I said, I'm not opposed to it. I'm not. I just wanted to make sure to get to step a we have to go -- step c, we have to go through step b. I us a skwr us want to make -- I just want to make sure that happens. I'm expressing a concern more than anything else.
>> let's not forget one other point, too. We've got seven or eight county paid-for positions in cscd. These will be four on top of those. At some point it seems to me we have to ask, okay, are we getting more revenue from these 12 that are already on board than we were getting when we had 8. And we can make that comparison.
>> and really, these four have been kind of working -- well, four have been working in the tax assessor's office, right? For several months.
>> I can tell you that they staged their pilot program to begin ramping up in January. They began having all the county courts at law, I believe, in may. So they've been -- and that's going for new cases only.
>> the question may be come may, okay, last year, just looking at the county court of law, county courts at law, did we get more revenue by doing it this way than we did by not having this in place.
>> right. And the unknown is what everybody is saying in collection of fines and fees is that when the economy really hits the bottom, that it's tougher to collect in an economy like we are now. But we're going to be looking at it, I can assure you in the task force, and we're going to attempt to make a recommendation as to the most cost efficient staffing with all the staff included. You know, staffing pattern. So we're going to address, Commissioner Davis, I think your concerns, but I think we're still a little early to make that prediction. The gentleman from the office of court management with the state indicated all other counties that implemented this type of central collections were collecting significantly more money, and I would assume that means more than the money you put in to do central collections. But the task forceno carrierrint
>> risk fund litigation.
>> we want to be real sure on those numbers.
>> okay.
>> the 21st?
>> the 21st.
>> open enrollment will be completed -- we will have better data. I mean --
>> okay.
>> I'm not sure that I understand the park fee one, because I thought there was an assumption that we were going to adopt park fees and that was already in the budget.
>> that is in the budget, but it does not cover the -- the entire increase. Right now I believe in the budget it's about 535 off of top of my head. This would, I think the understanding that I received it would cover all of it.
>> could you explain [multiple voices]
>> postponed that until -- [multiple voices]
>> change the park fees again.
>> I wasn't going to mention that today. I do think we have to look at what we would to raise the fees to.
>> or cut expenditures.
>> so it's those two that I think we ought to look at. This is not the day, though.
>> this is not today.
>> I haven't had a chance to do that.
>> okay.

Back to top

the other thing is on three there when I talked to legal and christian about this, must have been two months ago, it made all of the sense in the world then. Carol you may want to provide input here if it's not a good idea. But taking from the road and bridge reserve half million, putting that in the unallocated reserve, reducing the general fund contribution to the unallocated reserve by a half million. It's a half million wash except 500,000 less comes from the general fund. Now, why do you all think that was a good idea, if there's an opposite view.
>> jessica has some updated numbers for you.
>> the question that was asked, I believe, Commissioner Daugherty's office asked was what the 99 one cent tax was. 3.7 million or rounded up to 3.8 million. The fy '04 revenue estimate is 4.8 million, a difference over a little bit over a million. Currently we have a road and bridge unallocated reserve that accounts for part of this at 416,000. The difference between those numbers is 624,677. That's the only thing that I have, it's just factual.
>> I'm knotted understanding -- I'm not understanding, if you shift from one to the other, are we then reducing the available dollars to spend out of road and bridge because $500,000 has been shifted into the unallocated where it does not get touched.
>> that would be correct. You would not be spending these funds.
>> here's the theory --
>> I understand the theory. The question is I haven't had the t.n.r. Budget hearing to hear what kinds of things are out there that they need to accomplish.
>> I asked t.n.r., They did bring to my attention that we did just recently hire personnel, road and bridge funds to fund that new f.t.e. I think they basically would be looking at $400,000 if anything other than the $500,000. But next year because of the fact that the new f.t.e. Was hired, road and bridge, carol do you want to maybe --
>> what I had said initially was we just added to budget the air quality position. However, if we are talking about the $500,000 that's already sitting in allocated reserve, there is a 500,000 allocated reserve, we are talking about the right reserve?
>> we do the no have any issue of standing in the road and bridge fund beyond the $500,000 that's already sitting in the allocated reserve.
>> the allocated reserve currently has 1.5 million with 400,000 of that anticipated with health insurance increases. It has 1.14399 reserved for the future in the preliminary budget [multiple voices]
>> it would be in the reserve anyway.
>> that's exactly right.
>> still leave it in reserve, but switch it to the unallocated reserve [speaker interrupted]
>> then from the general fund take the [speaker interrupted] but my thinking was that there was no immediate plans to use that.
>> that's correct. [multiple voices]
>> let it sit in a different reserve.
>> so you have no -- no problem. Because it's in this year's budget, we haven't given jess ask a final projection for ending fund balance, we will reduce that by the $100,000 that we just aloe indicated -- allocated Tuesday. [multiple voices]
>> I'm sorry. I interrupted you, I'm sorry.
>> ,.
>> no, no.
>> I was finished.
>> what would be the final allocated reserve amount in road and bridge? Because t.n.r. Is going to want to know that question. Will it be at least a half million.
>> I think the answer is yes.
>> yes.
>> I can only tell you with what information that we have from the third revenue estimate, the third will change the fourth, there will be a decrease it sounds like in the ending fund balance, but assuming the -- the current -- the balance will be 1.5 minus 500,000, right at a million with part of that 400,000 going for health insurance.
>> about 600 left over for good things to do.
>> yes.
>> but in terms of our action, because there is ideas that have been thrown out here, this action does not at all act on the idea that Commissioner Daugherty had related to the one cent dedication in terms of extra money from the general fund to transfer into the road and bridge fund; is that correct.
>> that's correct.
>> it's a separate idea which we will get to, I assume, later.
>> this action does not reduce the relative side of road and bridge if you took the fines and fees previously were not deposited into road and bridge, at 500,000, you're currently under. The road and bridge fund is benefitting 124,677 if you take 500,000. If you take 624,000, 677 and put in unallocated then you will be equal. The fund will be exactly the -- the fines that went in will have gone to unallocated.
>> assuming the third revenue estimate doesn't change --
>> that's right.
>> I'm just making sure that I understand that we are not acting on a reduction of the intent of dollars to be spent in precinct 1 for road and bridge efforts. I'm just making it real clear, this is not what this is about. We can talk about that later and if anyone wants to try a motion. But that's not what this is.
>> that's correct.
>> my motion half million dollar --
>> right, second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Later on, when all of the smoke is cleared, if we want to modify this --
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The fees, we don't want to take action today, but I want to ask the staff what the fees would need to be to covered 100% of the additional costs, look at whether or not we think that we're at the appropriate level of maintenance, you see what I'm saying? So if there's an opportunity to reduce expenses, I think we ought to give that -- a way to look at what the fee would have to be increased to in order for us to cover that.
>> that's right. We have been looking at it, the issue becomes, we have a public hearing on the 27th. Our budget hearings on the 20th. And we have been looking at some of the -- some of the -- what we can to increase our fees and where we can add more money. I don't know if you want me to [indiscernible] here now or wait until Wednesday when we have our budget hearing.
>> I believe it can wait until Wednesday? That will give you a better opportunity to maybe have it in writing than you have now.
>> it will have to be in writing. [laughter]
>> we can hardly wait until Wednesday. [laughter]
>> thank you, carol. That's number 3.

Back to top

4 we just got that idea. Opener operating number 2, I know john neeley has done research and we shared that information with the county clerk. So we can discuss that at some point in the future. Various wreckers fees. Throw -- I guess we really need to take that next week don't we in preparation for the August 27th public hearing?
>> there are four areas that we are aware of. I don't know of any others. So far. For possible fees. One fire marshal fees for a second subdivision fees for a third, parks fees are fourth. But I'm not aware of any -- I'm not aware of a fifth that has been put on the table yet. So that would be if we were to post an agenda, for example, with a, b, c, d, to have a public hearing on, to my knowledge it would be those four areas.
>> constable, park, subdivision, fire marshal. There may be some coming out of these budget hearings.
>> put those on, the listed areas on the posting before the 27th, so let me see the 19th.
>> Tuesday.
>> we will be coulding separate postings for the public hearing. We need to try to get that list in. If we can have that list final by the 20th, next Wednesday. Posted Wednesday or Thursday, that will give everybody an opportunity to see it before the August 27th public hearing.
>> right. That's -- that was our plan.
>> one of these things I think have already been acted on, therefore might already be in revenue estimates, that was the new filing fee, the upping of the filing fee that we dealt with about two weeks ago. There's certainly clarity related to one of the technology fees related to a court opinion, but I don't know if that's in there or not. I think that we are taking that up on Tuesday. We will act on the expo center, the autopsy fees as well and I don't know if I would put this in the category of a fee. But there from what I understand is a greater reimbursement that Travis County is going to be getting related to child support enforcement orders that the -- that the state is going to be able to pull down more federal dollars and those are actually getting us to -- closer to a full reimbursement on some of the child support things. If we could get some discussions with constable 5, they were the ones that --
>> I think this may be the $35,000 that it's already in the -- it's already in the revenue estimate.
>> right. I'm just making sure that we are not forgetting.
>> those other fee, I think, have already been approved. They are either in the revenue estimate or will be in the next one.
>> or we can't put in the revenue estimate, those are some of the things related to the new court collections.
>> right.
>> > we just need more --
>> we have a discussion with the county clerk next Wednesday at 4:15, if we have not discussed that records related services and fees by then, seems to me that we ought to call it up during the county clerk's budget if john hill is listening, they can maybe get us something in writing by Monday. The 18th. Give us an opportunity to review that in preparation for the Wednesday hearing with the county clerk. On those fee increases, though, where we have already voted a fee increase, I don't know about having a public hearing. These are ones that we are still thinking about adopting, I think.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> I had asked the sheriff for some information on some fees which I imagine we will cover next Monday related to the sexually oriented businesses license fees and the fees that we are charging for false alarms, whether we think we are getting all of the dollars that we are due in, but I can wait until Monday.
>> okay.
>> carol, I did have here the 1445 if the additional cost is $150,000. My question basically was whether we can increase that fee to cover the $150,000. A cursory view of the fees, let me kind of explain the issue. The city and counties get together as well as all of the other ents tees to determine where we overlap in our review process. Because part of the 1445 is not to double bill the developers for what the city does and the county does for the -- for this item, we couldn't come to an agreement together. Where we are headed is to do an r.f.p., To get an independent auditor to review both of our fees of processes and our instruct -- our fee structure to come up with a number. In the meantime, however, one of the things that we are looking at, because we know that our fees right now doesn't even cover our cost, I have looked at perhaps doing an overall inflation increase to just our fees and see what that would give us to -- we have an increased -- we haven't increased subdivision fees prior to 1999 because we were cut off, sometime I think takes like -- it was like you the '94 or '94 was the last time. It was about 4% overall, that would give us another 150,000 or so to at least cover this.
>> but we are convinced that 445 would require us to spend an additional --
>> seemed to me if the small increase would enable us to cover it, we ought to look at building maybe, maybe we ought to discuss it further.
>> we are ready to do that. We have looking to be ready to present that on Wednesday.
>> legally, I guess I need to ask this question. If -- after we have the discussion with you, the possible fee increases, I noticed when I asked the question from you guys, basically said that I -- maybe go to a joint approach to cover -- try to cover the fees, instead of specific -- specifically a blanket type of froach do that. My question is, you look at January as far as maybe revisiting this again to make adjustments in January. Okay? I guess my question, though, is if we set up a fee structure to recover expenses incurred by the county through fees, can we make adjustments after the fact if we set something in stone now in this -- in this -- for '04, can we go back in January any time after we set these fees? And make adjustments to them?
>> if I'm understanding you correctly, what we could do is the idea is that we get an independent auditor, review all of the fees, make the adjustments, come back to the court with fee increases or reductions, which I'm sure is not going to be -- in January those additional fees would not be able to be recognized in '04 fiscal year. It would be recognized in '05 and that's why we are saying across the board at least cover the people that we need to cover this year with that -- with that inflation increase and be able to adjust in mid year sometime, but not be able to recognize those revenues because you cannot in mid year if you don't recognize them now. We couldn't recognize them now because we don't know --
>> exactly right. Thank you. Okay.
>> I do understand carol from hearsay, fairly credible hearsay, the 1445 what we are going to get into with the city, that the city basically said they are not interesting in lowering any of their fees and that is really going to put some pressure on us because I will guarantee you the stakeholders aren't going into this thing with the city staying where they are, then all of a sudden we are coming in and tacking things on. So we need to let it be known that we are going to have to stand our ground, whenever it comes to these fees.
>> it's going to be an interesting discussion because they are cutting people out of the review section over there. So if one is making the general assumption to begin with that your fees are based on your actual costs, and you wind up pulling 20% of your workforce out of there, so presumably they are not there, one could presume that perhaps those fees ought not be what they are. I'm right there with you.
>> could you go ahead and send that over to the city.
>> yes. [laughter]
>> we will wait for you.
>> I will co-sign the letter with you Gerald because I'm right there with ya.
>> that is precisely why we are looking at an independent review, with -- with at least saying to both of us it is what it is.
>> and ensures there's no duplicative action.

Back to top

the last thing on my list, number 6, christian, I need to get with the fleet manager --
>> we are looking at that. Hoping maybe as soon as joe gets back, we will be able to schedule one of those unscheduled budget meetings to go over the whole fleet and vehicle at some point.
>> okay.
>> I don't know what's left.
>> there's not too much time left. But there is some time.
>> okay. I'll look at it. I will look at it between now and Monday.
>> also Tuesdays.
>> that discussion will be -- [multiple voices] but I will try to schedule one of those meetings.
>> the other thing is there was some people who didn't respond to the under utilized questions, christian, do we --
>> we have all of the responses.
>> you have --
>> I have them. The only time that's left --
>> we don't have it.
>> between 4:15 and 5:00 on Monday, August 18th.
>> okay.
>> when does joe get back?
>> Monday morning.
>> August 18th?
>> I had it in mind like an August meeting. Not a -- not as a part of a hearing.
>> okay.
>> then we t to put something together to bring back, maybe a recommendation or a status report.
>> sounds good.
>> that's fine, much better.
>> I'm just telling you they're booked through.
>> so there are a few of these that I need to report back on, which -- and my guess is after the meeting tomorrow there may be some others, I think, we ought to come up with a list of them, maybe toward the end of these sessions have a little get together where we can kind of finish it up. Anything further on item 1 today?
>> that was yours, judge, or were there others or were we going to hold those for a different day?
>> right, that pretty much covers the ones that I can act on today. Iry think the others require a little bit more in terms of follow-up.
>> I didn't know about the rest of us.
>> we are posted tomorrow morning, for everybody else.
>> okay.
>> I'm just making clarity. In terms of -- [multiple voices]
>> I tell you where I'm going on this. I think there were some ideas that were thrown out -- that I would like to get settled as quickly as we can because there's some unnecessary anxiety in term of our workforce, if some of these things can be dealt with up, down, I think that will help the stress level and the two in particular that I was looking at were -- was the thought, especially after our public hearing last night, about not me, but someone was suggesting a two million dollar cut from the social service contract budget and the other one had to do with cutting of personnel. There was a specific idea about eliminating an analyst, specific ideas about eliminating attorneys. Just find one 100 people, 5% of the workforce. I think that the sooner that this court takes some of those kinds of votes, we can get folks real focused again on what this court is doing and what we are not. Because the -- unnecessary stress is unnecessary.
>> tomorrow morning.
>> 9:00 to 12:00.
>> I'm with you.
>> this is not the daughter hearing tomorrow morning. This is the commission court working as a team.
>> bash daughter meeting.
>> i've been filed on before [laughter]
>> makes you feel any better, wait until the constables get here, I got a whole long list.

Back to top

>> judge, would you like a summary of what the court has done so far?
>> that would be nice.
>> [laughter]
>> christian, when you ask it that way, how can I say.
>> > no.
>> I would love to receive a summary.
>> because also I think one of your colleagues will want to know --
>> what do you mean one of your colleagues, you don't know my name.
>> I know your name. Commissioner Ron Davis.
>> all right.
>> I get myself into trouble sometimes. Or calculation is a total of 2 [indiscernible] reduced from the general fund, of ongoing dollars, composed of reduction in the sheriff's office, collection, capco funding which is really a reimbursement, so it's not on the expense side, it's on the other side. Salary savings, reducing the emergency reserve, and reducing the allocated reserve. We have one-time reductions of 1,106,411 composed of reductions in the sheriff collections. The car reserve and the amount of unallocated reserve in moving from road and bridge to general fund. There is a total of 3,548,658 reduced from the preliminary budget. When you reduce that from the preliminary budget, you also reduce the unallocated reserve, that's 11% of an expense base. By these actions you get another 390,000. You will see this when you add, too, when you add a million, you actually have to add the 11%, when you take a million away, you get to take away another 11%, so that's a reduction of 3,939,010 based on our calculations your tax rate currently in the preliminary budget --
>> did you recognize the $91,000 in new revenue.
>> yes, up here for cap on come funding. That's -- capco funding. It's really additional reimbursement, which means that you have to tax less.
>> uh-huh.
>> given a certain expense base. So that -- that according to our calculations would take the tax rate, which is proposed at 4958, the effective tax rate 4964, I might note. It would take that tax rate to 4892. That's a -- that's a leroy, nellis, christian smith --
>> 4892, it's coming down.
>> it is coming down.
>> coming down.
>> that's a little over 6 -- 6/10ths of a cent.
>> before everybody starts going there, this assumes that we have not heard any of the potentially compelling stories from our departments and I will tell you I heard a big one yesterday related to a 5th c.p.s. Attorney. So it is a good trend. We are going in the right direction. But I'm not going to kid anybody into thinking that there may be a few things, small things, essential things that I personally will vote to put back in. Whether there are three votes to do that, but I certainly heard one yesterday related to a c.p.s. Attorney. Thank you for the summary, mr. Smith. We will discuss this item further tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Sharp. Do we need to take a five minute recess and let health and human services come in. We will stand in recess until 3:35.