Travis County Commissioners Court
August 17, 2004
Item 1
Number 1 is to consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
>> okay. I think one of our budget transfers, the memo supporting memo didn't get included in the packet. Should we just go through the adjustments?
>> actually, I only have a question on t 1. Would anyone else like a discussion of any of the other items? T 1 is one that I had just a couple of questions about.
>> okay.
>> if we are moving money from an elected official's salary savings --
>> that's correct, go ahead, trent.
>> that's correct, judge.
>> who is the elect official's --
>> that was for -- for county court at law number -- the judge triana when she resigned. There was a period when there wasn't a judge there, between the difference when there was one later appointed. So there was a few month period.
>> [indiscernible] thousand dollars generated.
>> well, there was also a period of time when she went on f.l.a., There was a time when she was pregnant, still employed with the county and unpaid leave, there was a combination between that time period, the period she left, it should be from that one position.
>> did we bring in other retired judges to -- to --
>> they did use visiting judges, but there's a separate budget within the criminal courts for visiting judges. So there was no money transferred from the salary savings due the visiting judge line item for that purpose.
>> okay. So the money paid to visiting judges, is that county money, state money or what?
>> that's county money.
>> how much was that?
>> for that particular position? I don't know. I could find out for you. They do have a separate budget. We did budget in anticipation a person being out on fsla, we didn't anticipate the resignation, but we did budget separately for the fsla leave for that position.
>> I would like to know the amount before we take action on that f. You can get that -- if you can get that to the court before the end of the day.
>> we can get that.
>> this struck me as being a little unusual. Have we done this before.
>> I think this is the first time that eve actually use -- that we've actually used elected officials salaries for this purpose.
>> my opposition to the temporary pay practice may influence my thinking a little bit. This is kind of going a little bit beyond what I ever expected. That's the only one that I have questions on, if you can answer that later today --
>> are there any other questions from members of court.
>> do you want to take a motion on all of the rest of them? I would move approval of a 1, a 2 and t 2 through t 11.
>> second.
>> any discussion? The -- when he say that you have lifted a 300,000 earmark for criminal indigent defense costs, in your memo, travis, what does that mean?
>> that means we have set aside 300,000 earmarked in anticipation that there was a possibility that criminal courts, indigent attorney fees could exceed their budget. We have reviewed it throughout the year. It's always appeared fine. I would say, though, that -- that the jail population right now is a little bit higher. Maybe a few hundred people higher than it was at this time last year. I still believe that -- that it appears that everything is going to be okay, but that's a very difficult to control expenditure and also difficult to control, to predict. That's why any type of lump sum for the criminal courts would be considered non-routine.
>> when you say you lifted the 300,000 earmark, what happened to the money I guess.
>> the -- the allocated reserve on the back, each week, your accounting for what you ever expended -- for what you have expended out of your allocated reserve also includes a list of the potential expenditures we call earmarks. What we're doing is removing that 300,000 from a potential expenditure category. The reason that we bring it back to court is those earmarks were votinged on by the Commissioners court during the last budget cycle. Anything that you vote on then we bring back, if we take it off.
>> but when you say you lift the earmark, you have determined we don't need it.
>> that's correct.
>> and you are putting it into the ending balance.
>> that's right.
>> if that transfer is not on the list of transfers --
>> well, it's already in the -- we never moved it out of the allocated reserve much we just put an earmark on it to indicate that we may need it in the future.
>> it was the fence around it saying we need to not spend that money, just in case. And now it looks like we are not going to have to spend it, which doesn't mean that the same amount is still in the allocated reserve. It just means that that's not going to be a claim against it. But there are still lots of other things on the earmarks that could still be there.
>> I’m used to us having money and earmarked for allocated reserve for some amount of money, at some point if we spend it for the earmarked purpose, or we don't. We don't spend it, it falls into the year ending balance. When I say that -- saw that we had lifted it, I wondered about it. Do we that I that we won't really need this, anything for the criminal indigent defense costs this year. That's our estimate at this point in time, we would not need the 300,000.
>> okay.
>> so if I were to see the list of -- of earmarks after today, this 300,000 would not be there.
>> that's correct.
>> because that money will have been moved to --
>> it's just in the unused allocated reserve.
>> all right. Any other questions? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all. On t 1, if -- let me know when that's ready.
>> we will be back before the end of court.
>> thank you.
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.
Last Modified:
Friday, October 28, 2005 9:03 AM