Travis County Commissioners Court
January 25, 2005
Item 3
3. Consider and take appropriate action on changes recommended to the fy '06 budget guidelines.
>> just to set some contracts on -- just to set in context, on January 13th there was an hour and a half, two hour discussion in the work session on some proposed guidelines for the '06 budget process. Members of the court were asked to submit any changes to that draft. To me by Wednesday. And I was asked to do my best to incorporate those changes. And I received changes and proposed modifications from each member of the Commissioners court. And was able to -- to follow through with one exception and it -- that exception made rerealize that it was appropriate to -- made me realize that it was appropriate to return the draft to the court for further discussion before sending it out to over 100 100 elected and appointed officials as a draft. Because I felt it was better to perhaps have a good sense of what the court as an institution wishes to do with this draft. But so that's -- but that's why we're back here after the work session. But before I -- before I go into those changes, I should mention that art corey from the travis central appraisal district has advised he believes that the commercial values will be stronger than originally reported to you back at the end of November. You have a January 20th memo from me in your backup. You should. Those are the numbers that mr. Khoury is seeing. You may remember that we showed data to you on the effective tax rate based on a certain assumption of the total value. He's now -- people in the commercial sector have said the commercial values are turning around, much stronger, that he actually underestimated commercial back at end of November. He's now indicating that his best estimate is that total value will be from 61 billion to 63.5 billion. All of that changes on the commercial side. Residential will remain flat, commercial will go up. He's holding firm with the 1.9 billion dollar new property value, that results in effective tax rate of the -- that is lower than the current rate. The effective tax rate based on those calculations are those assumptions is 48-25. He is also indicating that the average homestead, he believes, will -- will land somewhere in the $200,000 range. Still early to know precisely what that number is. Bottom line is that the effective tax rate there would be a $1 increase in the average taxes paid by an average home owner in an average $200,000 house. So that at least appears to have reversed the trend that we have seen over the last few years of commercial values going down which shifts the total burden from commercial and residential. I wanted to put that in context as you know, the values will not be certified until July as we get closer to July, we get a better bead on these estimates. I don't know if there are any questions about that. Just again to set context. In the absence then of further comments, let me at least delve into the changes that are being proposed. Interestingly enough, last week I saw that judge in the hallway, he said, you know, on the way to work I had an idea. I said, well, on the way to work I had an idea. We both had the same idea [laughter] which was independently to --
>> I immediately sought medical help after that [laughter] after learning that christian and I --
>> there's a phone call from the governor for you, sir [laughter]
>> you just like to get me off track. And the idea was in essence to -- to come up with a sense that basically says Travis County and the Commissioners court will reaffirm its commitment to a wide variety of -- of county services. And that this -- this proposal to focus some attention on some long standing, attractable social and economic issues is not to abandon other commitments. So what I do with the judge's concurrence was to draft a sentence that I will read to you because hopefully it will set again some context. Then go into the suggested changes that -- that i've shown in legislative style format, which are fairly straightforward. And then to deal with an issue or a couple of issues that -- that Commissioner Daugherty has raised regarding appropriate directions to take and then see where we end up. So with that, I would like to at least suggest that these guidelines say something like the Commissioners court will retain its historical commitment to a wide variety of county services and programs, including maintaining its infrastructure, roads, facilities, parks and technology, providing appropriate law enforcement and justice support to county residents, addressing various social ills, such as child abuse, domestic violence or achieving self sufficiency, continuing to support efficiencies in general government services, and helping to ensure that emergency functions are reasonably funded, medical, fire and public safety. However, these guidelines represent the court's intention to encourage and focus increased attention on producing better results. And having greater impact on certain troubling societal challenges that cut across so much of the county's enterprise. That would be the second paragraph in these guidelines, which would then -- then sets hopefully a tone that is appropriate and consistent with the court's wishes. Regarding the '06 budget process.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> if they are minor things like that, there's a hearing, we can get to them. I may just take that paragraph out and add a paragraph and I think afterwards --
>> okay.
>> assuming we have some people here on this item too, right? That we'll need to hear from probably before we make major --
>> and I also identified the source of each of these changes. Commissioner Davis wanted to clarify the three proposed priority program areas where -- under reducing adult jail and juvenile detention populations with special attention towards inmates with mental illness, he wanted to include with sheriff proposals to utilize inmates for public projects. Commissioner Davis proposed under substance abuse language to suggest there needed to examine all substance abuse programs including annual amounts spent, how many participants and what results. And then under workforce development, adult training and new jobs, Commissioner Davis suggested to -- the language should include Travis County involvement in reducing the student dropout rates and involvement of school districts in city and state. Rather than weave that into the broad area, I suggested it could be clarified as a footnote but included word for word the language that Commissioner Davis suggested. There is an attached document from Commissioner Daugherty which was a rewrite of this entitled "framing the '06 and '07 Travis County budget" and he has suggested establish a fixed amount that would be established for -- to meet whatever the priorities are. Judge Biscoe suggested that -- two additional criteria be established. One is entitled "high likelihood of success," which would be a delineation of the likelihood of the established goals established in the proposal. And judge Biscoe also suggested an additional criteria regarding client commitment which would be an outline to the degree to which client commitment and personal responsibility are likely or evidence. That came out of the discussion at the work session. Under compensation and benefits, both judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty have suggested taking out the number 3 percent unanimous essence say there will be a performance based pay award but not necessarily lock in what that amount could be. It might be higher, it might be lower, and as the budget process moves on and resources are better identified, then clearly one will need to have a percentage, but it perhaps was suggested that it's too early. Similarly, on health care, both judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner suggested that health care costs between employer and employee -- any increase in health care costs be shared but not identify the specific percentage and allow the employee health committee and other experts to get a better fix on the dollars as we go through the process.
>> between or shared?
>> it could be shared between.
>> shared between? Shared by.
>> shared by. I'll add "by." That represents the suggested changes to the guidelines, but I did under attachment a a make the data changes that were identified by chief appraiser art core khoury on the suggested side of property tax increases and showed in the legislative style format which was originally shared with you, which was based on November 30th data and the current January 18th.
>> the only addition I had was let's not lose the retirees.
>> yes. And you would propose to use the word "retiree" under --
>> compensation.
>> -- compensation and benefits. Let me add -- we then -- the retirees. That's correct. That was in a recent e-mail from you which I did not pick up and I apologize. Because each year retirees are considered in the health package and retirees are also considered under the cola.
>> I'm also wondering in that spirit that when we talk about the increases in health care costs, that that be shared by Travis County and active and retired employees.
>> yes.
>> and again, it doesn't say a percentage, the reality of what's been happening is we have been sharing a burden. That falls under c in that same middle paragraph.
>> say that again. It would be shared by Travis County and active and retired employees.
>> yes. I have that. And I will make reference to -- in the first paragraph add -- we have rank and file. There's a reference to the pops group and i'll add a sentence regarding rear tire re-- -- retiree -- i'll add language on the cost of living adjustment for retirees. So that brings us then perhaps to -- oh, let me back up. You have a summary of framing the '06 budget process and all I did was summarize what I just went over in detail with you in the guidelines. That then perhaps brings us to Commissioner Daugherty's rewrite which you have before you.
>> you also need to pick up those changes we just made in your summary under number 4 and number 5.
>> yes. I will do so. Add retirees. I will also do shared by.
>> active and --
>> active and retired. Yeah, those will reflect. There will be a window in correlation. Moving on to the rewrite of the guidelines, you should have a copy of the guidelines in draft form that were suggested by Commissioner Daugherty. I read those very carefully multiple times, in essence trying to pluck out the big ideas that are different in there. And with some timerity I copied three paragraphs and appeared to me there were two major differences. And in order to help expedite the discussion with the court, I pulled out a paragraph and that is on a separate piece of paper that in essence identifies a different set of priorities than those that are reflected in the first draft, which is -- transportation, law enforcement, storm water management, and jail diversion programs for the mentally ill. Those are a different set of priorities and it seems to me that before sending this out to all elected and appointed officials one should have a sense of the court's priorities. And it's my job to reflect the issue and your job to resolve it. The second big idea is to establish a fixed amount of money to meet whatever priorities are indeed established. The current -- and just a strategic difference, and there are pluses and minuses in both approaches. The approach that was discussed at the work session was not to identify a specific dollar amount. But let the budget process proceed. And there's another approach which is to say each priority should have a dollar amount connected to it. And then use that as a target, if you will. Or a cap. You could look at it as a ceiling or floor depending upon your viewpoint. And those, in my opinion, were the two big differences that were reflected -- excuse me -- in the redraft proposed by Commissioner Daugherty. And with that, I am finished.
>> can I ask for a definition of a fixed amount of money? Does that mean no budget amendments throughout the year?
>> no, I mean what I meant by it was I think that if we just start applying money to all of the different ideas that all of us have, I mean we're going to find that we just don't have enough money to do it. I mean -- and maybe my priority is not one that would be supported by the majority of the court, which is the reason why I felt like that it was so necessary to really somehow get in a room and find out with the five of us what are we really going to -- I mean if there is something that you could pull me to your side on and likewise from whoever on the court, I felt that that was probably the best way to do it. Obviously there are feelings and ideas on the court that that is not a good idea. I mean I think we're still going to try to do something in February, but quite frankly doing something in February to me is meaningless. We're almost halfway through the year, so by the time we would implement something. It was just an idea that I felt like if we said, okay, we're going to take this pot of money and this is where we're going to -- we're going to put this money here and let's identify what areas are going to get some sort of attachments to that set amount of dollars. It was just an idea, a concept that I had that I would -- if I had the opportunity with each and every one of you try to convince you that that might be a doable way of accomplishing some of the things. Because it's pretty obvious that all of us have -- you know, when you read just the excerpt, I mean from christian, it's not like anybody is going to, you know, have an issue with are these basically the things that we want to do county-wide. Probably not. I mean, you know, it's a pretty good guideline. But in honesty, I mean can we do all these things with the moneys that we have? No, I don't think we can. And I don't think that we can certainly -- I think that we are challenged by taking on -- if we don't watch it, taking on so many things that we just water down so much that we don't get results from anything. I mean i've always been the sort that would go let me have a couple of things and put a number of dollars in them so that I can really show something versus let's take this big pot here and I think that what we do too often is we're not really capable of really moving the ball closer to the goal line because we just -- we really don't have the resources. So to me, unless we're going to be really honest with each other and say what are the two, three, four things that we can -- you know, or five things that we can do, I think we will continue to either not show results, whether it's, you know, the jail, with reducing the numbers there, with helping, you know, the drug abuse issues that we've got in the community. I had a meeting yesterday and one of the comments that I made to kimberly is that I'm very supportive of doing something with helping, you know, through the reentry program, how do we deal with the people that we are releasing from not only the state jail but from our jail and keeping the recidivism -- I mean obviously if drug -- and we heard from health and human services that the drug issue is sort of a common denominator with so many people that we lock up. So if we don't really have the money, if we don't have enough money to really make something work, then why do we continue to do these things. And obviously I mean what we're looking for their is performs answer measures and quite frankly I think there are programs we're looking at and I think we're pulling them for good reason because we can't show the results that we want. So, you know, I'm one of five up here that my ideas were let me get them out to folks, see if anybody weighs in on -- I mean is that a good idea or is it not a good idea.
>> well, I think we're kind of on the same page, but I guess in different manners. We've always talked about trying to concentrate on the core services that we need to deliver. And the criminal justice system always rises to the top because, you know, three quarters of our budget goes to the criminal justice system. I can't help, though, but to look at that and say, well, let's look at the jail population, let's look at the services that we need to provide to people. And so I can't help but think that if we do something, teach people to fish and have them, you know, go on with the regs of their life -- rest of their life, that that will prevent people and children from winding up in our criminal justice system. And somehow -- though I too have a thought that somehow if we concentrate on the three issues, the substance abuse, the jail population, and poverty, that we would somehow address the jail population directly and indirectly. And -- because it all comes down to that, and I understand and i've thought about the issue of taxes, that people think that they are too high and they don't want them increased. So we have some agreement there. And -- because we're all going to hear it. Every one of us who runs for office is going to hear it. But I think what it also tells me is that people realize that they live in a community, and what makes a community is for everyone to have something in common, and I guess it's taxes, and the outcome of the expenditure of those taxes. So -- I mean that's what makes a community, and we all share in trying to find some answers to some of these issues that really have been with us forever and we can't seem to get, you know, some kind of solution that really works. And therein comes the feeling that I have that I'm just a guinea pig just going round and round and round and never really finding a solution. So I think that -- like, for instance, with health and human services, we've addressed healthy families, because I think that is one of those things that -- that maybe helps children not to get into drugs. Maybe helps them not drop out. Helps them to finish school, get an education and as much education. That prevents poverty and it prevents winding up in jail. And I'm trying to find -- I kind of wrestle with this trying to find something common that will address some of these -- they are huge issues. And so -- and in order to keep from paying more taxes, I think that we need to prevent some -- the need for more jail cells. That's where the expense comes in for everyone, but yet, you know, people want to feel safe. Well, we need to remove people from society now and then, and so, I don't know, it's very complicated and I understand, you know, but I think that where you are coming from, Commissioner, but I think that it still calls for addressing the core issues that county government is responsible for, and taxes is one of them. The expenditure of everything that we spend. We address, I think, the t.n.r. Issues that are bond issues. Those are much easier to address that way. And then people fully understand when they vote for those issues that they are going to be paying additional taxes for those -- the implementation of those projects. It's not easy to put health and human services issues on the bond ballot, so we need -- it's something that we're responsible for and we need to address it internally. So -- I mean poverty, I'm sure people say, well, it's personal responsibility. You know, everybody take care of your own family and then no one else has to deal with them. And yet I don't know that poverty is anybody's fault. They purposely go out and are born poor. So, you know, education is one way to deal with it and that's why the dropout issue has gained some importance to me. I think leroy has a wonderful project that we can all participate in. It doesn't cost any money -- it does cost money because time is money, but I think that program needs to be increased. More people need to participate in that from the county. That would take care of that issue.
>> well, maybe I got a little side tracked or I misread something in what christian was trying to get to us whenever he first brought this to us. I just wanted to make sure that if we were going to have seven and a half million -- which is basically what the figure was, I mean in my head there was a seven and a half million dollar pot of money that was going to be available for starting next budget cycle. And whenever I saw reducing adult jail, juvenile detention, substance abuse and workforce development, I immediately said, well, okay, before all that seven and a half million dollars go to those three issues, which I think they could, then I really got to thinking what do I really want to make sure that I spend some money on and that's the reason whenever I started listing the things like let's make sure that t.n.r. Gets the money, let's make sure we have enough dough in here to do something with adding phrao s. Police officers. There's other things that really took over for me, which is the reason why my priorities seem to be a little different from that because I was afraid that, you know, you know what, seven and a half million dollars, we can't fix the social euls in this community if we had $77 million, much less 7 million.
>> I would like to weigh in on that for just a minute and that is to remind all of us that the key here -- in my opinion, is not the dollars. The key here is the criteria. It may very well be that we get 20 proposals and not one meets these criteria. And you will then see your planning and budget office not recommend those in the preliminary budget for the reasons that they don't meet the criteria. If you don't have measurement, if you don't -- et cetera, et cetera. Because we are going to focus very carefully on those criteria. And if you think about proposals that have occurred in the past that indeed have been funded, they don't all meet these criteria. And so we're going to hold ourselves to that standard. And I believe that it is entirely possible that we will have different proposals in '07 that indeed do meet those criteria. I'm only want to go address that seven and a half million because it's seven and a half million, but you have to have programs that you can show results and out comes and measure them and know where you are going and know how that is going to have an impact. And if you are not measuring the baseline it's going to be pardon so one of the things we're going to have to do is measure the baseline.
>> yes. And I guess I'm saying I want to be effective as well and try some new things. I mean we've been talking about performance measures for a while. We need to get there. And we need to make sure that we are being respectful of humanity and respecting their dignity. They want to be able to take responsibility, personal responsibility and stand on their own two feet. It doesn't feel good to be dependent on anyone.
>> anything else from the court?
>> a couple of things, judge. And I understand exactly where my colleagues are coming from and the comments that have been made to us this morning. And when I approach this and when I look at it, in my mind it's a challenge to -- for us, the Commissioners court, to look at ways of how we can be more effective. And I know that may be a beat-up word, at a cheaper cost to the taxpayers. And I think that's what all of us are in agreement with. I don't really believe that no one here on this Commissioners court are not trying to do the right thing toward the taxpayer, and I really believe even since we got our aaa bond rating again is good evidence that we are doing a dad-gum good job with how we manage the taxpayers' money here in Travis County. But even so, I think we become inclusive in a lot of things and I think all of these things are so intertwined until it's hard to separate them, it's just like making cornbread or something, you put the different ingredients in there and once you put it in there you can't take it out. It's all there ready to cook. But these particular come poepb thaepbts you have listed, we've tried to look at ways to how we could even -- jail overcrowd ing is a big deal, it really is and it does cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Now, how can we reduce that cost. The supposed example in some of the things I brought before was the utilization, which is the sheriff's proposal, and I guess the sheriff can speak on it for himself, but how we can utilize inmates to work on public projects. Of course, we contract out sometimes just to do public projects. That in a way may be a cost savings to the county. Now, I don't know exactly what the sheriff is going to proposal, but it's an effort to look at ways to reduce costs as an example. I think the dropout rate I think is very critical here because it does affect the education end of a lot of things, the skilled labor that's being required to occupy a lot of these jobs that industries are trying to fill. Of course, those are big deals and it's going to take more than just Travis County to deal with this problem. It's going to take all of us, the city, the school district, the state, all of us are going to have to work together on the same page and not put it just on the shoulders of Travis County. So I think by doing these kind of things, we looked at substance abuse as another criteria and workforce. Of course, preparing for participants to participate, educated skilled labor being ready and available for the hiring upon employment opportunities which does mean job training and also new jobs. So, again, all of these things, in my opinion, are together and we just can't separate them and segment them whereby we are leaving the whole. So again, I really feel comfortable that what we're doing here is trying to be more efficient, trying to be cost conscious, getting the most bang out of every dollar we spend, and at the end of the day I think we will see the kind of results [inaudible] and I think you mention -tded real clearly, christian, the criteria that's been established, this is what we want to see happen for these kind of programs to meet the match of how we serve the citizens of Travis County with the very limited resources as far as tax dollars are concerned. So I really feel we are going in the right direction. Thank you, judge.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> I promised the judge that I would be brief for me. I am hopeful --
>> I had forgotten that. [laughter]
>> I just hope we can just step back for just a second here. What we are talking about is framing the budget process. We are not locking down the budget. And so a lot of things that I'm hearing here are wonderful thoughts and good discussions, but it seems like that's the filling in of the picture, and what we're supposed to be doing now is establish the picture frame. And the general context. You know, is this going to be a landscape, a portrait. So I'm hopeful that a lot of the things -- and Gerald, I did read your suggestions -- is that a lot of those things in terms of your own personal beliefs are incorporated in the new paragraph that the judge and christian came together that talks about our historical commitment to a wide variety of things, which I think touches on quite a few of the things that you mention there. Now, related to the suggestions we got from Commissioner Davis, it seems to me the one related to mentioning by name the sheriff's proposals on initiatives on inmate labor, I had a great discussion with the sheriff last week and I'm jazzed. But to me that's something that is going to fold in of talking about either workforce development or reducing the jail populations. To me, that's a specific that might be a proposal that gets brought forward, but you don't need to mention it by name. I look forward to hearing it in terms of whether it's going to be one of those special programs that is brought forward and meets all the criteria. Number 2, and I think this is a very valid point that Commissioner Davis has brought up, we talk about asking for new substance abuse programs and more effective programs, but nowhere in here do we talk about where do we examine our efforts related to old programs. And their effectiveness. So I'm trying to pick up the language that Commissioner Davis has here about looking at what we're already doing on substance abuse and whether those are effective. So rather than simply call for new programs, on some of these areas do we also have to as a part of this reexamine what we're already doing, and it may be that there are better ways to try and attack the problem. So I'm trying to incorporate what he's talking about under number 2 of, you know, we're not just talking about new stuff because somebody will say the old stuff is still funded and it may not be appropriate. Because we've certainly given up programs that are not working for us. Under the number 3, the suggestion on the poverty, talking about the student dropout rate, I think a way to pick up that thought, which is a good one, is to add a couple of lines to christian and the judge's new paragraph that we're talking about our historical commitment to addressing various social ills such as child abuse, and I would add reducing truancy and student dropout rates, domestic violence and self-sufficiency, because quite frankly we have had an historical commitment to try and reduce student dropout rates. Let's not lose that thought but pick it up in the historical commitment as a liner there so it's not forgotten that we want to do that as opposed to saying it's something specifically that must be under the job development portion. Because that's more of a way to make it happen as opposed to a framework, and I'm trying to pull it back out as a framework. I've talked enough.
>> now, if you have come to court today to address us on item number 3, this is your opportunity. So that means that three more seats are available. Come forward at this time.
>> I think you all took care of my concern. My concern is the work force. And that we see how this economy unfolds, see how the employment market unfolds and don't make a decision today. When christian opened up saying commercial is picking up, you know, that's my concern, that the economy is picking up and we want to make sure that we can retain and recruit people who have the technical qualifications to do the jobs that we have. Because there is no program here that we do that is not dependent on employees. So that's a very important component. It's not really a side issue, but you really took care of my concern. I just think we need to kind of wait and see what the economy is like and what we need to do, and any help I can give you on that i'll be glad to do that.
>> thank you. Well, first of all, again, I commend the court and planning and budget for looking at these issues and these priorities because they are not easy ones to take on. I'll pick up on something that christian said that the criteria or the key, and I think even pat said the application of those criteria are key. How do we evaluate those criteria. What are going to be appropriate measures of effectiveness. How do we t-l a program is effective. All those are going to be key questions that I know the Commissioners court is going to be considering along with planning and budget. I think that there are a lot 6 resources out there to assist the court in planning a budget in that endeavor. So my recommendation is to consider having an evaluation panel made up of some folks that do have some of the operational and subject expertise to help the evaluation of these criteria. And planning and budget in that process. I understand there is the fiscal perspective of this, but we also want to make sure we are doing things that do work and people agree in the field that do work and here are the reasons why. I think it's a great challenge to put to the area criminal justice. I know people are definitely working on these issues right now. For example, with the issue of substance abuse, I can tell you in several meetings i've been in the last day the community justice council, there's a presentation from cscd about them adding substance abuse proposals in their community justice plan. The mayor's task force plan was just released and they've taken on the challenge of trying to get some things accomplished in some short time frames and not so short time frames. I know the jail overcrowding task force looks forward to working with them and being collaborative on getting those things implemented. And I suggest that we do have several of those types of initiatives. C.a.n. Is another one. They've taken on the substance abuse as part of their legislative agenda as the round table. We have several collaborative issues that include a lot of different folks in the community, a lot of folks from your county government as well as city. Folks in the community, service providers. All these folks are working on these issues right now. And so one of my recommendations and suggestions is as we kind of think about this and framing it is to consider a lot of the collaborative issues and hard work already going into those issues now and bringing some of that into consideration as we move forward and looking at some of the proposals. I think you are going to see some things come to the surface because as i've said I think we have a lot of people working on that right now. So I think that having that in mind and, you know, I definitely invite folks looking at this issue, especially folks in the planning and budget office to look at those, look what they have going on, look at the recommendations coming out and on work collaboratively on how we can determine what is going to be effective and putting that challenge to them as well to say this is what we want to see as far as effectiveness. But I think that theme that i've heard here has been picked up. So I think we're all on the same page. Thank you.
>> and just one comment from the evaluation stage at the p.b.o. Level, we would hope that the results of all of these collaborations would be incorporated into the proposal before it actually comes into p.b.o. I mean, whatever is happening out there, whatever is working, we want the author of the proposal to incorporate those suggestions in that proposal so that we can do an adequate job of evaluating according to the criteria. So I think that's important.
>> absolutely.
>> any more takers? Joe geiselman will be our last speaker today unless somebody comes forward right now. We've got two more chairs.
>> it's my understanding that what you are doing today is approving the draft that's going to get distributed for -- to everyone. Is that correct? So I mean this is not the final, you are not going to adopt it today, you are just looking for -- because I would just like to read the draft as it's currently written. I did not get a chance to see christian's draft so I would like to read that over and not waste your time today commenting.
>> let's make sure you get one.
>> he will be one of the 125 that would. And I didn't send it out widely because I realized that there was a -- it requires five people on the dais to talk to each other on how to proceed.
>> in the summary, we say summary of framing the blah, blah, blah, blah. Do we need to say something like summary of key points in the attached guidelines for -- we need to add the words key points in the attached guidelines for.
>> yes.
>> then pick up yours. Any objection to that?
>> no, sir.
>> no.
>> when we make reference to elected officials, for example, on page 1 of the narrative, do we need to say either county officials and department heads -- we need to eliminate elected or add an appointed. There are appointed officials with a lot of budget authority, I guess is what I'm think. If we just say allows county officials and department heads, we just delete elected. In my view it's a little cleaner, plus it's inclusive.
>> yes.
>> any problem with that?
>> not at all.
>> based on what I heard do, do we need language like the following: do we need language that says the Commissioners court encourages department officials and managers to evaluate current programs that are producing less than satisfactory results, and identify funds that may be directed into other programs in the same department. We talk about this every budget cycle, but I don't know that we --
>> we don't do it.
>> -- follow through on it. It's a little more difficult, but if a department sort of getsthe message i've got this excellent new program, but rather than trust p.b.o. And whatever committees are in place, I would rather control my own fate. I'm sort of convinced if you've got 10 programs, probably one of them we could easily do without. And if I were a manager and knew the court would authorize me to use what funding I generated to fund another program in my department, this is your way of outside of the guidelines coming up with funds that may support new, innovative, creative -- any problem with that?
>> not at all.
>> this wording may need to be tweaked, but the concept I think is [inaudible] for us and I think it ought to be somewhere in there. Maybe toward the end of the narrative.
>> judge that is correct picks up Commissioner Davis' comment about looking back at the effectiveness at some of our substance abuse programs and that was my concern as well of we were only focusing on new proposals and not what we are already doing in these areas and whether they are effective or not. I think that's a good middle ground there to pick it all up.
>> judge, does anything more need to be added to make sure there is something done about the client commitment, which I really agree with, to kind of strengthen that somehow?
>> well, I tried to use language I picked off Commissioner Daugherty thing that he made during the work session. Where is that?
>> page 3-h at the top.
>> and it kind of says a little bit about evaluating ourselves and see how much we are contributing to clients, you know, being self-sustaining, taking personal responsibility.
>> surely on some of these no matter how much we wish well and fund, unless the client really is committed to making a change it doesn't get done.
>> there are going to be those, but I think there are also going to be others who will. So -- but we have kind of a personal responsibility of our own to make sure that happens. Where it can.
>> we say an all to which -- an all of the -- an outline of the personal responsibility are likely to -- are evidenced. What if we say are evidenced? How is that.
>> could you say that again?
>> just delete likely or.
>> are likely to be evidenced, right?
>> no, I'm saying responsibility are evidenced.
>> are evidenced.
>> yes. We've got client commitment and personal responsibility are evidenced.
>> I can make all those changes. I do have -- I'm not sure what the feeling of the court was on Commissioner Sonleitner's proposals especially since Commissioner Davis was out of the room when you were making your proposals about Commissioner Davis' words.
>> well, I was hopeful that we could pick up Commissioner Davis' number 3 just by simply adding the words under the new paragraph of christian and judge Biscoe, the very opening one of talking about the historical commitment, and in the fourth line addressing various social I ills in parentheses such as child abuse, domestic violence to, pick up our thought of maintaining our commitment in that way. Still doesn't mean somebody can't come forward with a new proposal, but it acknowledges that that is something that is out there -- is out there, period. It extracts the thought without it being something that we filled in the painting we're doing specifically under job development.
>> you were also suggesting --
>> any objection to that, Commissioner Davis?
>> no, I have no objection, and it doesn't seem to harm the meat of the idea.
>> right.
>> and I think really, though, in the long range, judge, I still think the coordination of a lot of stuff with these other folks is going to be real vital and really key overall. And I think some of these perspectives can still be brought up, we've got some new historical stuff there, fine and dandy, but absent of that there may need to be new avenues and new grounds that need to be covered. And that's why we need to ensure we really have a democrat on the a effect on the dropout. No problem as far as --
>> and then the number 1 related to you had had a thought about the inmates, to me that's something that doesn't, at this point on a framework doesn't need specifically to be put in there, it just -- it's something that this document will allow the sheriff to bring whatever situations he --
>> let's leave it there, and the reason why I would like to leave it there is because of the fact I like for the sheriff to make this proposal. I don't know exactly how it can fit in, but I do know that we are using probably resources to do -- we need resources to do certain work in our public project area. So in a sense -- and like I say, I don't want to -- you know, I don't want to take his cloud, his thunder, and I think that he needs to maybe expound on it more as far as what specifically he is suggesting. And I'm looking at the inmate population and using them as a labor -- labor tool to address some of the public projects that need to be probably done. And of course he will have to explain this. I would like to leave that there until the sheriff has further explanation because if there's something that we can save money on and then not spend new dollars on, I think that's something we need to explore.
>> probably needs to visit with the county attorney.
>> that also. But I would like to leave it there because it's his proposal and of course I would like explanation further. I was hoping he would be here this morning and maybe he could expound on it, but of course he's not here at this time. So I would like to leave it there in consideration of his proposal.
>> well, to me, like I said, I get it and i've met with the sheriff and he said some exciting things, but to me he hasn't brought anything forward yet and in a framing of the process, this doesn't at all exclude the sheriff from bringing forward his proposals under anything that we've talked about. But to put a place holder in here on something that has not been shared with all five members of the court in a public setting nor anybody else, it's like it doesn't seem appropriate to put a placeholder in here for something that just is premature. I look forward to him bringing it forward and this frame will allow him to do it, but why would anybody, be it the sheriff or anybody else, get a placeholder on something that has flat out not been made public.
>> well, as I stated earlier when I opened my comments on this, I'm looking for ways not only to be more efficient but also to save taxpayers dollars. And anything that anybody wants to bring to me to show me how we can save the taxpayers some money and be more efficient in Travis County I welcome and I want to see. So, in my opinion, I think it's appropriate and it is where it is.
>> a motion by Commissioner Sonleitner to exclude footnotes 1 and 2. In this document.
>> 1 and 2?
>> 3 we have pulled and put into the body of the narrative, right?
>> what's wrong with 2?
>> 2 because the judge has already proposed new language talking about looking at things we're already doing so that those departments can bring forward new things that perhaps are more effective.
>> the substitute language, what the judge is suggesting is that is something that is in your language that will encompass as we examine all these programs, substance abuse, that's part of your language that I don't mind too.
>> I think it picks up in the framework of what is intended there.
>> is the language -- I think it's something that we do and there's language to cover it. That's why ---.
>> okay. If you are saying that, i'll agree with you, judge, for 2. But 1, I want to make sure that we hold on to until the sheriff is able to come in and express his concern and see if it is something that we can end up dealing with.
>> that would be my motion, judge.
>> the motion is to pull footnote 1 out, but to get with the sheriff and try to-the sheriff has met with us and makes all the sense in the world. I don't know that it's appropriate to have it in the guidelines. Is my problem.
>> okay.
>> is motion is to pull it out. Footnote 1, but to get it done. Is that what I'm hearing?
>> what is the motion?
>> to put footnote 1 out of the guidelines but to make sure that we get that done. If the sheriff has creative ways to use inmates on public projects, I think we would all support. That the other problem is that I think at some point appropriate county managers need to generate public projects that will be appropriate for inmates, and then we need to try to figure out a way to cover security, transportation, et cetera. And in the past it looks like from time to time we've done a real good job of this. But when problems have cropped up, at the expo center, helping out there one it inmates got into the alcohol, and so for the next six or seven months that was not a good idea, once that kind of wore off --
>> when did that happen?
>> oh, god, don't even happen.
>> I don't recall that.
>> we do.
>> one of the areas where the guideline as drafted, christian and the judge's statement continuing to support efficiencies in general government services. I mean that is an indirect way of saying utilization of all the resources that we have including the inmate population. So I think that a very high level Commissioner Davis' concerns about making sure that those type projects would fall within the framework is addressed in that general statement.
>> my motion is ma footnote 1 gets deleted for the reasons we've all just talked about. Footnote 2 is being deleted because we are picking up new language -- it's already covered.
>> one is Commissioner Davis' recommendation. Any more discussion of the motion? That was seconded by Commissioner Gomez. All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against --
>> I would just like to hear -- I would just like to hear a little further explanation and I think [indiscernible] according to what leroy just said, it could fit in in another topic under this structure.
>> move approval of the guidelines of christian's packet with the changes made in court today.
>> the draft guidelines, correct?
>> the draft guidelines.
>> okay.
>> and for it to be circulated.
>> with these changes.
>> circulated to the 125 or so officials and managers to whom you normally send budget-related documents. Discussion? All in favor?
>> now, is this -- we had two motions. I want to make sure we get this right. The first motion that you made was just to -- the stuff on footnote 1.
>> the others we --
>> okay. We're clear on that. So this is everything that we've worked on and discussed before being included in the document. Is that correct? This motion.
>> this is for us to approve the draft with changes made today. And to distribute that draft to the 125 or so officials and managers at Travis County for their review and comment. Normally we give them two weeks to let us know how -- how they respond. If we deliver this by Thursday or Friday of this week, then we're talking about having it on the court's agenda probably three weeks from today.
>> okay. I'm fine with that motion. Okay.
>> and that was -- there were four of us in favor of it and -- that passes by unanimous vote.
>> yes.
>> thank you for bringing a fine document to us again, mr. Smith and --
>> you are welcome.
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:
Tuesday, January 26, 2005 8:31 AM