Travis County Commissioners Court
August 23, 2005
Item 23
23 approve modification to contract number ps 0500 will 9 re with caritas.
>> the question I had was there was an absolute perplexed how it is that something that is subject to the budget markup next week, that this was presuming actions that had not occurred yet and it was not for simply between now and the end of this fiscal year, for one thing. The other part was there was a budget established for this, and budgets need to be respected, and p.b.o. Had made some figures about what is ending fund balance and what doesn't. I知 perplexed by $50,000, which is a huge overrun on a $250,000 program all of a sudden coming to us at the last second saying not only do we need this, we want to exceed the budget, but we want to cross over to a fiscal year where we've not gone there yet.
>> that was my question. I just didn't understand it.
>> the first question, I believe, Commissioner, was crossing over the fiscal year, I think is the question. When we entered into this fiscal year with the basically needs coalition, we also alerted the court that the -- that the -- that health and human services was also consulting a pilot project with the process that's currently being implemented by the community. We had an extensive budget -- or excuse me, policy change to allow for participation in that project. One of the things that we discussed with the court but the court did not approve was that if we made a certain monetary commitment to having a certain dollar amount of participation in the project. And one of the things that staff discussed at that time was that if we saw where we were having spending issues with that amount of money, that amount of funding, because clearly there are residents who receive services from us who are at a lower level economically that sometimes will prevent from participating in a project this way. What staff presented to the court was that we would look at our spending in this project, and if we were not able to spend the funding through our community centers, that we would make that funding available to the community so that our commitment, the amount of our commitment would be the same.
>> so is p.b.o. Already anticipating you to do exactly that, that you were either going to spend it on a line item that we would call good stuff for these clients, and you want to move it over to a different line item to say good stuff for many of the same --
>> exactly.
>> -- universe.
>> I can't speak to what p.b.o. Would have anticipated.
>> that's a really big deal question because at this point of the fiscal year, they are making assumptions about whether you are going to spend out a line item or not. So a decision like this could have a -- as much as a $50,000 swing in the ending fund balance. I知 not saying we don't do that.
>> I understand.
>> p.b.o. Needs to weigh in on that. The other piece that I知 not clear on is that this has the contract term to be January 1 through December 31st. This means we've run through all of the money even if we do this by the end of October and we're still two months short. Where's the last two months of our money?
>> [inaudible].
>> that's the problem. It does say December 31, 2005, not October 31, 2005. This is implying that we've run through all of the money, plus some, and it will take us through the end of October, and the contract runs through the end of December. So what are we going to do during the months of November and December?
>> the contract with the basic needs through the money has run through the money. I think that the implications that based on their expenditure rate, they anticipate spending a certain amount through the end of the budget year. And I think we talked about that during our budget work session that is correct if you -- the way that we monitor spending in these kinds of programs is we look at the expenditure rate, the number of clients served, then we annualize it. So if that's your question, Commissioner, and if your question is how do we know that there may be potentially a need for additional funds, it is because based on the expenditure rate we're anticipating that the coalition could potentially spend up to $500,000. At the end of the budget cycle -- their budget cycle in December. I知 not sure I知 answering your question.
>> the other piece and I guess [inaudible] on this if the intent was oh, we were going to do good stuff anyway, we're just moving it to different line items, why isn't the date September 30, 2005, because otherwise you are having a contract with rollover provisions, and again, hello, p.b.o. Can you give us insight as to this money?
>> I can give you more insight as to our end of year projections for health and human services which are always extraordinarily difficult to project down to even the $50,000 level. We're projecting significant salary savings from health and human services. However, beyond salaries savings, we aren't projecting significant operating savings. So we're assuming that funds related to operating that currently aren't expended will likely be expended or rolled over. This $50,000 proposal, if it wasn't passed, would probably be in addition to our fund balance, but I don't think approving it would adversely affect what we've currently submitted to the auditor's office. I will say that we're being fairly conservative on what we're projecting as savings from health and human services at this point because this is the first year we're essentially all of their fund balance hasn't been drained to solve a r-map problem. Right now we are projecting significant salary savings, but not much in the operating area.
>> anything in addition? So this is for the basic needs services.
>> yes, sir. And I think it's the department's intent just merely to honor what we felt like was our agreement to redirect a portion of the department's funding in this particular area to this project and not, you know, thinking that we had had to necessarily be the person to spend it, and if we saw we were having difficulty spending it to put it into the community where they are spending it rather than hoard it. And of course it's certainly at the court's discretion if we should often their commitment.
>> I mean I guess I understand it now, but just reading it --
>> it didn't read that way.
>> and I知 sorry about that. We -- purchasing and I noticed a significant document missing from the backup so we're trying to figure that out as well.
>> there's a line item listed here, that's health and human services --
>> it's a direct service line item. The money that is budgeted for direct services and this is certainly going to direct services.
>> and you anticipate $50,000 being available from that line item.
>> yes. And of course this is a reimbursement contract, so they've got to spend it before we reimburse them.
>> a memo from the department would have been helpful, butly move approval give ten explanation. It didn't read that way, sherry.
>> yes, ma'am, I am completely aware of that like 10 minutes ago.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:47 AM