Travis County Commissioners Court
September 13, 2005
Item 26
Now, we only have a few minutes left this morning. We do have a few residents here, though. One's been here pretty much all morning, I think. So let's call up 26 and get a little bit of work done on it and then come back this afternoon. 26 is to consider and take appropriate action on continuation of fy '06 budget markup. Let me ask this question, are there any residents here that would not be able to come back this afternoon? If so, you may want to come forward now. Seeing none, christian? By wait, I did get from the envision central Texas a letter in which they request $25,000. Rom Travis County. And I believe that was the contribution in '05, right? To envision central Texas? I think the new director contacted me on the first day of markup last Wednesday, and asked about the budget process, and I told her we were in the middle of markup and I asked her to get me in writing whatever the request was, and she sent me later the same day an e-mail in which they asked for $25,000. And that was the amount of contribution in '05, as I recall. So I simply call that to the court's attention at some point, 29 next week we need to land on it. In terms of budget markup, do we really have until the 27th to work?
>> no.
>> is the 20th more --
>> yes.
>> more realistic?
>> I can expedite your discussion and make it simple or not in accordance with your wishes. At the end of markup -- I can walk you through very quickly where we are. At the end of markup you had a general fund negative figure of $356,834. Since then a variety of corrections have been identified, some of which are -- owe all of which are technical in one form or another. And leroy nellis sent you a letter on September 12th and we will be glad to walk you through those changes. The bottom line is when you insert those corrections, Travis County general fund has a positive balance of $76,321. And in the absence of anything to the contrary, we would simply say put it on allocated reserve and move on. However, you also may have other issues you wish to address, envision central Texas or anything else. But that is the status with one other item, and that's what we've been informed that there is an additional roughly $6,000 of additional revenue from the da that we -- we said it was going to be 30,000 and we've just received a letter indicating it would be 36,000. So that's where things stand right now. And it is your pleasure -- if you like we can walk you through very quickly what the corrections are and at least you will have a status report of where you are now and can conclude whether to simply leave things where they are, deal with any other additional items, move it to allocated reserve and have lunch.
>> christian, there was one other thing. This morning when we were talking about the katrina effort there was a proposal coming forward from records management about a reduction down of their reserve to go for a specific purpose, and it seems to me if that's something that we are wanting to bless, we would have to bless it in some form or fashion coming from other funds and allowing two new f.t.e.'s to be added. So if that is the will of folks to want to do that, we need to give that department official permission at this point during markup item.
>> you could also do that after the beginning of the year because it would be coming out of allocated reserve and it would be the creation of two temporary positions and you could do that on October 3rd or November 15th or in March. So because it's a special fund you have that ability and it's under your control, you have the ability to create transfers at any time.
>> but knowing that there is an issue right now in terms of making employment available, it's better now as opposed to two weeks from now simply so they can go start the hiring interview process.
>> and that's the reason to do so, not necessarily because you're facing some artificial deadline. I知 just trying to give you options.
>> we have another week if we choose to do it.
>> yes. But on September 20th you need to land.
>> so the information that leroy gave us, though, does not have the 76321 figure.
>> the 76,321 available has already incorporated the $402,992 that was on my memo dated yesterday.
>> most of that is the reduction in county expenditures due to the approved district judges' salaries being absorbed by state funding. That is a reduction. The 402,992 is a reduction expense and therefore it provides you with additional resources.
>> so do we hear from -- we normally have one-time money that becomes available late in the process.
>> we will have the fifth revenue estimate from the county attorney's office. I believe it's scheduled for next Monday. And we will be working Monday evening to bring the corrections, any additional revenue that shows up in the fifth revenue estimate to you next Tuesday for correction.
>> Travis County auditor? From the county auditor?
>> yes, the fifth revenue estimate. On Monday from the county auditor. And then we will bring you the corrections on Tuesday to correct all of the funds and tie them to the fifth revenue estimate.
>> the other way in which additional resources that are one time are uncovered is through the scrub process. We have --
>> that was a subtle hint that I intended.
>> yes, I understand that. And that hint, we can walk you through the scrubs are done, we have a set of recommendations, we can walk you through that now. But it will take you 10 or 15 minutes to do so. Or we could pass it on and talk about it after lunch.
>> why don't you pass it out and this is something better taken after lunch.
>> but it's all capital.
>> in essence it's a series of fund switches to review existing resources and certificates of obligations as well as a recognition of the hava grant reimbursement to take approved projects that were capital and fund them out of existing resources so that you don't have to borrow as much. And the bottom line of that process is that we're -- we are reducing the proposed certificate of obligation to a million 775, and that strategically allows for what may very well happen when the bond elections are passed and you absorb a very large amount of bonded indebtedness. The smaller you can make that co, the more debt capacity you will have. So we took that strategy.
>> but we usually and exreet actively use part of this to make a contribution to karr.
>> if you wish.
>> yes.
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> are there questions about the changes? I mean, could the court take action on the changes so we can integrate them into the --
>> can we do it at 1:30? We know you work over lurj. That's a hint for you to have lunch today. Move we recess until 130. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
When we recessed for lunch, we were discussing the item regarding markup. Number 26, our budget director had just shared with us corrections. Any questions about them? Move approval of the nellis memo.
>> second.
>> including the recommended corrections. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. In the interest of -- of letting you know where all of the resources are, what we have run across some additional resources and have also run across a desire to spend those resources, and I think sherri flemming can provide you an update.
>> okay.
>> sherri flemming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans services. Health and human services has been able to identify encumbrances and I知 sure p.b.o. Will tell me if I知 using the wrong terms, but some encumbrances that we would be able to liquidate and free up about $130,000 in resources. And with the liquidation of those encumbrances, the department would request rebudgeting for -- to apply toward our request for the children's partnership. These would be one-time dollars so we would be primarily wanting to use them for services as opposed to positions that might be ongoing. When we were talking about the embedded county contribution toward the full partnership that we hope others are involved in. That's correct.
>> that's correct, these were actually dollars that we identified as a part of our budget presentation that the department felt pretty sure that as we go through the process we will be able to identify. So we have actually identified 30,000 more than we had anticipated. So is this one -- 130 from 500,000 or 130 from the 248 we talked about.
>> 130 from the 500,000, because the 500,000 encompasses a service amount and a staffing amount.
>> so we will -- still 248 short or 130 from 500,000 short?
>> we are 248 short.
>> okay. If we liquidate and reapply.
>> what we would do is the 130 would fall toapding fund balance and then we would budget that with your concurrence, an additional 130 -- that's how that would work if it's consistent with your desires.
>> do you want a motion to that effect, judge?
>> to liquidate the --
>> to liquidate the 130, let it [indiscernible] in the balance to be rebudgeted in the '06 budget for purposes of the embedded county expenditures related to the children's partnership.
>> second.
>> sounds found to me. Sound fine to Commissioner Gomez, too. Discussion? All in favor, that passes unanimously. So in the -- on the scrub report we got this morning, so that full report is coming next week?
>> full report has been delivered to your office and we have extra copies.
>> it was actually delivered here. But we do have extra copy ifs they are needed.
>> is the plan mow to walk us through that.
>> that's right.
>> okay. Turning --
>> does everyone have a copy?
>> just before lunch. This is the annual process that we do which is basically using existing certificates of obligation balances for projects that have already been approved by Commissioners court. These are not new projects, these are projects already somewhere in the mix. One thing that I should note is different this year than in previous years, you will notice that the amount is much greater and the reason for that is the -- is the -- I think it's help america vote act. Hava grant. These are co where we purchased some election equipment. We were reimbursed for that. Two of our co funds, freed up additional resources. We are recommending using the allocated reserves of four co funds, 435, 4 [indiscernible] for projects already proved by Commissioners court. One little note here is that in fund 435, what we are doing there is recommending to move an existing project that we talked about during the rebudgeting process from fund 456 to fund 435, that's the a.d.a. Sidewalks totaling 252,000. The reason I mention this is it's a project that was going to be rebudgeted in an existing co and we are moving it from one existing co to another existing co, so it is not in your total. And what -- the reason that we are doing that or recommending that is that it will provide additional flexibility because the official statement which is what guides us legally to what we can use these funds for is more flexible in the 456, which is why we are recommending this change. Moving on then, what we are recommending is mostly from the preliminary budget co, and if you will turn to page 2, that first bullet was that 252,000 that I just mentioned. The remaining bullets here, 441,000 for mostly replacement county-wide vehicles, 1.3 million for patrol vehicles, 440,000 for smoke evacuation system, 46,000 for courthouse first through third floor, 281,000 for file server upgrades and then a variety of other its upgrades and projects, what we have done is mostly moved from the existing preliminary budget co to fund 456, in the instance of the 1.3 million you will notice that that came from car to the existing co, which then provided room in car to move additional projects from the co to car, which is that second portion of bullets, which is one million dollars was moved from fy '06, the co to the car. The room that it -- that -- that it vacated we were able to fill up. What's the bottom line here basically? We have a revised at the moment co total of 1.7 million. And we had a revised car total of 8.8 million. However you have approved some corrections today that I will need to incorporate into that number that freed up some additional resources. I値l be happy to answer any questions or go through the specifics, which are on the worksheets. In terms of our markup, not quite knowing how to answer departments that are asking the question. A good portion of what we did on markup had to do with the o and m side of the house. I kind of even in my own mind that if it was a capital thing that I thought would be either car or co was saying oh, we'll get to that another day because we don't have to decide the co's at the time that we adopt the budget. That's a discussion for another day. At what point is that discussion for another day? Because we certainly have some issues with gardner-betts. There may or may not be more i.t. Things, t.n.r. Items that are just logical co candidates that didn't make it on a bond election, are too big for car, what day is that discussion?
>> let me say there's the theory, there's the reality. The theory is the sooner the better. The more -- when something is ripe and red for delivery, let's deliver it, get it in, and move on. If things still need discussion, if they still need baking, if they are not ready, still more discussion, if there is some -- some -- if there's a lack of clarity on the magnitude of the project, it could be bigger or smaller and those discussions have not yet occurred and still need to occur. Then it is a little awkward to be doing that on the 13th of September or September 20th. Frequently, some of these are work session topics. Some of these are perhaps absolutely ready to go. Some of them may or may not be related to the bond election, which will occur in early November. So from a theoretical standpoint, we would urge not only the court, but all of those that are interested to gain discussions with the Commissioners court and gain direction as soon as possible. Typically, we try to tie the co down by thanksgiving. To the degree that things remain unbundled or still in the air, it does create ambiguousty but sometimes that results in something more creative. That's the theoretical answer. I think if there's something that needed to be added today, it should be done from budget markup from a capital standpoint if it's going to be on the co, it of course can be done in October-november. But we would urge as soon as possible to get some discussion going. I know the court sometimes is hesitant to have work sessions in October-november. If you are willing it could be beneficial.
>> there are other -- there are other budget issues that -- that we have been reminded of during the last seven to 10 days. That need to be dealt with before October 1.
>> then they should be at the time with today.
>> like operating expenses associated with the security equipment that we approved. We did not have the personnel staffing costs before us when we approved the equipment. A lot of the equipment doesn't have to have the -- doesn't help to have the equipment unless you have the personnel there to use it, right? And so it seems to me that it would make sense for us to come with a list of -- of requests that we think we need to land on during budget markup.
>> especially if they are budget fund.
>> right. Because I can't recall the amount of the -- of the security related operating costs. It was a couple $100,000, right?
>> did we, did the security committee come up with a recommendation on operating costs related to -- to their recommendation?
>> they did, but we only had the equipment before us in markup for some reason. They did -- in fairness they did try to give us a report one day and I remember one member of the court wanting to postpone that. And so had we received that full report, we would have heard this part of it.
>> doyne bailey, for the security committee. Judge, in all fairness to you, at that point we were not prepared to even make the recommendation for personnel since that time we have met and in order to maximize the -- the advantages of the equipment that cscd is getting from the state, we are recommending 3.66, which is the minimum amount of personnel that would go along with that. It would primarily be used in -- in precinct 4, at the precinct 4 location.
>> do we have a cost of that. And is it related, do we have a relationship to the existing constables for security needs? And resources.
>> your turn, bill.
>> well, I was just asking the chief that question actually. I do have a cost related to 3.75 positions which is actually more practical than 3.66. For scheduling reasons. I don't know whether it's related to or whether the constable 4 assumption is built into -- into these numbers.
>> wasn't there an f.t.e. Added by the court for constable 4 to provide security to that building? I was only just asking.
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> one and a half.
>> that included or is this on top of it or do we know?
>> we -- the committee would not address that we are simply saying it would take about 3.5 people to be able to utilize the equipment that's being purchased. Who should address it?
>> you are doing a good job. Now that we are on that path, where will we end up?
>> do we need a memo in front of us on some of this stuff. I don't have any basis to know what 3.66 or 3.75 gives us. I知 not sure what some point some of these discussions are not appropriate discussions for us to be having in open court about has that indeed does buy us. So I need some written material and not necessarily in open court.
>> did you want to send me that e-mail?
>> yes, in the p.b.o.
>> my recommendation was to come up with a list of things that we needed to address. So on the -- on the September 20th markup list, let's put operating -- expenses for security.
>> is there -- are there other things on that list?
>> envision central Texas requested $25,000. I think we need somebody to confirm for us next week that that was the '05 contribution. My recommendation -- my recollection is that it is.
>> what department does that proposal go through.
>> t.n.r., I think, was where it was this year.
>> should that department help answer some of the questions?
>> I thought thought it would be a budgeted amount that -- p.b.o. Or t.n.r. Either one --
>> we believe we know less than the department under whose umbrella it is, but we'll be glad to help answer whatever questions there are.
>> we also need to get a report from sally related to what did our 25,000 get us this last year and Gerald I知 not even going to let you say it. I mean, you know,.
>> I may join him.
>> [laughter]
>> because it was one thing about being a good partner, being part of the group gig, it's another thing to say, okay, do we need to be weaning ourselves off of this, for this agency to be self sufficient and for us to be able to get more than just the bragging rights of a group gig?
>> we did offer to come by and chat with us and answer whatever questions we have. It may be instead of trying to work around this year, they do a 25,000 earmark against allocated reserve, have her come chat with us. When we have a little more time. Maybe even in the work session setting, that way we would be able to have -- the questions that we are having.
>> that's what you did last time. She came in and released it from reserve and gave it to us. It is not in our budget. Last year that's what you did. You had it in reserve as an earmark, then moved it to our budget after sally came and made the presentation.
>> I think that's a good strategy.
>> don't give the judge credit for an original thought. [laughter]
>> it was original last year. I知 comfortable with that strategy again saying earmarked against allocated reserve, it comes back on another day, Gerald, I知 going to be joining with you in terms of --
>> what does an earmark mean, that means they are going to get it.
>> no.
>> that's what it generally means. I mean [laughter]
>> there are many earmarks that get liquidated. Just says that it's a discussion thing for something that is not fully cooked on the day that we --
>> let me answer the first question that you asked. What have we gotten out of belonging to envision central Texas? Is there anybody on this court that is on the envision central Texas executive committee? Now we did designate specific Travis County staff to serve on the various committees the --
>> the executive committee I think is it you?
>> no [laughter]
>> I mean, there probably is one of the five of us on it. I bet you that none of us have ever gone to the thing. So let's stop, you know, putting ourselves in this spot where where we hate to tell somebody no. I知 more than happy to deliver that message. I知 make that message, I will make the phone call right now if you like.
>> on camera. [laughter] what we did on the whole clean air force thing is that we basically pulled back a little bit and redirected some of those same dollars for a similar task but done under Travis County's umbrella as opposed to somebody else's. He's got a headache.
>> I知 not sure any one of you are appointed to the ect. I think occasionally shalene teanz, she's on the clean air force side, she occasionally will attend some but it's not in her domain. It's usually the clean air site. She's appointed to.
>> so we will pull up the minutes from that meeting. [laughter]
>> okay.
>> let's see who we designated and I致e been getting a whole lot of e-mail, copies of different stuff.
>> the other person might be you. I知 sorry to say.
>> to get the e-mails. Now the meetings are on Tuesday. One this morning at about 9:30.
>> I have no idea.
>> e-mails will stop coming when they want $25,000. They will start coming and they will come one after another.
>> put it on for next week to have a discussion?
>> it's on that list. Is there anything else on the list? I知 looking at a -- an its capital needs memo from -- harlow, I guess we need to start us a capital needs. I知 assuming these are one-time expenditures.
>> judge muir and estella here are here on the gardner-betts issue, which is way out there.
>> the courtroom.
>> yes.
>> all right, is that a co issue or --
>> I think it's co.
>> okay. Do we want to just start a discussion next week of co's?
>> at your pleasure. There are a variety -- there's probably -- there are dozens, at least a dozen capital items that are out there that are -- that are logical for a co. T.n.r. Is on there, too. There's a grant match for the [indiscernible] creek project did not make the bond election, some things about f mix, is the appropriate amount in there for hot mix or not. There's nothing in there related to the parking lots. The parking lots and the park roads related to h mac. So there is a -- there is a discussion that that's o and m, that is not a bond election.
>> there's post road. Precinct 2 building. There's a number of things out there that are -- that are still wiggling.
>> there could be another budget started is what you are saying.
>> it's your pleasure.
>> budget, too.
>> some of these are right and some of them need some work. In -- in my judgment at least.
>> work session?
>> some of these are really appropriate for a work session.
>> I知 just thinking that --
>> you have a letter that's talking about the magnitude of the jail project. The budget for the jail project. That's another one, assuming the bond passes.
>> christian nobody knows it better than y'all. Because y'all are the ones that everybody runs it by and y'all are the first ones that I go to to -- you know, to cursorily read whatever all of the stuff is, but I want to get to the back where it says p.b.o. Recommends this, here's the reason it doesn't. So I mean I -- it would help me if you all were to put here are the things that have been brought to us that we think that are -- that are co worthy. And that's because otherwise I mean we -- it doesn't do me any good to get my calendar filled up with departments that want to see me for -- for 30 minutes at a time because I know what's going to happen. I mean, it -- I知 going to sit there and go, well, how does p.b.o. Feel about this? I mean, they are the ones that put it in the budget. They are the ones that weighs what we can do versus what we can't do. And so I致e -- I値l look forward to getting that from -- from your department. We got a one from joe harlow. Again some of these things are policy decisions, it's not a p.b.o. Decision about whether we do or do not do f mix. Quite frankly Gerald I think you need to heavily weigh in on f mix because that is largely a precinct 3 technique brought forward by the precinct 3 Commissioner who was here before who it was an add-on and it was not the basic way that we do things around here.
>> I知 happy to weigh in on it. I would like to have the cliff notes of this thing versus -- that's what I want. I want to see here are your choices.
>> we can give you pros and cons.
>> that's -- that's what I want. I mean, I知 not saying that you all are the one that's make the policy. But I certainly would like to see the list of -- of these things that are coming to you and your opinions on them.
>> well, that budget --
>> what's ready. Like the way we approach the bond election projects whats ready to go? And will immediately get done as soon as we get our hands on some money.
>> and some of these were discussed at budget hearings. Some of them at length. Some of them were not even discussed at budget hearings. Some of you have said that you want to talk about it and others there's -- they were totally bypassed on the budget agenda worksheet. So we are glad to put together what we know of things that are still out there, the pros and consequence, some of them are absolutely ready to roll. And some of them are still in -- in development. Many of them, however, it's a choice. It really is. I mean, it's a -- it's the court's choice as to whether or not you wish to proceed or you wish just to hold back. No small part. We recognize that in '07 you are going to get a very large hit on your debt service, you are going to absorb a lot of your debt capacity. We are sensitive to that. We may be more cognizant than we should be to the impending absorption of tens of millions of dollars of debt that is -- that is right now ready to come out of the oven.
>> we have made some policy decisions, for example, related to pulling under t.n.r. The items related to some of our general facility parking lots and our park roads, but that ought to be brought under the umbrella of the t.n.r. Hot mix contract. That's lovely, but we didn't fund it. If we are serious about that's the appropriate thing to do, that we don't want those things to degenerate when you rebuild them they are that much more expensive, I mean we need to be handling that the same way that we are with our roads, the condition that you attack it quickly when it is very -- it is less expensive because if you wait and it detearates. It will absolutely be more.
>> rather than a long discussion today, what if we ask you to come up with three lists for us. One would be sort of ongoing expenditures list. At the top of that put any revenue available and the second would be the capitalist, any one-time money available.
>> included the scrub money. Third list would be co's. Now the co list we really don't need it now, but I guess we may as well know what's on it. If you get that list to us by Friday, letting any member of the court look at it, if the court member has additional things to put on that list, let the rest of us know over the weekend on Monday.
>> I --
>> when we get in here, we basically will see what's available, what's the list -- what the list is, decide what to do with it.
>> two and three are related to one another. The scrubs and co's are absolutely tied. Over $4 million of additional resources, cuts the co down to a million seven.
>> any written explanation on there you please appropriate as budget director.
>> okay. And then --
>> but the lists that I知 thinking about are the co's you can do much, much later if you want to. You may as well see the fwipg of the list. On the capital stuff I知 thinking the question is whether we want to go ahead and land on those.
>> now, let me say this. All of the cash flow requested, all of them that's on joe harlow's sheet and all of the operating requests didn't get funded during markup or in the preliminary budget are on the sheets. It would be helpful for us if the court members as you did before the last day of markup -- each of you reviewed this and just put up things that hadn't been funded that you are interested in having a vote on. We can come up with a list, but it's really a recapation of this.
>> well, as of today, the list that you will see of ongoing expenditures will be everything that's unfunded here and $76,000.
>> I think to be complete, now, that's on -- that's not critical, it will require critical thinking.
>> but there are some things that are not on the list.
>> well then it will be even longer.
>> we heard about two of them today.
>> it will even be longer.
>> don't give us that list. If your number one is consult your budget worksheet, I won't like it, but I値l do it.
>> that will be my number one. I won't have a number two. Because I think it's done.
>> well, one thing would be the security operating expense.
>> we don't know about it until we got an e-mail yesterday and we still don't even know [multiple voices]
>> that's exactly my points. It's not on that list.
>> I know.
>> okay. We are okay with that.
>> ms. Flemming's thing wasn't on my list, is that on that list right there.
>> we got into that at noon today.
>> that's -- my second point. So if there are other things like that, they ought to be on the list. If not then what you are saying is consult the budget worksheet, I have no problem doing that.
>> if we had questions related to reconfirming that there are no operating considerations for what we think is just a capital only item, not seeing the constables here, one of them I hope is a good example about the mdt computers for their cars, it would seem if there's any operating it's minuscule related to maintenance on the computer systems because the people and the cars already exist.
>> you got dispatch issues on this. Dispatch and mdc's are linked.
>> there were separate dispatch issues related to the sheriff's office, people who were really doing computer duties, they have -- there are two overlay things going on in dispatch. If we move the constables over, that's one separate issue. Aside from that they have got two out of five people who are not doing dispatch supervisory things as their primary gig.
>> you can simplify by unlinking. The old f mix hmac issue, if it was on the worksheet, it did not jump out at me. Other issues I guess were more important. But today's discussion leaves me with the impression that at least we ought to look at that so I make sure that I understand all of the facts. If we need to do something, we have an opportunity to do it? You see what I知 saying.
>> judge. I知 not meaning to cut you off. But the capital that -- that has been suggested that we are to look at on our -- on our itemized budget worksheet coming from its, I guess my question is what capital and how is it associated with the its overall scheme of things. I don't know if it's specifically ties into what -- what -- what function of its, in other words, there's a lot of capital in the worksheet that -- that has many multiple functions as far as its, as far as the county is concerned. There was a whole bunch of stuff on there. Now the -- my question is what specific capital are we referring to on the worksheet. Let me comment on that. There should be an explanation in your back book on every single request on this sheet. Ie, if -- if the e-mail that you receive from joe harlow on the capital items, there should be a writeup, at least a short writeup in your black book under its, under the department that explains those requests.
>> all right. I understand that. Thank for you that explanation. But there are certain things that I know that I -- made out of deference because it was facts related. Of course there are only certain departments that I have -- that you would like to continue funding as far as fact is concerned, especially if there's capital associated with it. A lot of requests, I -- not only talks about f.t.e.s, but capital for those as far as going through this facts process. My whole point is that as I stated then, still stating today, is that I知 not hog-tied down on the schedule as far as what we ling with, dealing with facts. If these capital consent agendatures are related to some of the same things my list is going to be short.
>> none of mr. Harlow's items that are on his e-mail are related to facts. They are all other technological improvements dealing with proposals for technology that were reviewed by p.b.o., that were not in preliminary budget, that -- that were either discussed or not discussed at the budget hearing, that were not reviewed and approved during markup, and are now before us. I will put them on the list. We will put -- we will put lots of things on the list. And we will get you the list by Friday. In -- in a format that you have asked for. And -- and then you can decide how you want to proceed. I am a loyal, flexible, easy going kind of guy. [laughter]
>> at least today you are.
>> thanks [multiple voices]
>> let me tell you, this is not too difficult. You are right. Working off of this is the thing that we need to go back to. But what I would like to see, could you take -- could you all take and -- I don't care whether it's green or take another color, and put what we did sign-off on because trying to take the notes while everybody was, you know, sometimes you miss things so I -- it would be nice to have this back to us but just have another color and say if it's green that's what you did sign-off on, where you didn't spend money so you can go to -- is that possible to give us that.
>> we will give you green.
>> okay.
>> green is a good color for me.
>> good suggestion.
>> money.
>> we will put green down on what you approved in markup, then you can look at the whitey. Do you wish to approve the scrubs? Ordeal with scrubs next Tuesday? Because if you approve it, you can -- you can always change it or you can deal with it next Tuesday, too. If you approve it, you can change it. But it does provide you a platform.
>> I don't see a problem with approving this.
>> a base -- we can always change it.
>> in essence move stuff basically and reduce the co. We were sensitive. The strategy was cut the co down. So that you could cut that debt down. And now that obviously allows you to build it back up.
>> to make room for other things. Or somewhere in between.
>> judge, I would move that we approve the scrubs.
>> I will second it. So are we able to look at ms. [indiscernible]'s memo and find out what happened to the hava money.
>> I can actually show you that on page -- the first instance of it is on page 4 in detail, which is one of the worksheets, you'll notice that we started off fund 456 with a very modest allocated reserve of 75,000, which is what I presented during the rebudgeting process, underneath that there's some revisions, the first revision is what we discussed earlier which is moving a sidewalk project, a.d.a. Sidewalk to a different fund, that was from one existing co to a different existing co, but it frees up funds in fund 456. Reclassification of hava reimbursement funds from fund 463, when we received hava phase 1 in the spring I believe it was, all of the reimbursement went into fund 463, moving it to the appropriate account. And then the projected increase due to the hava, I知 not -- really should say phase 2 reimbursement of 1.4 million, which means that you have a revised available projected reserve of 2.1 million and then you will see below that how we spent that or how we are proposing that you expend that on projects that are already approved. The other fund that was affected is on page 6, which is fund 463 at the top. You will see that that allocated reserve of 1.8 million rounded up included already about approximately a -- 1,055,000 in hava reimbursement. Then we had to make revisions. Departments tell me after the facts sometimes of expenditure that's they have made or end custom ambulances that they have made that's going to reduce that fund balance. So I have to account for that. The second one there is the 337,000 that I moved to the appropriate location in fund 456 and the third one is the hava phase 2, 1.6 million in round numbers that we just received on wire transfer. That gives you a revised allocated reserve projected of 2.5 million and you will see how we have proposed that you can expend that on project that's have been approved. So the total hava money was 3.2 plus about a million, 4.2 total. Have that number here. 403 million --
>> yes, 3,731,878. And the co's. Also funds in the general fund but I wasn't accounting for those.
>> those -- those particular co's I guess that's already been marked -- an example, I知 sorry, I didn't hear you?
>> an example in 1984 bond money per pay, that specifically that's just going to basically roll over.
>> in the 1984 funds, to those same particular projects [multiple voices] that won't be affected [multiple voices]
>> these are all co's. These are all co's that were -- [multiple voices]
>> I think from the 90s.
>> nothing as far as those other things are concerned was affected.
>> no, no, sir.
>> okay. Thanks. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. What we will do is put together a list of unfunded items, whether it's co or capital and I think those are going to be very similar. Similar category. As you can see, sometimes things are car funded, sometimes things are co, but so that you have unfunded items. That are both ongoing and one-time. We will do our best to get that to you by the end of the week, get you another horse blanket that has green on it and -- I would schedule some time next Tuesday.
>> when?
>> Friday.
>> in terms of the o and m items, we certainly have the security item, we have got the ect and are we going to put on, even though it's not a general fund item, the discussion about the records management fund? Being utilized in terms of the reserve and the two -- the two positions? Is that on for next week?
>> it might be that ought to be another item.
>> okay.
>> should --
>> separate.
>> separate item. That deals with that.
>> okay.
>> are you going to put that on, judge, for next week? How are we going to handle that?
>> we will have steve send it through p.b.o.
>> if you are hearing.
>> the money is there, it's really a policy.
>> it's just a policy thing. Coming out of the records management reserve.
>> okay. [one moment please for sitem, number 26 will be back on next week.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...there is this pending item in the law enforcement package that the auditor is waiting for an update on the jp's and support staff in order to determine how much of the 1.3 million that she's willing to certify and give a revenue estimate. That may be something that you need to hear today because you get your fifth revenue estimate next Monday.
>> is that the traffic enforcement?
>> yes.
>> we assumed revenue and it might not be there.
>> so did we need to hear from the auditor or do we need audit to get with the department? Because if roger has questioned, we need to get them answered.
>> I think deanna has been meeting with the jp's and she can brief the court on the status of the jp's and then the auditor's and auditor's staff can raise any questions. I think we need to do that today so that --
>> the auditor's office, when this issue came up we expressed concern. We had a number of sumghtses, -- assumptions, and one was would the jp offices have the resources to deal with these tickets because if they come in and pile up, that doesn't produce you any revenue. We still haven't heard. We need to know from pbo if they're comfortable with the resources that are going to be available.
>> didn't we fund eight f.t.e.'s for the jp's?
>> put in a reserve. It was put in the reserve.
>> put into a reserve so when the program is implemented, each of the affected jp offices, each of the four will get two, so there's money for eight in the reserve. You didn't give it to the department because the program hadn't been implemented yet. That was our rationale, right?
>> well, part of the issue was also space allocation. I spent all afternoon at one of the offices, I致e had phone conversations with the other three judges that are involved in this, and we found space, it looks like, in precinct 2, which is the area that has the greatest space issue right now. And we know that there's ongoing, outstanding issues with that whole building, but we think we found a temporary solution that judge bembry is happy with. We found six spaces that what we need to do now is we could fund -- we could go ahead and come next week with the specific numbers to put the funding in place for all four jp offices in the correct line items in that budgets from that reserve and go ahead and then have -- we could have an earmark on car reserve for additional capital expenses because fm has not been in on the loop on this, and they need time -- we need to go to them and tell them this is what we're thinking we can do, we're pretty sure it will work and we need you to come up with the costing for all the different cubicles and lateral files instead of these kind of file cabinets that they have right now. It shouldn't be too much money, but it's a good temporary solution that will get them to where they need to be so they can get these people in. Another issue is if we could have the officers not start quite in October, maybe a little later, if they can have time to do that change, or if they're going to be working in other areas of the county rather than focusing a lot in precinct 2 because we know that's one of the areas that we're expecting to have a lot of work load. It would just be for a couple of months and so that we could get the people on board as soon as possible.
>> that's just a staffing thing of working with scott [overlapping speakers]. And you move them around when you can appropriately move them into the jp's office.
>> but you're looking for a bit more certainty for revenue certification, I take it?
>> we'd like to see something in writing telling us that pbo is comfortable they will have the resources, when they will have the resources because we may need to scale back the revenue now that we're talking about starting October 1st so they have the space and the time and they know this program is coming. That's been our concern for some time. We're not interested in building a backlog of tickets in jp offices. That doesn't produce revenue.
>> they don't need that.
>> the last thing they need.
>> but they all have said that given these accommodations -- so the numbers might be slightly different on a couple of the jp's, also precinct 1, pbo was recommending two f.t.e.'s for that precinct. They said with the space issues how about we take one f.t.e. And the other we get the slot, but then we have the funding and overtime in temps until we get the space issue resolved. And so they're all working hard to make this work and then we could have numbers by -- before the end of the week, in the next couple of days to put it all together to -- that would hopefully be sufficient for the auditor to be able to know how much revenue they could certify.
>> we need a week. To get it together and get it all nailed down.
>> we'll put this on that list.
>> we'll definitely put this on the list. We'll put it on as number 27, 39, one.
>> thank you.
>> adrian Moore.
>> thank you very much, judge. Adrian Moore with the council on at risk youth. We appeared before the Commissioners court may the 24th at a work session and shared with you our proposal. We were asking for funding to serve 500 at risk youth in the public school system in five different schools and we're focusing on kids who are in the disciplinary system, kids who are there for assault, abuse, aggression, bullying, intimidation, sexual harassment and so on. 87% of that budget was for five and a half staff personnel positions. You had asked us, judge, to return to give you some feedback on the city's participation in this program, and I知 very, very pleased to report today that the city has come in with a substantial contribution toward the total budget, toward the youth violence prevention program. I want to mention very briefly too since we met in may there are two additional pieces of data that have become available that I think substantiate the need for youth violence prevention in Austin and Travis County. Number one, the safe and drug-free schools report produced by the Austin independent school district reported that for school year '02-'04, there there are 8500 students -- not instances, but 8500 students involved in violent incidents, incidents of assault, abuse, aggression and verbal threats to students and to teachers. Those 8500 students compared to our enrollment of 80,000 kids, that's more than 10% of our kids engaged in violent episodes in the school. That's a 17% increase over the preceding year. Violence is getting more and more serious. The second piece of data, very quickly, the f.b.i. Crime reports are prepared with data that is submitted by the Austin pd and by the sheriff's office, through the department of public safety. For the last five years we know for school age youth, those kids between 10 and 19 years of age, there were increases in the murder rates, there were increases in the aggravated robbery rates, there were increases in the aggravated assault rates. Collectively over a five-year period, school age kids age 10 to 19 were responsible for 27 murders, 425 aggravated assaults and 635 -- that's 425 aggravated robberies, 635 aggravated assaults. So violence among youth is going up with two indicators, one in the school and one through the arrest rates. And that really substantiates our need to invest in the kids early when they begin splaig these behaviors in school. Let me conclude and say we're really pleased that we got the support from the city that you asked for, judge. We're certainly hopeful that the county will come in. The council for at risk youth is the only organization that dwoats 100% of -- devotes 100% of its resources to working with kids who are in school splinnary programs. You all we're at the alternative learning center, we're at bedichek, martin, dobie and webb middle schools and we're working with kids in detention and kids who are removed. We're the only agency that does that. Others do some violence prevention, but we're the only one that devotes all of our resources to that particular purpose. Finally, we have some excellent evaluation results. I shared those with you several weeks ago, I faxed those to you. We're getting reports from straighters, teach -- administrators, teachers, counselors. We're getting kids who are much more positive, their social skills are improving, fighting rates are going down for the kids. Incidentally, they're all improving their attendance rates and their grades, kids who have participated in the violence prevention program. And we want to continue that for one year with 500 kids. Finally, it's very cost effective. You remember the cart we put up, a carey program is $600 per youth per year and that includes the group skills training, the individual counseling, the follow-up coaching, monitoring, mentoring, the parent work. Full year, $600 per student. Recall that a seven-day stay at gardner-betts was $2,000. A stay at Travis County jail for a year is 25,000. A year at the Texas youth commission is 50,000. Five years if we wait until kids commit aggravated robbery is 75,000 at state prison. Recall the study that I shared with you, over a 10 year period of time for a kid who drops out of high school who enters into a 10-year period of time of petty theft, petty crime, aggression, assaultive acts, drug abuse, he doesn't pay taxes, he doesn't pay child support, the american public loses two million dollars. We get a lot of these kids in Travis County. They're costing us greatly. We can interrupt with this program. You recall I shared with you we can turn 60% of these kids around, 300 out of the 500. We're pleased to come back and share with you, we have city support, so we encourage your participation and helping us to work with these troubled and needy kids.
>> help me out with information here, please. You guys are part of the after school network, correct?
>> yes, we are.
>> and I think our funding is about 30,000 from last year, correct?
>> right. And that allows us to work with 40 students.
>> what conversations have you had with other members of the after school network collaborative about whether there needs to be some I値l call it reordering of how many kids are under one program versus another.
>> I think our total projection is about 800 kids per year. Some of those kids are served in several different facets by the different agencies, boys club, girls club, communities in schools and so on. But yeah, each of the agencies provides a specific individual service according to a need for those kids.
>> that's not my question. The question is have you had conversations with the other partners about how that money is split up. Because not only are we doing what we did last year, we're going beyond and I think we're at 431,000. So have you had conversations with those other agencies about prioritization and who should get what share of those funds?
>> no, we have not, not to date.
>> I think you were asked to do that by ms. Fleming, correct? To have that conversation?
>> well, the school district of course is serving as the principal administrator in that regard. And they may have done some work on that, and I know that we've looked at allocation of that budget again as you mentioned, the council on at risk youth shares $30,000 for this next year.
>> what conversations have you had with the Austin independent school district related to them being a potential funder because clearly they are primary stakeholders here?
>> I have had any number of conversations with various administrators, not only this year, but over the past five years. And we've not been successful in gaining fiscal participation by the schools. They have made classroom space available, they've made materials available, they have worked very diligently to make students available for the program that we're involved in. We're really pleased that after the two years of our federal grant, I値l have to say in some of the middle schools, some of the folks were somewhat reluctant about us coming in. They saw us as another private agency, perhaps. The second year they were a good bit more receptive. This year I致e gone in to each of the four middle schools and the alternative learning center and school personnel are delighted. They're opening up their arms, welcoming us back because they know we're getting very, very positive results with these kids. They see it, they like it, they enjoy what we're doing. And I think if they had the resources to respond to their priorities and their needs, speaking on behalf of them, I think they would be glad to help us out, but clearly their priority are in another area.
>> if Travis County chooses to purchase more services from you and if we feel like the after school network there's not going to be much agreement that somebody else is going to give up service dollars to give to you -- that's a different kind of discussion. I would hope that we could turn the conversation to purchasing more from you, but that's where I would need to have a conversation go as opposed to it's a flat out subsidy or it's a funding of the agency. Because we've been very careful on all 46 of our social service contracts that we purchase services. And that's a good conversation to have. If you think 40 -- there's a lot more that you can get done, that's a conversation to say, okay, what's a reasonable number for the county to say it would increase? Is 100 a number? And then you can make the calculation as to what the contract for services gets increased to. I知 trying to be helpful here of saying --
>> how many kids did you work with last year?
>> under the Travis County contract, 40 students.
>> under your program?
>> under the grant, over a two-year period we served 243 kids. Last year there were about 200 of those that we served with that particular grant.
>> in terms of what Travis County funded, we funded -- we specifically purchased services for 40 kids.
>> that was your question, it wasn't mine. My question went to what were the number of students that he worked with last year. So your request today is for how much?
>> we need $150,000 more to reach our full complement of serving 500 kids. We will have sufficient funding to serve 250. And keep in mind we're targeting 500 of the most difficult kids who are going into criminal justice, but that 500, recall the study mentioned, there are 8500 students involved in violent and aggressive acts in the public school. So we're just -- the services we provide are just touching the top of the iceberg. We're only in five school settings out of a total of 100 schools.
>> let me -- if I知 understanding this correctly, the assistance from the federal government, is that something that's currently going on or has been discontinued to help you?
>> yes, the community gun violence grant that we had for two years has been discontinued, that's correct.
>> so this is basically a request for one-time funding or is it ongoing?
>> we would hope it would be ongoing. We would like for it to be a continuation to pick up where we left off at the end of this last school year.
>> is there any efforts or will there be any efforts to get grant assistance from another source.
>> sure.
>> is that something that is being worked on?
>> yes, sir, that is. In fact, three weeks ago we were awarded a 25,000-dollar grant from a local Austin foundation called the glimmer of hope foundation. And the purpose of that grant was to make available a staff person to assist kids in transitioning to the alternative learning center where for behavioral reasons going back to the regular middle schools. That person will help to prepare behavioral plans, will work with the teachers, do some teacher training, we'll monitor these kids in the classroom, we'll do coaching and mentoring with them, but we have that. We also when we find a request for proposals from the federal government or other sources, we apply for those, indeed we do. In fact, our first three years of operation, we operated with corporate support or foundation support and so on. We had the united way, the hogg foundation, the (indiscernible) foundation, lower right and many others.
>> you mentioned earlier that the city of Austin has participated in this endeavor financially. To what amount?
>> the amount that I understand as of yesterday is $50,000, -- $150,000. Half of it.
>> it was earlier also mentioned from the judge about the number of persons that you've served. You're requesting today that you would be able to serve 500 persons under such funding, if necessary funding was available at a 600-dollar per pop, per student. My question to you is have you ever had an opportunity to serve 500 at one time? What's been your most highest number, person that you have served under your program at this time?
>> 200 was the highest number that we served last year, but my background -- I worked with the Texas youth commission for 25 years. I was regional director for 13 years and served many more than 500 kids at any one time. So in accustomed and the organization is equipped to provide the kind of administrative support needed to assure that those 500 kids are going to operate successfully. And that assumes, of course, that we get the other 150,000 for the total 300,000-dollar budget.
>> help me out one more time in terms of the numbers of the last year you served 200 kids.
>> that's correct.
>> how much -- how many kiddos will the $150,000 that you're getting from the city of Austin do? Do I get to put 600 into 150?
>> or roughly one half of the 500 kids, 150,000 will serve about 250 kids.
>> okay. And then our contract will get us another 40 on top of that. In having --
>> yeah, that's separate, right.
>> but the 250, 250 kids, plus the 40, that gets you to 290, that is 50% more kids than you served last year. You've already got your funds to do 50% more than last year, and at some point it's like in terms of ramping up, you give an agency the time to ramp up and show that you can go from -- to go from 200 to 500 is a lot. To go to 200 to 290, I think you can do that, and you've already got the funding in place today to make that happen. And I知 just kind of wondering why we're not calling it a day and say, go do your 290, go to a great job, and then we talk about another ramp-up in terms of purchase of services the following year. I知 not understanding something here.
>> well, let me clarify that the 200 figure that we served last year, that was in the four middle schools and discounting 40 that were in the after schools program. We kind of look at that as a separate, but like. So I didn't include that actually with that number, we served 250 kids last time. But you're correct, it's an aggressive move to total up, but I guess my orientation is we've got some serious problems. We're spending $300 million in Austin and Travis County on criminal justice. As I look at this, 300,000, that's one-10th of one percent for kids who we know are going to go into criminal justice and we're going to expend far greater. So you're correct, you're absolutely correct, it's an aggressive move, it doubles our numbers, but I think it's cost effective. You know, the return will be there. It needs to be done. We're prepared to do it.
>> anything, councilmember goodman?
>> yes. Adrian has all the facts and figures. But as you all know, and I want to thank you for not being rude after I致e bothered you so many times on this. This is a program that I think is critical. And I致e never supported in my life a program that I didn't think was good for community investment and that the returns on that investment were necessary and valuable. These kids are not the likable kids that you see in other at risk programs. These kids I think should have a different label, although not within their hearing because you don't want to tag them any more than they already are. These are high risk kids. And you heard the number 8500 from adrian, and how many untold incidents are there? Ones that are from children who commit violence, abusive behavior, assaultive behavior in school, in their families, in their neighborhoods, and in their expanded territories as they grow older? They take it with them into high schools and they take them out of high schools and they take it to the rest of us. These are kids that are identifiable right now. And we can see where they are in the system, when it's possible to try to remove them from the path that they're on. That benefits all of us. And I don't think that should be dependent on a program like this. I think this is something that has got to be met full face, head on with as many resources as we can give it to those who are capable and able to take that program to the kids where it needs to go. Middle school is where you're able to identify them because they have come out of their youngsterhood, so to speak. They're now big enough, strong enough to make an impact on their friends, on their school mates, on their teachers. And as I致e said before, families, neighborhoods, and ultimately the rest of us. We can take them when they're somewhat under our control at least and try to help them, rechannel them, redirect them, or we can ignore it. We know where the path leads because the expanding costs of our criminal justice system are evident -- sure shirley, you know where it is more than the rest of us in your budget. Those are ever increasing. From our standpoint we should not stand by complacently and accept that as a given that every year it will grow a larger and larger dollar expense and quality of life and societal expense. Even if those kids don't go into the criminal justice system, they are making a negative impact in the society that we're allowing to be built for our future. And when I知 too old to get up and yell about it, I don't want those kids to have significant impact on what kind of world I live in. I want them to have had the benefit of the kind of treatment and instruction and cooperative interaction that they can have. They have not learned how to deal with the world and with frustrations or anger in any other way except non-acceptable ways, abusive, assaultive, violent ways. Seriously violent in our schools. When something like columbine or any other newspaper story you care to look at, the babysitter and the child that no doubt was generated out of frustration, when we wonder how those happen, how those kids get through the system without our having identified them and taken the help to where it's needed, I would say to you they are identified now. They are identifiable within the school system before they go down the path further. And again, when we do have some control over their lives. 8500 is an amazing number. And project that incrementally into the justice system and into our criminal incidents and the kind of young people who enter our system. One begets the other if you don't do something at the root, as we know in other areas, you allow it to grow. And then you can't stand around and say why in the world are we spending so much money on jail space? Why do we have to spend what we thought was extra money in the budget on five new juvenile offense officers? Well, this is why. If we're smart enough to figure out how to do it and where to do it, then I知 asking you to -- let me get off my soapbox and ask you calmly. I hope you all will look for some one-time funding. If you choose to look at this as a one-time funding thing. Obviously our efforts now will be engaged in long-term resources. And the school districts are going to have to bite the bullet and get involved. They're going to have to do more than offer space. This has got to be an integrated part of our school system because this is the world that we look around and see. It's starting to feel like clockwork orange, and I don't like it, and I know that none of the rest of us that are impacted by these children who don't need to end up on that end of the road are leaving us. So if there is money, and I知 sure there is, it's just a matter of you all deciding what you can take from where or not, but I hope that you will look at any help you can give because they need to expand. This program needs to expand and everybody in the world needs to get on board and help. In that sense the purchasing services, you know, was my idea. And I stand by that.
>> my role. In the end the funding is a political one, and that is good, because some things happen outside the outside. The rollback of federal funds is extraneous. It couldn't be foreseen. It's not logical, and god knows what they were thinking when they did it. But we are, I was, you are, representatives of the people. And sometimes you've got to think on your feet, so I知 hoping that you'll think on your feet. I don't in any way question the reasons that you have for not funding. I agree with some of them, but this is extra, this is beyond the boundaries that we normally look at. And I would say the difference that this and an expanded program makes in our lives and the lives of the children and the teachers, of the families, of the neighborhoods and in our community justifies supporting it. And I hope that you'll look beyond those boundaries that you normally look at in a well balanced budget and find a way to come up once again with some help for something that's been forced back on to local resources. It's in essence a morally unfunded mandate. We send a lot of money to washington. They need to send more back. Since they haven't, though, I really ask that you consider it. Chief knee and sheriff hamilton are endorsers of this program. They don't endorse lightly. There's a list of others. And I don't endorse lightly. So although I get kind of emotional here, this is absolutely based on fact, and the world that I hope Travis County is in the future. Thanks. Commissioner Davis, I知 sorry?
>> I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with you one thousand percent, however, where would we find this additional money, pbo?
>> if it was one time, you would modify car and increase your co, and you would do that next Tuesday. So if you're looking for one time money is easier to find than ongoing money. If you wanted ongoing money, you would not fund other programs that you have decided on funding and you would reprioritize or you would modify certain decisions that you've already made. What the judge called tweaking. It's a budget term. And depending upon the size of the ongoing need, you could tweak with a small t or tweak with a capital t.
>> so we're talking about either we tweak for 150,000 or nothing? Or what is the minimum? Are we saying that it's 150,000 or nothing?
>> I don't know that we have a minimum. It's a matter of -- we're providing a service to x number of kids per the dollar. Our budget is 300,000 for 500 kids. If we only get 200,000 total, we'll serve two-thirds of 500 kids, so that the level of service will drop accordingly.
>> okay. And let me finish, Commissioner. And do y'all work with families, with the parents? Do y'all bring them in as well to get them involved with what their children are going through in terms of retraining or reeducation?
>> that is part of the proposal that we have this year to work directly with families. We have an evidence-based program that's endorsed by the organization on mental health and substance abuse. We know it's going to be a real challenge, it's going to be very difficult. Our survey this fall that we did with kids during our program we found three strong characteristics with each of the kids that come in. One, they come from terribly dysfunctional families. They come from families that are characterized with extreme alcohol and drug abuse. And then third, 50% of the kids come from families where one family member is locked up in county jail or state prison. These are tough families to work with, but we are going to give it a real, real good shot this time. And that's part of the proposal. And I hope I didn't avoid your question on the -- what's the bottom. I wish we had enough funding to serve all 8500 of these kids.
>> I do too.
>> if we did, we could significantly impact -- we could greatly reduce the number of kids who go into county jail. Last year there were 2 then sentences in the Travis County jail for misdemeanor offenses. We can impact that somewhat serving 500 kids. If there's only funding between the city and county for us to serve 250 kids or 200 kids, we'll do that.
>> I think we've gone through that discussion here as far as I can remember of trying to do as many preventive things as we possibly can to keep people from going through the criminal justice system. And I think we've addressed that -- I think in 1995 when I got here I was in on the groundwork being done to renew the can process and I think we began addressing those issues back then so that we didn't have to spend as much on the back end building more jail cells, etcetera, etcetera. And yet -- and I think we did quite a bit of work on the can process so that we would all collaborate with each other. And all I remember is those long meetings that we have, week in and week out, of trying to reach a point where we would all coordinate in this community together so that we didn't leave too much uncovered. And knowing all the while that there was no way that we would address every single child or every single person who needed the service that we could afford. And so I知 kind of frustrated that we're still here at this point and I know we're leaving a lot of people unserved, but trying to do the best we can with what we have available, it still makes a lot of sense to me to not set aside that whole process of redoing the can process so that we have everyone working together from the ground up on trying to collaborate, corroborate and communicate with each other. And then we work with the school system as well. We tried to have a program to address truancy so that we would get every child back in school, knowing that the school system would get additional dollars from the state according to the kids being in attendance. But we understood too that they couldn't give us all of the money that they got for the a.d.a. So that we could address preventive issues. They needed to spend all that time in education, but still a lot of these kids fall through the cracks and they never get addressed, and I guess my frustration is they don't -- their needs don't get addressed. We wait until they violate the laws so that we can get them into the criminal justice system. That's extremely frustrating for me and bother some as well. So I知 with you a thousand percent. I feel what you're doing. The only drawback that I can see, though, is to try to come up with the money.
>> what schools do you serve right now? What schools are you serving?
>> we are presently at bedichek, martin, dobie --
>> martin?
>> yes, sir.
>> and webb. And the after schools collaboration we're involved at pierce and webb, that's correct.
>> next question.
>> then the alternative learning center also.
>> you're talking about the one now?
>> yes, sir.
>> the next question, I asked the question about is it ongoing or one-time expenditure. I think you said ongoing, then I heard councilmember goodman say one time. So which is it, one time or ongoing?
>> well, let me say that was from me. The program obviously should be long-term, and carey will be looking for funds long after today. And I知 sure the c.a.n. Process will open up again some day.
>> take what you can get.
>> but I知 saying --
>> we'll put this on one of those lists. Thank god that will be next Tuesday.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> beg your pardon?
>> nothing.
>> there are other items on today's agenda that we've got to turn to right now.
>> sure. Thank you very much. We'll have it back on.
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, September 14, 2005 9:23 AM