Travis County Commissioners Court
June 20, 2006
Item 38
38 is to consider and take appropriate action on request from court of appeals for the third district of Texas to assist with implementation of house bill 11 regarding judicial compensation issues. Now, last time we discussed this item, there were questions asked that frankly I could not answer. And I have since gotten those answers thanks to travis of pbo and barbara wilson of the county attorney's office, and the information is we asked last time what do the other counties do? And on page 2 the handwritten numbers from the county judge, and at the top it says from barbara wilson. I have indicated what the other counties do. And it looks like they all provide benefits except el paso does not provide health insurance. Judge kenneth laws came by, he's chief judge, and chatted with me probably three weeks ago. And I told him that we're having so many headaches and problems with our employee health insurance that I didn't think the court would be agreeable to considering that and he didn't have any problem with that. But I told him the others make sense to me. So barbara and travis put together a document that shows what the total cost would be if we do this. Apparently that law provided that that new fee became effective January 1, and there is more than enough money already available to take care of it. The other thing is the law provides that the court of appeals -- see that statute in 4-a? It provides that the court of appeals may compensate Travis County to reimburse the county for administrative expenses. In c-2 there, 22.2041 and subsection 1, subsection 2, defray costs and expenses incurred by the county under section 22.204. The other urban counties of Texas have taken the position that the counties have incurred costs similar to or equal to the amount --
>> coincidence, I'm sure.
>> coincidence, absolutely. But there's plenty of precedence for that is what we've been advised. And so their intention would be whatever amount we pay out in '06, there would be a letter to help us cover those costs. In '07 for will full year, the same thing there. Barbara, what's the amount that's been received already? What amount of revenue?
>> up to the end of may, the amount was $36,208.14, of which we had already sent on 28,940 to the appeal court. At the time I looked at this, we may have already sent on the rest of it since then.
>> so it's really kind of funny. The county, whatever we approved, pays them, and the money that we collect we send to the court of appeals, and in this letter commitment, and really the commitment they're able to reduce to writing, they will defray our costs, expenses, etcetera, and in the other counties they really have found the amounts to be roughly the same. So they're kind of holding the counties harmless. But these are separate provisions of the law, it's just that they have happened to work out the same as they would if they were one.
>> well, there were judges writing this. I think they were probably looking at how it would mesh together.
>> help me understand something, judge. It seems like we've got two alternatives and it sounds like the judges are agreeable to a third alternative. And that is the top one we've got here that is full cost of $96,000 is one that includes health insurance, and then the one that was just the salary settlement is a very modest one at 45,000. It sound like what we were talking about is something in between that says, yes, indeed, max out the salary thing and do all of the benefits except health. And that would seem to be a different number and a different differential, correct?
>> it's a different number. And I think barbara wilson provided that number --
>> I did not, sir.
>> travis did? Page 2? On page 2 I think -- on my 2?
>> on your 2, no. What that was was the comparison of the supplements that are currently being paid by the various counties.
>> they have not priced the el paso plan, which is retirement, social security, medicare, but no health insurance. And absolutely the maximum on the salary.
>> what about the second from the bottom?
>> the additional amount needed to increase the third court of appeals judges settlement of $7,500 and include benefits except health insurance is $25,055. That's not it?
>> that is it. And that's travis', yes. I'm sorry.
>> the total budget would be 53055.
>> what's that?
>> calculations based on fy benefits amount will be needed --
>> I don't understand what that is.
>> me either. I understand the 25,055.
>> because that can't possibly be it unless that is not annualized because just the 75 max at six is 45,000 bucks.
>> it's the $45,000 for this 7500 max. If you add the benefits on that $45,000, that will come to 8,055. And when you add that 8,055, and I'm not looking at the same document you are, but the numbers come out the same. Travis has indicated that we currently have budgeted in civil mandated fees in the department of $28,000. When you take that off of that you have 17,000 from the 45 and you add the 8,055 for a net total additional funds of 25,055.
>> okay. So he's saying that's the net annualized.
>> net annualized increase, including salary and benefits, excluding health insurance.
>> so what's the -- do we know the total for the --
>> the total cost for doing benefits except for health and the maximum supplement is 53,055. The reason he gave you the 25,000 number is because he was giving you the increase over your current budget, which is 28,000.
>> okay. So will we receive -- will they receive $55,055 from that fee?
>> deanna did it and she said that we should anticipate that in this fiscal year there would be about $68,000 collected, and for a full 12 months there would be about 86,000, I believe. Am I remembering the number? We did it at lunch and I didn't write those numbers down.
>> we did it at lunch and barbara just brought us up on this and travis is out. So all we did was the auditor's office is the one that does all the revenue and the revenue projections. But what we're looking at is thaws jus that we take the first three months of that -- the first five months that we've collected and just project it out, straight line projection. You would have enough revenue this year to cover the collected and sent over to the appeals court to cover the additional costs this year and then in future years also if you don't include health insurance.
>> let's do this then. Let's calculate precisely what the amount would be if we made this effective July 1 for this year, get that letter covering that. Find out exactly what it would be in '07, so it's confirmation of the 53,055. Find out whether the revenue will exceed that as we think, then maybe get a letter covering '07 and approve it contingent upon that. How's that?
>> yes, doing really rough math, if we've already got 28,000, that should cover what's just exposed here for fiscal year '06. What I don't want to get to is that we're fronting something and it is dependent upon the gracefulness of others. It would be nice if it mapped exactly and we could certify stuff. We've got enough to cover here. We're happier with the numbers that have lord come in.
>> and if you wanted to be generous and make it effective June one, you already have part of one, so it wouldn't be retroactive.
>> we wouldn't have enough money to cover June.
>> if we make it effective July 1, I think he's fine with it. I think July 1 would be fine. The other thing is that they will have more money than ours in their fund because there are 16 or 17 counties. We're the biggest one, so our contribution may make up 70, 75% of the total, but it's certainly not close to 100%, is it? Probably closer to 150, but there are other funds that are rolled into their account. That's my motion, to approve that, we'll have it in writing, we'll get all this paperwork together, have this back on next week. Make it effective July 1. See what they are and request two letters, one for '06 through the end of the fiscal year and the other one for next year to use during our budget process and get it done that way. And if there's something unexpected to surface between now and Friday, we'll let you know. How's that?
>> it's cleaner to go effective in the future as opposed to trying to go back.
>> that's the contingent motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> any more discussion? We'll get those. And if it works like we think, we'll get it done. If not, it will be back here July 11 rather than next week. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
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, June 21, 2006 10:26 AM