Travis County Commissioners Court
September 12, 2006
Item 6
6. Review and take appropriate action on continuation of fy '07 budget mark-up, including, but not limited to the following: status of "fy '07 markup available funds summary"; technical corrections to the -- do we just take these one at a time?
>> you may or pull them up simultaneously. They are somewhat interrelated.
>> what facilitates our discussion of -- of your issues?
>> why don't we take them sequentially.
>> okay.
>> you currently have received a status of fy '07 markup. The bottom line if you have [indiscernible] $723,543 remaining after markup, that is composed of a -- of a deficit on the ongoing side and a surplus of the one-time side, roughly a million-two of one-time resources available but a negative over half a million on the ongoing side. And you have multiple choices in front of you as to the appropriate place for those resources. I should note that you may be -- may be wishing to discuss in executive session. The outcome of your -- of your sale of property today. You also will be receiving a new revenue estimate next Monday. This item will be on the agenda for next Tuesday, the 19th. We will urge you to land on the 19th because with a few days after that we must file a proposed budget on that Friday the 22nd. So -- so if you -- if there are -- I guess my suggestion would be if you have any extraordinary, urgent and compelling needs that you wish to address today, for those resources, that is probably healthy to share those. To the degree that you have gosh this would be nice to do, then you may or may not wish to share those and have them addressed at another time. But that time must be next Tuesday. To allow us to file and then have you adopt.
>> I think we should submit in writing any -- any additional requests that you think we ought to consider. The other thing is that we committed to get that $14.45 million down -- 13 million and the strategy that we adopted is still working, we just need the status report. Today or next week. We think that we will be able to land on the farmers market sale.
>> there's -- there's an update, yeah there's an update that we will get in executive session, it doesn't mean no. It's a little more complicated than -- than --
>> but you should know that you have a plan b. We will provide you with a plan b. Let us suppose that farmers market falls. Either as delayed or just doesn't happen. We have a plan b, it will be composed of a combination of the -- of the scrubs, which are the rose that we will be discussing today. And next week. That is the use of allocated reserves and individual co's where those allocated reserves have had their resources increased as a result of interest income derived through -- in fy '06. You also have -- will have on next Tuesday's agenda alternative levers, alternative techniques that you have before you and they are all fairly simple. And straightforward. To -- to reduce -- help to reduce the 14.4 million co down to 13. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> for example.
>> one of the easiest ones was something that you already had presented to you you. And that was an increase for matching funds in tn r. I think it was, I believe, half a million, 1.2 million match. It may be that could be delayed until October. If it can be delayed until October, it is picked up in '08.
>> part of it.
>> it may be that rather than having a complete match all in '07, you split into multiple years. That's a technical question as to whether the able si will allow that split to happen.
>> it was already being split to 750 and an additional 500,000 being for next year as well. So it was already a split. The 1.2 was not in there as a completed match.
>> okay. There are those kinds of things that we will be exploring.
>> okay.
>> another little concern I have. I guess you could say we will get some stuff in writing, but during the last day of our scheduled markup session, there were certain things that we were trying to allocate funding and support funding for subject matter concerns. And there were some things that I thought that we would have discussed here today. I guess we're not now going to discuss. One thing was the differential stuff. I thought that we were to look at that and see about some of the things, the numbers that were given to us by the sheriff's office, the sheriff's association, and those numbers submitted. And of court the numbers that you have not had a chance to work through. I'm kind of concerned about that. I think it's very important to know where we are on that request because part of that money that I had within the $4 00,000 range that was divided among each one of us part of that money was re reserved for shift differential the but not knowing what the actual numbers would equate to until you have had a chance to get with the sheriff association, that was something that was kind of up in the air. I guess my question now is, is,is, how do they come up with their number, I think 7 765,000, I believe. I can't recall. Whatever the number was, how did they come up with take number compared to what you have. I guess that the my question.
>> we will check that out on the 19th. We realize it would take 10 days to two weeks to get it ready.
>> okay.
>> by the way, there is another list. These sub items here add up to probably, whatcious seven or eight. There were an additional seven or eight that we pulled off because we said we would discuss September 19.
>> okay. Okay. I thought it was today that we were supposed to do that.
>> we would kind of like the vehicles, right, bill?
>> yesthe vehicles will be back on September 19 have.
>> thank you, judge. Thank you.
>> I should just note that when you look at your e-mail e-mails, you will see the vehicle users committee has made certain recommendations and some of those will cost more money. As opposed to reducing expenditures. That also will be on the 19 19th > I do remind--
>> that e-mail was sent sm.
>> this morning about 15 minutes ago.
>> so when you return to your oregon you'll read that that--to your offices you'll read that. That the on for the 19th > I will remind the court, there's 1.2 million that the court voted for a barker road matching funds. It's not a split. So therefore it could be split. But we have to make sure that that particular project would not be disadvantaged by splitting that cost into two fiscal years. So it's those kinds of things that we'll be looking at and coming up with a recommendation. But we're going to be talking with tnr as well as making sure that that's not a problem. That will appear on page 4 here, the court pointed on 1 1.2 million. Even though it may have been intended, recognizing that you may have desired a split that wasn't the vote. So there may be some very easy ways of reducing that 14.4 million co down to 13. And further down. I mean, we can, you could keep going. And you might find some recommendations to keep going. > judge, you asked your colleagues to submit suggestions in writing but did not give your colleagues a deadline. Would you like to give your colleagues a deadline?
>> my colleagues will tell you I don't have that authority.
>> you have authority to ask ask. You don't have--
>> my suggestion to my colleagues is that if we additional items, we provide them to other members of the court by this Thursday, Thursday five o'clock soon enough? So at least we will know before next Tuesday and we'll have a carefully worded sub item to cover. Christian would discourage us from adding anything to this list, but if we think they are critical tells, then I think we ought to consider they will. But if we deal with the 13 million co's off the top, and try to balance ongoing one-time, et cetera, then we really ought to have a sort of refresher on the reserves and make sure that they are adequately funding. I'm reminded that today we had to add, pull from allocated reserves $600,000 to meet utilities expenditures that a year ago we simply did not anticipate anticipate. So that's a huge amount.
>> yes, sir.
>> and an amount which we really had no control. Have you to pay the bills-- bills--you have to pay the bills, especially at the jail.
>> yes, sir.
>> stuff like that is my suggestion to the court.
>> so if do you have any items that are, you know, urgent, compelling, that you wish to, by Thursday at five would you also cc christian smith so that we are aware of them and can help process.
>> send them to christian and cc the court.
>> that would be fine.
>> the law does not allow us to interchange ideas about these items out of course.
>> correct.
>> but we can send them to christian. He can collect them and maybe send out a master document, hopefully with a limited number, if any, for us to share. And if we see that late Thursday also, and have Friday and the weekend and Monday to kind of review them, I think it would be good.
>> do we know if, there was one item, in the my item, it's really--not my item, really joe harlo had an item related to security software and had come up with a proposed solution that would not impact any of these lines. It would be declaring surplus and the use of the risk fund, one-time use, one one-time money. I'm just making sure that that's on a list.
>> it's on the agenda for next Tuesday, the 19th.
>> very good.
>> a review of legally available options.
>> very good.
>> for its related security expenditures.
>> okay. That's already a discussion item. That works. Thank you.
>> so that's where we are on fy '07 markup available funds summary.
>> okay.
>> lou rinelis has been busy running across various technical corrections that need to be made since the end of markup and things traditional, as you know. Out of 10,000 line items, there are always, when we begin to balance against your votes, we discover, oops, and these are different changes that leroy can walk you through. I apologize for having it walked on, but this this is just the nature of the business. But leroy can walk you through. These are pretty straight forward. Leroy.
>> yeah. The fir sheet you have are costs changes. Those normally involve moving into car out of one- one-time s of when we're going through a lot of time we don't have them identified as car. As you can see the largest one there would be the west side service center for 250 250,000, moving it into car. Out of the departmental account. Down below on the other funds, a lot of time we get budgeted expenditures in the wrong line tells and we just take them out of one line item and put them in another another. Of course at the bottom of that first page, you can see that there were reductions for $296,353 and increases of 296,353, so there's no effect on the fund balance that you have remaining. On page 2, the next page, these are actually actions that we just overlooked when we were putting the elected official salaries in. Of course we go back through and recheck after the court takes action. So this is 5,4 4 4 to implement the increase for the elected officials that you did. On the next page of the ones that do involve some funds, it's titled other changes, last time you approved the retirement rate from 10.68 percent to 10.71 percent to implement your three percent across the board for your retirees. Essentially, we had a number in a reserve going out of the preliminary budget that we did preliminary runs. We actually go in and we take every single line item that has retirement in it and we do a refined application. And that's what this is involved. As you can see, about half halfway down, the total impact on that was 2,476. I mean, it's more or less small variances. We do have a situation in many of our positions that have been approved through markup, we need to go in and correct the health and retirement numbers to what the court has approved. We did find one change, and that's about halfway, where it says correction for capital related facts for the district clerk. We had not when we went through the sheets, we hadn't reduced the facts re reserve. So that provides an additional 11,482. We had down at the district attorney, we had some longevity pay that they were not able to pay in '06 and it's 1740. There's some question on that is we rebudgeted that. The next have to do with correcting the retirement in the health insurance. We were notified that we have an additional fte that's come vacant in health and human services. As you're aware, when those come vacant, they go to the city of Austin and then we handle it through that inter interlocal, and that's what the last seven or eight entries there reflect. On the next page, and that's all of the general fund. As you see, we go on the next page to the other funds.
>> would you give a summary?
>> a summary?
>> of the total.
>> yeah, the general fund total on these changes, 4 4, 4,505 reduction in expenditures on the operat operating side and $800 reduction on the capital side. Now, those numbers do not include the additional, on that second sheet, the 5,4 4 4 on the elected official salary. So if you net those, it's about 39,000 plus that we gained on this.
>> so if you approve those technical changes, you would increase the resources available from 723 to just under 40,000 more than that. So about, a little over 760.
>> all the recommended technical changes or corrections. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> that exact amount is 763, 763,40 4 with the corrections.
>> let's do one thing. This is taking a little longer than I thought it would. There's one item that I did not put on consent although it is close to a consent item. The reason is I thought we should call it up and deal with it individually. So let's take a moment to do that. You all can stay right where you are.
back to item number 6, 6 c. Status of the road and bridge fund. As you see on the screen, we still have a negative 347 347,000 in the road and bridge fund. You have options before you. You may wish to make changes but that is a reminder that that is a substantial challenge and in order, you basically have only two choices. You either increase revenue, which is to increase a transfer, or you decrease expenses which have programmatic applications. If you wish not to have programmatic applications, you will need to balance that budget out. Or you have, those decreased expenditures could involve a wide variety of techniques that you may or may not wish to address.
>> we have received an e-mail from tnr and their recommendation is to shift 350,000 of the h mac and alternative pay being from the and bridge fund to either co or car. Currently the co has in it a total of 1.8 million for h mac and the road and bridge fund itself has 1.4 million so what their recommendation would be is to shift 350,000 or the balance of the deficit here, to an alternative capital.
>> wouldn't make sense to shift to c ork because we're trying to--
>> right.
>> we're trying to to eliminate 1.4 already.
>> right.
>> we have h had mac a lot. In pass co, is it possible we could attach that to a scrub?
>> I can definitely look at scrubs. I am am somewhat dress aggressive scrubbing this year already. I with remind the court I had to come a couple years ago to ask for resources because I had overscrubbed. There is a balance there as far as making sure we use the resources appropriatery but don't misinterpret what's there in the estimate and what actually ends up being there. I will be happy the look for it. If I found 350,000 worth, it would most likely reduce the current scrubs of 7350 down to--750 down to00. I might--400 down. I might be able to grab a little bit. I'm not sure if I could recovery what I reported earlier that I estimated for scrubs.
>> without increasing co's, I guess we need to see what options we have next week > I see two numbers at the bottom, both negative.
>> right. What that is showing is the comp increase assumed at 460 000. If we use the current allocated reserve of 113, which I this think has been reduced down a little because of benefit changes approved this morning, that is what leads you to the 350 000 in round number deficit.
>> okay. So now we have deficit know both of those numbers?
>> nos, it's 350, the bottom number--no, sir, it's 350, the bottom number. The first number is comp increase. If you subtract out the veil veilel allocated reserve, I can't do the math in my head but it should equal that number.
>> you started markup with 1 113.
>> allocated reservein allocated reserve.
>> okay.
>> with the approval of compensation changes, you needed 460. So that left you with a negative 3476789 that's the logic that you're--347. That's the logic that you're something on the board. And the 347 compared to the over $20 million in road and bridge is not that much but it is quite a bit if you start dealing with programmatic changesthe other alternative that tnr could give that is the court could choose to reduce service treatment miles. I should mention that since it was in the e-mail.
>> we will line item it next week.
>> also, next week the out of county inmate reserve, oh you didn't call it up, judge judge. Sorry.
>> status of out of county inmat reserve.
>> thank you.
>> thanks for being respect respectful of the county judge, christian.
>> we have a caught county inmat reserve. That is one of the items, like weather, healthcare expenses. The number of inthat is that you are handling is--inmates that you are handling something that you have some difficulty in controlling. You have an opportunity the influence but not control. We have an inmate reserve that will be one of the discussion items for next Tuesday, to to land as to whether or not you feel comfortable with the degree of flexible you have on that and other items. It may be that you wish to move resources into the allocated reserve, which is the general reserve for un unanticipated contingencies. I only remind the court that was actually reduced and re remines reduced from what it was in fy '06.
>> the ib make it reserve is how much?
>> $312,800 in the preliminary budget and that the not been changed.
>> 312,800.
>> 312,800.
>> that's presumed to get us how many equivalent days or inmates, kind of sort of what's the thinking there, bill?
>> I'm doing this off the top of my head. It covers about 80 inmates for the 92 summer days in July, August, and September. It assumes that building four is eliminated sometime before that.
>> 80 per day for approximately 90 days.
>> yeah, doing this off the top of my head.
>> that's okay.
>> I have so many other numbers in my headclose to $ $40 a day--
>> close to $40 a day.
>> that's the sum shup.
>> the sheriff's department is budgeted at its total budget at an average daily population of 2,675 inmates. That is the same level as was originally budgeted in '06 and 100 more that were expected to occur in '06. The current, bill do you know the current count?
>> it was around 2790 or so yesterday, I think.
>> so, you know, we go up and we go down. 2675 is the average daily population. To the degree that the sher you have's office in the course of next year's 12 months lands right on it, they are in find shape. If they go over, there will be challenges. If they go under, there will be resources.
>> judge, we'll probably have to maybe do it separate item to get into more substantive discussion of this. But it's my an understanding that there is a new type of ankle bracelet that it's not simply about the electronic monitoring which is the martha stewart type. Sorry, martha, but it really can detect chemical changes. That if somebody is drinking a drop of alcohol or using any kind of things, it's much more expensive, from what I understand, it's about $25 a day, but that amount knowing instantaneous instantaneously whether somebody is violating the use of controlled or illegal substances or in the on your probation substances, $25 a day is a lot cheaper than 40 40. I'm just wondering where are we in terms of more folks going on that and whether it is in the county's interest to help contribute if somebody, because that is a lot of money. Compared.
>> I think that's a great question. I think it's a great work session to get dr. Nanegi over here. There are so many things coming out from a monthly basis, I mean everybody, the state is looking at it.
>> right.
>> this has everybody's attention with regards to what do you do versus just absolute incarceration.
>> and part of it, the electronic, the cheap electronic monitoring is really one in terms of where are you. But this one goes so much further in terms of you can be at your home, and it will go off if there's any kind of change in the chemical in terms of your drinking at home, you're violating your prohibition. Just wondering if there are some things. And if the cost is something that gets in the way, whether it is in the county county's interest to, rather than paying for $40 a day for somebody to get shipped off, whether $25 a day or some dollar in between in terms of the inmate still contributing cord the cost of the--toward the cost bracelet . We have to get creative here here. I know somebody that went through that. Believe me, it is strict, and it works and keeps people on the straight and narrowbut it does--
>> but it does trigger other things. The fact that the alcohol level went up, somebody gets on the phone and says go get Karen. Before you know it, what do you do with it? It triggers other costs which is the reason I want the really see. I think it would be interesting as well as a very worthwhile work session for us to have because that's really what we're after here. What else do we do other than, you know, just ratchet up the cost of locking people away.
>> I took a look at one of the last set of indictments that came out of, I can't remember whose court it was, and I was struck that 75 percent of all of the brand new indictments in terms of folk coming through the system are all related to drugs and alcoholment and-- and--and alcohol. If the point is you need a break in use to get to some point of trying to break the cycle here, this could be another tool. I don't know. It's just when you look at $ $40 a day, and we're already more than 100 over where we think is supposed to be the average, and we're planning ahead for next summer, it's like, what about October, November, December? E don't see these numbers--i don't see these numbers going down. It's an interesting discussion. I would really like to get some more information from dr. Nagi as to what other things are in our arsenal and in the county's interest to contribute toward to get more people out but absolutely under supervision related to their use of alcohol and drugs.
>> is this enough information for you to assume?
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> I guess you take this, christian, and formalize that, that's a work session? Or do you have to specifically get asked by one of us to do that?
>> it's always helpful to be asked.
>> okay.
>> I'm asking.
>> okay, sure.
>> and this goes with a follow-up conversations I had with judge earl when she had missed her community action network meeting because she was trying to go through an extra docket call to get more people out. That was something she brought up for discussion. It might be helpful. Again, it is under a court supervision. This is not simply some bureaucrat's decision to do or not to do this. It is still tide back to the responsibility of the judge who enters an order to allow this kind of supervision to occur.
>> [indiscernible] the amount of money that can be saved overall?
>> I've gotten past the point that there are any costs savings in the criminal justice system. I see it as a cost avoidance avoidance. If you are looking at having to ship out x number of folk to another county at $40 a day and you have something that could get somebody else under strict supervision, under a judge's supervision, $25 a day, to me that's cost avoidance. It isn't a savings. There's no such thing as savings.
>> it would be good to know, in my mind, I'd like to see what numbers. Because when we talk about this stuff, you know, the attacks attacks--the taxpayers have to deal with it one way or another.
>> Commissioner, one probably needs to look at that, the answer to your question, on a case-by-case basis. Because if christian smith would otherwise have been in jail at 40 a di and is given this high-tech--a day and is given this hightive tech angle bracelet, you would change $15 a day. If on the other hand christian would not have gone and would have had the regular electronic base let and now gets the heavy duty special bracelet, then 2459 an increased cost--then that's an increased cost. You must look at it in relation to the individual. That then requires one to do some fairly deep digging.
>> that's not so much in terms of the other one, christian. It's really somebody sitting in jail is the other options options. Like they are in jail not drinking as opposed to on this special monitor and not drinking. It's not a question of whether you qualified for the easy bracelet, for lack of a better phrase, because that's a totally different kind of discussion.
>> what I'm trying the say, there has been a lot of stuff talk about yet they continue to build more prisons. Folks are looking to build more capacity. I guess my point is that there have been a lot of things. Maybe there does need to be a work session. I know the sheriff has brought up some programs to do some things that were kind of innovative as far as reducing population population and outreach type situations. I don't know if this is included in the things he's been trying to bring forth. That's why if you're going to do this, I think it ought to be all encompassing where you have several of the players at the table to ensure whatever direction we go in, those folks that have to deal with this are includ included. So I'm just kind of concerned. Of course, at the end of the day, the taxpayers have to cover the cost whether they sit in jail or whatever. It's still a cost. So, that's my concern. I guess the work session would probably flush out a whole bunch of stuff.
>> Commissioner, if I could, you recall back on September 5th, when I briefed you on the status of the budget since fy '07 preliminary budget was filed, on the bottom of that sheet that I distributed to you, I had indicated under note number 2 that if inmate levels maintain the same trend, that we could possibly have a shortfall in the sheriff's budget in '07 of $650,000. So I think in answer to your question, it's going to take a work session, some study and coordination to find out what alternative means that we might be able the reduce that 650,000 that's currently projected. So I think that's the number until we get more refined techniques of reducing that inmate level. Anyway.
>> we will have that item on a late October work says agenda--work session agenda. How is that.
>> thank you.
>> now, if 80 inmate are transferred to another county for 90 days next summer, what do the corrections officers here in Travis County who secure the safety and confinement of those inmates the other nine months do during that time?
>> well, we discussed, it's discussed in the black book write-up that we discuss also. That would be ten or eleven folks related to building four. And they are in the budget. The positions would need to exist up to the point of de deconstruction, for lack of a better term.
>> I'm bold enough to recommend that either we ought to take advantage of that occurrence to make sure that those who have earned comp time are able to use it.
>> yes, sir.
>> or for an overteam offset of some sort. But we have to plan to do that before next summer. So why don't we make that as a 1 b in that late October work session. See what I'm saying?
>> yeah.
>> I mean, each year there's a complaint that some officers earned comp time that weren't able to take it it. So this would be an opportunity, seems to me. The other thing is that in terms of overtime, then we ought to see some overtime reduction or avoidance if we plan to do it. The other thing that is I'm reminded that we'll have some expensive software to help us deploy the work force.
>> yes, sir.
>> scheduling. I mean, we ought to try to, if we have to transfer them out of county to pay for them, to do that work, so be it. But then the question is, how can we deploy or staff in such a man that are at least we get the county as much benefit as possible otherwise.
>> yes, yes, sir.
>> it's more a question, I guess. And I'm, you know, common sense, basically if there's been a comp time issue, this is a golden opportunity to address it. On the overtime, maybe we can use some offset there.
>> you're suggesting, if I might be equally as bold, is to have a work session that has two parts. One, further techniques to decrease inmate count. And two, further techniques to be more efficient.
>> right. And I have always wonder, if we staff up to 2675, we know that late summer, early fall we'll be there or we'll exceed it. By January, February, March, typically we're under that.
>> yes, sir.
>> so are we using our staff in such a way that, you know in the back of my mind I see officers come complaining that they have used comp tile and not been able to use itthat's a management issue for the sheriff to address.
>> we ought to discuss that. That's c of that item. By the way, we may just want a work session dedicated to inmates.
>> inmate count.
>> I am correct that given this current budget process, that the court is comfortable with continuing in October, November, December w an every-two-week work session schedule. In prior years sometimes you have suggested that's not what you had in mind, but there's enough, I would assume, to at least get that on your books.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> also knowing that as soon as the budget is put to bed, quite a few of us have scheduled conferences time off. So the idea that it starts the very first week is like, some of us aren't going to be here.
>> Commissioner, we will make sure that work sessions are scheduled around your calendar. You meaning all five of you.
>> of course.
>> and they should continue as long as there is a quorum.
>> yeah.
>> the typical protocol, if one is gone, that the okay. If two are gone, please rethink it. That's been the rule that I have been urged to follow. Because even when four are there, sometimes something happens to the fourth.
>> I'll get you my schedule.
>> I have been reluctant to deny a member of this court a work session opportunity.
>> a benevolent judge.
>> all right.
>> do you want to call up the neck item, sir?
>> yes, sir. Obligations and bond funds. Anything in addition?
>> yes, e, f and g.
>> rebudgeting of projects funded from the capital acquisition resources account, that we call car, g use of existing allocated reserves within existing certificates of obligation.
>> good morning. I generally like to do car first, if that's all right with the court.
>> that's all right with the court.
>> I do have extra copies available. I want to make sure the court members have copies. If they do,ly set these out on the table for anyone else that wants to read them.
>> is this the September 7 report?
>> this would be the September 7 memo from myself.
>> yes.
>> fy '06 car items requested to be budgeted into fy '07 for continuation and markup on the 12th.
>> this has been distributed to 30 individuals around the county who are concerned, both electronically and in hard copy.
>> and I will be bold saying this, but I don't believe there are any departments that do not concur with pbo pbo's recommendationlve there's not very much controversy this year > I will try not to take a great deal of your time. Just want to mention that the total request presented this budget cycle totaled 2. 2.4 million for rebudgeting of capital items in car into the neck fiscal year. We continue to use the criteria that we have discussed in the past, that is that the project should be the same overall project approved by the Commissioners court. We do not appropriate savings to another project without court's first reviewing and concurring. The rebudgeted project should be in progress and expected to be completed in the next fiscal year. Projects or funds may not be needed should not be re rebudgeted and in some instances in the past we have recommended ear marks or some other tools to get, to be able to allow for the project to continue. This year I don't believe there really are any such projects. The items recommended for re rebudgeting total 1.8 million. They are listed on page 2 of that short memo. I will be happy to go through all the projects or just take questions. There are approximately 450 450,000 worth of projects in its and include the its migration to oracle. There is an update from the department that says at the bottom of that first bullet that based upon the current time schedule it's estimated that version 7 will come in late in the fourth quarter of '07, so they are project projecting for it to be commenced in '07. Also e courtroom 62,000. And due to facts, they put this on the back burner and hopefully in 507 it will be complete--in '07 it will be complete > the facilities makinger has costs for airport boulevard, minor costs for jps in probate court. The frencic center edition-- edition--for encic center edition, that amount. The courthouse phase 2. Phase 3 has been approved as well, but this is phase 2. 9,000 for expo center, arena fence, and 86,025 for planning and designing money appropriated a couple years ago for the Travis County correctional complex excuse me. Then 33,000 for some modifications on the civil court. I apologize. That should have been on the next page. The next project is for the civil court, 33,218 for completion of the district court e courtroom modifications. The sheriff's office has a number of projects included evidence bar coding system. The project is on hold pending the version of the software. . They do say they are working on the contract on the next item. And because the 250 was not going to complete the project, that's been a challenge for them to find additional outside source of funding there. 187,500 for h vackin building 2 and 72,000,250 for kitchen modification.
>> question. How much do we think that the range will cost tote we have rebudgeted this amount for three or four years.
>> two budget cycles that I'm aware of, that I was able to go back.
>> you funded it many years ago. Then stopped and just pulled the money.
>> right.
>> to allow the sheriff's office to rethink it. And then this 250,000 was appropriated to have them implement their current rethinking. But they are still--
>> we had 100,000 for several years there.
>> yes.
>> the total cost of fire and range was how much?
>> I would have to ask the sheriff as office. I can get that answer for you probably in a few minutes.
>> okay. But we have said, okay, we will fund 250,000 of it you raise the rest. Is that?
>> what--
>> I could--
>> okay. The 250,000 is a portion of the cost, that is correct. The original intent when the 250,000 was appropriated, I believe two years ago, was to do a joint project with the airport police. For various reasons, that seems to have fallen through through. They have pursued other options. I believe they are very close to getting funding through federal funds, which should take care of the rest of the costs > the land, the land was part of the deal with the airport.
>> okay.
>> would it be, would it be fair, fairer, for me just to ask for a, one or two paragraph update between now and Friday?
>> absolutely . We can get that to you.
>> I'm just within dorg about this--wondering about this. Seems like the fire and range issue surfaced, must have been seven, eight, nine years ago. Whatever the status s I think we ought to know.
>> right. We have the drawings and the plans and the land drawn up. We are looking at some alternative funding. We will get that to you real quick, judge. I know we can get that to you.
>> I understand.
>> can you define what a little built of money is?
>> --bit of money?
>> the last I heard, 250,000 250,000. We had enough to start at a certain, you know, x amount of shooting spots at a certain range. Of course, we want to extend it farther, I believe it's 25 yards or something.
>> major, is it safe to say that the sheriff's office did not submit a budget request for that extra 250 250,000?
>> that's correct, we did not.
>> I'm not blaming anybody, but seven or eight years of seeing the same item leaves me with the impression that either this is not a priority, or we are not doing our due diligence--
>> we are moving on it. We are relocating the fen at the correctional complex.
>> okaywe're doing the plan plan--
>> we're doing the plan. We'll get you something by the end of week, judge.
>> I appreciate it.
>> yes, sir.
>> obvious obviously, if there's any of the projects that need further discussion that should occur. In the event that there is not further discussion needed, then pbo would recommend that the projects continue into the fy '07 budget year. There are a total of 603,195 items not recommended for re rebudgeting of however, I should note that these items are not recommended generally because they are either savings or they are going to be encumbered or expensed by the end of this fiscal year as told to me by the department recently. So that list is there. If you have any questions, I'll be be--i'll be happy to answer.
>> as far as you know, there are no issues with the second list.
>> no. And I have talked with everyone on the list. So I don't foresee that there would be anything pop up that would pop up. I should note that assuming the recommendation to re rebudget 1.8 million, that will show up in the fifth revenue estimate, that will require, as you know, with any additional revenue that there be an allocator reserve requirement and that is estimated at approximately 202,000. This occurs every year when we do any rebudget of capital. It shows up as new or not as new revenue but shows up as part of the references mat and there are there is an allocated reserve requirement. So it does, you could make an argument that it costs us money to rebudget every year.
>> I will make that argument argument. We have urged all county departments to spend the resources they have within the fiscal year that it's been appropriated and when they don't have the ability to spend that money, it costs money because that additional rebudgeting does not, 1.8 million, does not go into the need, the 11 percent comes off the top. So when you continually re rebudget you don't get the full benefit because of the unallocated reserve requirement. So we have consistently urg urged departments, the you appropriated the moneyrb spend it within the 12 months. Now, things happen . They can't always do so. Some of these are a little complicated. Some of them are fairly simple. And it's in the eyes of the beholder as to what is simple or complicated. You should know that it does cost.
>> in the light of that, last year we proposed the court consider an alternative not rebudgeting the projects and instead putting the total rebudgeted recommend rebudgeted amount, minus the unallocated reserve into a special reserve and allow departments first-come, first-serve sort of situation. That recommendation or that alternative, I should say, is proposed again this year as something for the court to consider. Basically that reserve would total 1,635,114 related to the recommended projects, net of that 11 percent, and would allow the dents kind of on a first-come first- first-serve basis to get to the money when needed. That is an option obviously that is available to the court and it does away with the cost that christian described on the 11 percent unallocated reservelast year the court was unexcite bñd the alternative and was willing encure the additional 11 percent. This year the court may or may not be unexcited about it. It does require, how, more conversations with the Commissioners court and departments when they come forward to access that.
>> isn't it also fair to say that when these things were originally put into some car budget, that the 11 percent was attached to it, and what is happening here is that you are stripping off what was the 11 percent unallocat unallocated that was attach attached to these projects, it's being stripped off and put to other uses, and there are they are having to, for a second time, find the money. The reality is there's 11 percent attached to every single one of these projects projects. It's just getting lost in the shuffle. And that may be what happens happens. But it's already been accounted for once. The question is whether it sticks with the project or whether it's gotten to be stripped out and there are in the process of re rebudgeting, you have to reestablish it.
>> Commissioner, that's not true.
>> well, yeah, it is.
>> okay.
>> move approval of the recommended 1.837 for re rebudgeting and the car.
>> second.
>> discussion? All of these are car, right?
>> that's wreck.
>> all in favor -- that's correct.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Does that motion include a recommendation to approve the items not recommended for rebudgeting?
>> there's no issue with thosei don't believe through needs to--
>> I don't believe there need to be any action taken on those items.
>> okay. That motion approved f. Which one would you like next?
>> the one before that, I believe it is.
>> e.
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> and old bond funds, I should say, as well. This is a little bit thicker memo that was received hopefully to the court on September 6 for budget mark markup on the 12th. This should be at least, hopefully, a very familiar format to each of you. It's the same format we have used for a pretty long time. Under, it's sub divvied into sections a, b, c, d, e, and under an is the announcement of the outstanding co's for the fy '07 budget process and our recommendations. I should note that our criteria that I described under car is basically the same criteria that we use under co's. And the listing of the detail excuse me, behind those project, is in your packet under a-1, a-2, it's page numbered. I put the a in there to hopefully not confuse as much. After page five of the original memo from myself, there should be a a-1, a-2, et cetera. And that describes each of the projects > I will go through fund 405 issued most recently, the fy '06 co. There are projected there that are recommended for re rebudgeting for the next fiscal year. Year.. Including renovations of buildings, east side service center 2.8 million, central Austin renovations for is million, gardener betsfor 37 000, and the tnr projectrb the rock extension for 2.2 million in round numbers and the grant match for 150,000 for gillian creek. We are recommending that you roll all these projects forward. I think what might be easi easiest is if I continue to go through the list and then we can go back and ask for court action on all of these these. Unless you want to do each fund individually on the co co's. It's whatever your preference is. Might be easier to do them all at once.
>> okay. All of the projects that you are recommending are ones that we funded before.
>> yes.
>> they have not been done. But the dents are saying, we we--the departments are saying, we plan to do them.
>> that's wreck.
>> there's no disagreement about that.
>> that's correct.
>> we need the money for the projects for which the money has been approved.
>> that's correct. These are all previously approved projects. Some are very recently approved. As you can say. All of these actually that I just mentioned were discussed last budget cycle zñl do we need to whole a discussion? That's why I moved approval.
>> second.
>> of all these recommendations. If the department got together here and believe these projects are still a go. I think we ought to bless the decision. Discussion? You didn't spend a whole lot of time getting ready for the presentation, did you?
>> I had budget rules to worry about this morning.
>> all in favor. An unanimous court supports your recommendation, ms. Rio.
>> was that just on fund 405 or all the co's?
>> all of them.
>> all of the co's.
>> the whole memo. We read each and every word.
>> okay. So, okay, that was on the one funds as well, sir? There's something I wanted to note--
>> that was just e.
>> okay. No, e includes all the bond funds as well. I wanted to make sure. I don't need to bring up the 8 4 bond funds and the fact we're not putting them in the reserve.
>> go ahead and give us any clarifying points you think we ought to getokaylve just for your--
>> okay. Just for your information. I realize you have read all this. I wanted to point out that the resources for the 8 4 authorization, as you know, the court has approved that those go, any remaining funds go to precinct one. And in the past what we have done is recommended that they be rolled into the allocated reserves of each of those 8 4 bond funds. The only difference this year is that tnr has recommended and I believe Commissioner dave is has concurred with a list of projects listed on page 3.
>> cortana cortana.
>> Commissioner Davis has agreed.
>> has agreed. The projects are listed there on page 4 of the memo. The amounts actually be budgeted directly into the t tnr operating budget. What that means that is they would not lead to go to court for the budget adjustment to take it from reserves into tnr's operat operating budget. However, the court would still need to approve the projects with contracts, et cetera. I believe tnr would be working on that. But I just wanted to highlight that because it is a change from previous years and is in the operating budget now. What that does is expedite the projects for the departmentthat's fine--
>> that's fine. When tnr comes forth and indicates the source of funding, we will see 8 4 bond fund remnants.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> that's really the only other change I needed to highlight on that. I should note that there are this year as well some transition funds. Some of these funds, it's on page 4, we actually will be able to close out in October of '06. So that the great news and we're working to close out some other ones that are on your attachment e, summary request to budget old co and bond funds awaiting to be closed. I'll be happy to answer any questions. But it sounds like we're done.
>> so the motion included g?
>> the motion, I would hope, included each section a, b, c, d, and e that is outlined in my memo. I'll get with the clerk and make sure that the backup is there. It includes all the fund. Obviously, these are our best projections. But we actually rebudget the actuals that are left. So--
>> this is all of e.
>> yes, sir. Sorry.
>> but g is existing allocat allocated reserves within existing certificates of obligation.
>> I can give you an update. It's really not any different than what I described this morning. I will get you a memo in the next couple days. We are assuming that we're at about 750,000 to 800,000 on the scrubs. And I will look again to see if there's anything on h mac.
>> so g we need back on next week.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Thank you ms. Rio.
>> thank you.
>> h is status of changes to feed controlled by Commissioners court. James connolly.
>> there is a separate item on the agenda related to con stabel fees.
>> should we wait until we get there?
>> probably . Although that's a more restrictive discussion discussionrestrictive about a specific proposal. This was an overarching agenda item to see if there were any. At one time there was, you approved some fees in ems. And there were questions about there was an effective date--about--about whether or not there was an effective date. I believe, and will roy can share, we understand that effective date would be in October. Is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> and that would allow the auditor then to certify the action of the court in the fifth revenue exit.
>> is the October 1 beginning date already part of the official county records or do we need a motion?
>> it would help if you had a motion to that effect.
>> I would do a move to clarify that related to the two fees, actually three fee fees on ems, which is the in county and out of county take off fee and for the flight fee, mileage, that those are effective October 1october of this career.
>> those are deck October 1 of this career.
>> those are the only fee-- fee--october 1 of this year.
>> those are the only fees we are talking about?
>> yes, sir.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously > other changes to the fy '07 budget is i.
>> that's a placeholder for anyone. And I assume that the recommendation from the judge on any new items by this Thursday at five p.m. Covered that. We have no new other changes.
>> and problem with that? Thursday, let's say four o'clock. Christian can compile those or somebody in your shop.
>> sewer.
>> try to e-mail them--
>> sure.
>> try to e-mail them to us around five.
>> appreciate it.
>> anything else on item number 6? Thank you, pbo, four your outstanding public service, dedication, hard work, et cetera.
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 13, 2006 10:11 AM