Travis County Commissioners Court

September 19, 2006
Item 8

View captioned video, morning discussion.
View captioned video, afternoon discussion.

Number 8 is to review and take appropriate aption on fm07 budget including 07 mark-up available funds summary.

>> judge, you were distributed about five days ago the results of mark-up as of the 12th of September, last week. Which showed you had a $763,000 balance available. Since then we've received the fifth revenue estimate and we've run across some technical corrections that we want to shir with you and ask for your approval. We completed what we call the scrubs process on capital, which is the process of reviewing existing allocated reserves within all of the c.o.'s and funding out of existing resources, those projects which you have already approved during mark-up. We have received a letter from Commissioner Davis, identifying projects issues he wishes to address to the court as a part of your request to each other to submit any suggestions. Commissioner Davis was the only one who did so --

>> do I need to call these --

>> probably because they are interrelated.

>> (reading items)

>> we have taken the opportunity to input the revenue estimate that we just received yesterday yesterdayyesterday, plus our recommended technical corrections. Take will result in a $2 million one-time source of funds. In essence, at full balance on the ongoing side, and 2 million of additional resources one time time. We will offer some suggestions to you on how to deal with that. But we need to go through how we got to that point. And with that, I would that what you sigh on the screen is the results of your markup last week week. Since then we have had the fifth revenue estimate. I think it might be useful if we have a presentation from the auditor's office which shares, then, the results of that estimate that we just received yesterday.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. We did distribute yesterday the fifth revenue estimate for the '07 budget processment your special revenue funds did not change much. There are a couple I will highlight. We did in the employee health insurance fund budget the revenue in accordance to how open enrollment actually took place. Up until then we were using last year's enrollment. The road and brink fund did come up--bridge fund did come up a little bit. The auto registrations had a very good August so we bumped up the beginning balance and raised next year's estimate a little bit in new revenue. For the general fund, the total general fund is about $4 400, 7 700,000, I would estimate that most of that is the change in the tax rate that you made at the beginning of the markup period so that revenue was available to you during markup but it does look like a big jump during retch estimates. The begig balance is up about 2. 2.9 million. We increased our forecast of revenue a little bit. Ebod decreased their forecast of current year expenditures so you have a little bit bigger beginning balance than we had anticipated in the fourth estimate. Current revenues for next year up a little less than five million, again motion of that the tax increase. We did include the revenue for revised civil fees and the star fly fees that we made final last week. Did include the additional cap money and we knew about that during markup. We went back and look at the total resources we have for next year and decided it was bigger pot. So we would increase our interest, estimated interest revenue by $50,000. We did include the district attorney's checks as mutual insurance contract. That's ongoing contract. It invariably shows up in the fifth references mat because it's at that point that the da's office knows that it will continue. I would note one thing. One other things that kind of bumped up the beginning balance is some selection money that we were anticipating in the fourth estimate, and would all come in next year. We got a check for a little over 200,000 and simply moved it. It doesn't change the total resources but it does change where you see it show up. And that is the fifth estimate. It's not a big change from the fourth one, allowing for the markup items, but we think it's a pretty good estimate to move forward on your proposed budget. We'd be glad to answer any questions you have on it.

>> I know we have an executive session item on this. There has been no presumptions in terms of spending dollars related to the sale of the farmer's market property. It's one of those things, if it happens, it would be available for use but there's no presul shun that it's coming in and no presumption that it gets spent in certain ways.

>> that the correct. No revenue and no expense.

>> and you all will get an up update in exec session.

>> I may have missed the bottom line.

>> bottom line, the bottom line is that last Tuesday huh 763,000 worth of available resources you had a deficit on the ongoing side and a surplus on the one- one-time side. As a result of the fifth revenue estimate plus, that's on the revenue side, plus technical corrections on the expenditure side, you will end up with about $2 million of one-time resources to deal with today. And that is almost all one-time money. And on the ongoing side you're essentially balanced. There's a $16,000 shortfall. You will see those screens shortly. And we have a hard copy for you. But that is the bottom line for today.

>> I had missed the bottom line. I stepped out, I think.

>> yes.

>> even if you set this one more time, say it for us in terms of our desire to keep the co at ten we're there because I'm seeing two different numbers here in terms of the ten million. Help me walk through this.

>> we'll walk you through the screens. Your co is 14 million14, 455,00.

>> that's not the 14.

>> you have established a goal. It is not there yet. We have ways for you to get there and further. You have choices before you on how to get to 13. But we haven't shown it yet because those choices, you have multiple levers to pull. We can share with you and have in writing, those options.

>> okay. A is '07 markup available funds summary.

>> that's correct. That's what's on the screen right now. And we're going to come back to it in about, after we go through the technical corrections so that you will see.

>> all right. B is fifth revenue estimate. That's the good news that blaine and susan just delivered.

>> yes.

>> susan very quietly and blaine blaine--

>> less quietly.

>> that's correct.

>> that's good news. The memo sets out the reasons for the $2 million that you are to see.

>> that the correct. And we now pass this along to leroy who can walk you through the expenditure side.

>> thank you.

>> you have a document before you, summary of September 19, 2006, recommended changes in the general fund since markup. I tried to summarize those. They summarize the attached pag paged that have the individual line items, which I'll be glad to answer any specific questions questions. The changes in the fifth revenue estimate each year, the expenditures were reduced because it basically covers the amount of the car rebudget the car. So with the increase in the fund balance that the generated by reduction in the expenditure estimate the court last week proved the rebudgeting of $1,837 207 worth of rebudgeted car. Also in that fifth references mat there was $338,652 of revenue that was we needed to budget the expenditure side of that contract. We had additional revenue. We not only had additional revenue in the generally fund but we also--general fund but also had some additional revenue in the road and bridge and we did have some additional revenue in the debt service fund. When I took all of those funds and calculated the 11 percent un unallocated reserve requirement, it required an additional 302,1 302,119 to go into the general fund unallocated. We did find late yesterday hss contract compliance specialist that inadvertently did not get funded in the preliminary or through any of the creme shunce, and we--correctionser and we validated that that was a legitimate error and we put it on the changes list for 67,784. There's a total of on the change changes of 44,683 listed on the attached for a total general fund changes of 2,590,445. That's the generally fund side. We also have attached other funds you will see on a couple pages back. And basicallicious when we receive the fifth revenue-- revenue--basically, when we receive the fifth references mat what we put on the changes list are those changes normally to increase allocated reserves in the special revenue funds or decrease it, so that we balance against that fifth revenue estimate. You will see a list starting at the top of fund 38 going all the way down through fund 54 on changes there to balance. We also have allocated four percent cola and the one percent formance based pay as the court approved. And we have presented that through not only the general fund but also through the, all the other funds. And I would be glad to answer any questions. But the summary, the important items are summarized on the front sheet, the total of $2.5 million.

>> and we ask your approval.

>> move approval.

>> take a second > so, the $2.5 million will represent changes that are made in multiple line items.

>> that's correct.

>> and track the revenue.

>> we have revenue, you have, you have to track it against the expenditure side. So that when you rebudget car carcious for example, it has an il pack on revenue and also has an impact on expenditures.

>> so would this fall in expenditure?

>> yes, these correct , there's an additional $2.59 million worth of expenditures that will be going into the proposed budget as a result of some technical corrections. But the large amounts directly related to the fifth references mat.

>> okay. And the revenue to cover these expenditures is available in what we see.

>> the fifth revenue, yes. And we do have the screens that we have updated for these corrections. And those result in posting the fifth revenue estimate revenue right there in the lower left-hand corner. You will see projected revenue estimate of $400,764,006, that ties to the fifth revenue estimate. So we loaded the model with the fifth. Then we've gone and posted those corrections. And if you add that 1, 837,207, plurgs the 753, you come out with that 2,590,445. So we posted those corrections and that's what generates total general fund available of 2,554, 2,554,353.

>> we anticipated that you would accept and approval the technical corrections, there by startinging your discussion with two million. That's the logic.

>> motion to approve the recommend correct--correction. Anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. So that's c.

>> that is c.

>> good time to turn to the trav Travis County road and bridge fund?

>> it's a good time to bring up the capital process. Because we have a way in which the road and bridge fund can be established in a balanced position, but it requires you to accept our recommendation on the scrubbing. And then we can go, with your con curbs, we can go back to road--concurrence, we can go back to road and bridge.

>> that would be g.

>> g, the capital program.

>> okay.

>> the court should have received a memo from me that un unfortunately just said backup to item number 8 , using existing certificates of obligation for '06 capital items items--'07 capital items. This is a process as you know we go through every year, a process after the rebudgeting of the co co's where pbo looks an at the existing reserves once any interest has been posted to them or is showing up and any savings that have come out of completion of projects. And we tried to match currently approved capital projects that the court has already approved either during markup or preliminary budget, to some of these existing co balances. In other words, to free up some money . Our main goal was the free up money on the co side because we did have the co currently at 14. 14.5 million and I knew huh a goal of bringing that down to-- to--you had a goal of bringing that down to 13 million. I'm happy to go through any of the particular recommendations. Page 2 bullets at the top basically some of the movement and it's very detailed. But basically we have gone through and looked at the official statements and made sure that these projects comply with the intent the of the officially statements. I have med with david escamilla once. I submitted that to himp but have not had a chance to talk to him again once the information was submitted. If he does see anything legally that we need to change, I will get back with you next week. However, I feel pretty good that these recommendations should be able to stand. They total 1.17,712 or a million two in round numbers. However, if you look at the bottom of page 2 where there is a numbing there, the summary, that gives you a good summary of where this money was freed up. In essence, it did reduce, if you approve these recommendation recommendations, it will reduce the fy '07 co that's currently at 14 million by 742,000. So it will bring that down not to your 13 million goal yet but down to 13.7. It gets us much closer. It also freed up about 328,000 in car. There's some subsequent recommendations I'd like to discuss with you about what to do with that freed up money. Then it also frees up 100,000 in the road and bridge fund expenditures on h mac. There was a request from the court for us to look again at scrubs to see if there was anywhere we could fit in some of the paving or any project from road and bridge fund am we did that and we were able to find fund 435 to be able to pick that up hopefully. So that would help with what we saw at the time as a 350,000 deficit during, with the fourth references mat--references mat. Going dunn--revenue estimate. The subsequent recommendations deal with car. There was a request from the auditor's office to move, I had in the preliminary budget includ included refurbishment of eob elevators in the co and that's really a maintenance time project so we moved that to car. Because of these recommendations I think we're able to do that. We also moved the 150,000, it's 149,835 for the civil courthouse courthouse. I believe facilities management has had a small expenditure already to date for some planning. We moved that to car as well. So that gives you the additional flexibility that you were looking for. You have added $50 that you to that project so now it's 19 the in car for fy '07 and--199 in car for fy '07 and it should give I the flexibility you need for the project. We did move the west side seniors sent. In discussions with tnr they thought this was an appropriate approach given their schedule, from car to the new co as well as the right-of-way at fm 626 from man check from car to the c co. In essence just changing, christian likes to say, the color of the money. The projects will still happen. It just allowed for that early movement of the eob elevators. Finally, in order just to balance, we recommended increasing the car reserve which was previously at around 499, up to 533,144. All else equal. And in other words it doesn't take into consideration any other recommendations that were on the corrections list this morning. I'm happy to go through, like I said, any of these individual projects or if you want me to talk anymore about they will, I'm happy to do that. But that is basically an over overview of the scrubs process this year.

>> the last I heard, you had reduced the co by 742.

>> correct.

>> to bring it down to 13.7.

>> correct.

>> so after the rest of of your changes here, we are still at 1. 1.7 or have we gotten down to--

>> just with scrubs you are at 13,712,819 and car would stay the same. Just some movement within car.

>> okay.

>> owed and bridge expenditures would go down by 100,000 which would alleviate part of the deficit we talked about last yeek.

>> I have a letter that I will review with you with one-page of alternatives for you to get to 13 million or less, at your pleasure.

>> okay. What you were describing there, moving money for different projects, we just changed the source of funding.

>> that's correct.

>> the money will still be available for the different projects for those listed. It's scrus the source of funding changes.

>> that's right.

>> a motion and second to approve the recommendations just laid out for us. Anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. That's approval of the September 13, 2006 memo. Right? Okay.

>> thank you.

>> in addition, under 8 g, in addition to dealing with existing allocated reserves, we have touched upon expected revenue from the sale of the farmer's market. There is no expenditure. There is no revenue. You will discuss it in executive session. But you also wanted to know other changes as an alternative to the use of revenue, to get the co down to 13 million or less. And certainly, even before going through a letter from me to you of September 14, you're at 13.7 million. Have you two million available. If you just took all two million and took it against the 13.7 you would be down to 11.7 and call it a day . And that might be a very rational, reasonable thing to do do. But you have other alternatives. You could even get it lower or keep it at 13 and move money into other, to do other county and public purposes

>> .

>> my September 14 memo to you has an attachment one page en entitle a few potential techniques more maintaining co of 13 million or less. And there's a note there this talks about the 732,000 that you just approved bringing the co down to 1.7 million.

>> christian, let me make sure. So your memo was distributed when now?

>> distributed on September 14. It should have a big bold backup to agenda item 8 g on September 19. There's a one-page attachment with some bullets.

>> I have it.

>> and these are listed in a recommended priority order. The first bullet would be to increase car by the available resources after the fifth revenue estimate. And simultaneously reduce co. You have two million available. So there's two million right there. If you just accepted that bullet you take 13.7 to 1 is 1.7--11.7. The second bullet, however, is also fairly straightforward. And you have a choice. But during markup, you approved the appropriation of 1.2 million commitment for freight barker. And to make that commitment within '07. We have work with tnr. It was shared with you at the time that they need really a certain amount of money in '07 and another amount in '08, 7 700,000 in '07 and 500,000 in '08. But they need a commitment in October of '07. So it would be entirely reason reasonable for you to provide a commitment to split fund that million two in 700,000 in '07 and then with an expectation that you would fund either through a reimbursement resolution in early October, or through car in early October, that remaining 500,000.

>> I think the early October date is pretty firm though.

>> they advised us that this is perfectly reasonable. Now, you could front load and just put a million two in '07 and not have to your about it or split fund it in two fiscal years. It's an administrative technique technique. I would think that if your goal is to reduce, I think you could reduce that co well below 13 million, which is good for people that do what I do for a living, which is, you know, don't use your credit card if you have some cash. But that's a choice. Programmatically, it should be invisible. Then the third bullet, if you cannot get further to your 13 million goal, which we have gone well below, is that you do have a two and a half million cost escalation reserve for construction projects. There was just under a million four in the preliminary budget that was increased by 1.1. The 2.5 million is a large number but it is also, you have a large problem. So you could modify that. If you still then wanted to go further, you could reduce computer or vehicle replacements replacements. Of course that only defers the tour because the vehicles will continue to run. And the computers will continue to run. And then you could also shift schedules to move certain construction projects into 508. That does have--'08. That does have programmatic implications but our sense that is with one or two or three of these bullets, or a combination thereof, you could essentially set the co at 13 or wherever you want below.

>> hypothetically, if the court chose to go below the 13 million figure, let's just say hypothetically took the entire two million of one-time funning and used it to bring et on down and put more things in a cash rather than borrow money, how much more flexibility would that give the future Commissioners court next year, the year after, the year after, the year after, if we had anticipated, you need to stay at around 13 million. If you in the first year of that strategy, you get below it, how much more flexibility do they build in for next year and the next year and the next year?

>> two million.

>> but is it just, is it only one-time?

>> uh-huh. It doesn't compound. You're saving it once. Not borrowing it oncei'm just thinking in terms of the--

>> I'm thicking in terms . Debt service because the correct o is for five years.

>> I should mention that the debt presentation that was presented to court a couple weeks ago, maybe three weeks now did not assume a 13 million co this year. We assumed a 10,875 co this year because that's what we knew at the time. That was preliminary budget. So the closer you could get to that 10,875, the more.

>> got it.

>> --what we presented a few weeks ago, would play itself out out. Any too many you go above that, obviously, it tightens that threatability a little bit-- bit--flexibility a little bit.

>> now the ball is in your court court.

>> I guess I would not do a first. I would get down to 13 million first. If we want to move that to 1 and a half, that's fine . You--12 and a half, that's fine. I think there are some other decisions that we need to make. And those may result in addition the expenditures, they may not. At the end of that process, though, there may well be other revenue available. Then in my view, the question is do we take that and reduce the c co issue further, or do we put a little bit more money in different reserves.

>> and you have not yet seen the reserves presentation, nor have you her the road and bridge presentation.

>> right. Which I think we ought to do. Yeah. Certainly, you don't issue 13 million worth of debt if you can reduce that. But at some point I think we have to look at what the other options are.

>> do you wish to table this and move to road and bridge.

>> table is so strong a word. Let's hold off.

>> put it in the parking lot right next to the gate.

>> time out.

>> yeah.

>> time out.

>> would you like to go to the status of road and bridge?

>> time out.

>> but we got that. This is how we can get down to 13 million or less.

>> that's correct.

>> in co.

>> that's correct. That challenge will clearly be met in a straightforward manner. Road and bridge fund.

>> the road and bridge fund is item 8 d. And you should have received a memo yesterday afternoon. We were waiting for the revenue estimate. That's why, we wanted to make sure we had final numbers to use in the memo. As you recall, last week we had a 349,352 projected or expected deficit given the comp increases that we were projecting at the time. The comp increases actually totaled 467,000 versus the 460 that we estimated so that added to it just a little bit. However, on the really great news side, the increased resources in fifth revenue estimate as blaine discussed this morning, part of that being the charges for services going up and the beginning balance, left us with approximately 218 218,000 in additional resources resourcesadditional that obviously can go towards that deficit. Then if you add on top of that the 100,000 that we just previously discussed during scrubs, that gets you to a revised deficit with the fifth revenue estimate of $37,599. The way we propose to make this go away, if you will, because we have to tie it to the fifth estimate, we--revenue estimate, we propose to decrease road and brinks expenditures related to a fuel management system recommended and approved in the preliminary budget. There was a general fund side and a road and bridge funds portion. The number happened to be so very close that it seemed like an easy fix. The other alternative would have been h mac being funded in four different locations and I didn't think that was appropriate. If you do move that expenditure, which is not on the corrections list, so we will require action on that, if you agree with this recommendation, the difference was 128 which we propose put noog the allocated reserve of the road and bridge fund.

>> so, that makes sense to me.

>> yes.

>> we chatted with joe about that.

>> I have chatted with cynthia macdonald.

>> that's even betterbetter. Don't tell joe I said that.

>> but I would be bold and say that joe would probably be okay with that.

>> joe, joe, I'm shower will be fine.

>> that's why I move approval.

>> second.

>> any more discussion? That's d. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote now now.

>> .

>> now have you a discussion of reserve including out of county inmate reserve. You should have received a one- one-page summary from me of where all of the reserves stand as of this moment. It's entitled, back up to agenda item number 8 on September 19, and it's a table, status of '07 reserve in the 507 budget. There are many pock--in the '07 budget. There are many pockets that you have in your coat.

>> you don't have another copy?

>> I can get copies.

>> just a one-page?

>> a one-pager. It's entitled backup to agenda item number 8, status of '07 reserves in the '07 budget. I can get copies.

>> here it is.

>> right there. Let me walk you through it. You have three columns. The first column is the reserve itself. The second is what it was in the '06 budget and the third column is the '07 budget which is the preliminary budget plus whatever changes have occurred since mark markup. You're unallocated reserve is at 38.6 million. That's the 11 percent that's been at 11 percent for ten years years. The allocated reserve is at 2,78 2,780,000. Now, it was 3.2 million, it's down to just under 2.8. But you also have 1.2 million worth of ear marks. So it's not, it's a lot of money but it's also tight given all those ears and given the unknown -- ear marks and given the un unknowns that you will face inevitably in '07. I wish I could tell you what those are but since they are un unknown I can't. You have the out of c?st inmate reserve of 320,000, that is an unknown. It could spike or you could have resources left over in September September. Some of that will depend on the literally thousands of actions of individuals out within the criminal justice system. The sheriff's pharmacy reserve, 248,000, you're aware of that. That will inevitably get used and transferred once the decisions are may. You have an imaging division reserve that we expect that the budgeted transfers will be requested in October to transfer that reserve to the department. You have the annualization reserve which is anticipated to sit there. And that is in essence pre preloading the fy '08 budget for expenditures that are incurred partway through the year . You have a car reserve. 499,000 or just under 500,000, but you also have ear marks containing 182,000. You have the cost overrun reserve, the construction cost. That is $2.5 million. You have the fax reserve of 119 119,000. The green circled employee reserve, you may remember that as part of the compensation discussion. You have that in essence, for the green circled employees, 803 thousand. The antipoverty reserve awaiting propose for the use of 300,000. The mental health mobile treatment reserve, 400,000, similar in that it's awaiting proposal for expenditure. Then you have the lease reserve which is in the parking lot. You may remember there were discussions about some moves and I believe there may be some up updates on the use of that money money. But those are your reserves today.

>> well, those were the reserves before the corrections that you approved. We did these reserves a couple of days ago. Last night in your corrections there were a couple of little modifications that I didn't get updated on that. The imaging reserve is at 309,87 309,874 because of the performance-base pay across the boards, we added into that reserve through the corrections listlist today. Familiar reserve, due to the correction of the implementing I its position and reducing the fax reserver, is at 74,489 and I didn't get a a chance to update those this morning. Anyway, other than that--

>> I should note the car reserve is also changed due to the recommendation in scrubs to increase. I think there was also something on the corrections list. I'm thinking it's closer to 6 600,000 right now.

>> that fax reserve is down incredibly low compared to '06. However, what we did was take that money and fund several permanent positions in the varied dents that we would have funded out of reserve anyway.

>> that's correct.

>> we feel pretty good about the 74,000 being in the fax reserve, being able to get us through the year?

>> yes.

>> it's going on line in the jp offices, joe, what was that, March, April? Yell out. March?

>> you might note, that happens to be, like the inmate reserve or some of the other, a special purpose. But whenever you are faced with an unfor seen circumstance that might be related to fax or inmates, that's what your allocated reserve is for. As long as it is healthy and gives you are the flexibility to make the transfer. I do think, you know, we would not be doing our jobs if we didn't say your allocated reserve is pretty tight. Knowing what we know today, we probably would not have recommended that allocated reserve at the level. We so to balance the budget but it's d?tch.

>> we can also cover a variety of--

>> any legal purpose.

>> yeah. May well increase it by half a million dollars. That way if the inmate situation gets as bad as some predict, we'd have a little extra money there. Any other expenses, that one sort of stands out. And the pharmaceutical line item looks like no matter how much we increase that exceeds the budget budgetthat was the number I wos going--

>> that was the number I was going to propose.

>> if that's a number, I will second it.

>> you and I have been working workinging together to look.

>> we both need to retire.

>> any more discussion on that motion to increase the allocated reserve by half a million dollars? Call it the reality check reserve. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.

>> back to the agenda.

>> that would come from the one- one-time.

>> one-time.

>> it would take that two million down to a million and a half. Now, you now come to changes to the '07 budget proposed by court members including the parking lot from budget markup. You have two tells, one a series of recommendations from Commissioner Davis that is contained in a memo that was distributed to you electronic electronically as well as in hard copy. I will not be so bold as to make the proposal on his behalf because I believe that he de deserves the microphone. And then the parking lot has a lease item.

>> this is actually 8 l. And I received some information on a request that I had made earlier, I guess it's 8 h, with the shift shift differential information. And I received that. Looking at those numbers, from what I understand, from pbo, the things that are going to go into that, I really don't know where we end up being except ate 1.8 some odd million--it's 1.8 some odd million. I think some of the association members didn't realize it would be that high. Bill, I would like maybe just hit on this because based on what I'm doing here in 8 f and the relationship with 8 h. So can you lay that out. I guess what the association of the other members that came out and discussed the differential and the amount of money that's not available for maybe the full funding of that this year. I don't really know. But I just think it needs to be laid out. I think in talking with some of the members, they weren't wave it being that--weren't aware of it being that significant. I would like to know how you come to that conclusion. Thank you.

>> Commissioner, may name is bell deery berry. Along with mike henly from the sheriff's office I'll just briefly go over this because this was a close collaboration with him and his staff. Basically, the sheriffive's officer association cost was around 760,000 and change. However, there are some differences, largest ones the fact that the sheriff's office association on their paper copy that we have, assumed the number of affected fte's would be 342. After some work by mike and his folks the number affected is 584 because of the structure of the pre postal and the recommendation you would-- would--proposal and the recommendation would you have had to pay shift differential in cases where the shift overlaps. Three p.m., for instance. And have to pay for shift differential of say one hour or something like that. So that costing is in there. Additionally, there is at the present time about 60 folks on average that are getting shift differential in the sheriff's office. There are primarily the nurses and the dispatch folks and some of the clerks that work I believe in central records.

>> central warrants.

>> warrants, okay. And their shift differential is a percentage of whatever their hourly rate is. This proposal envisions something that is quite different, and that is 1.75 per hour. And you have to basically by hand presently use the percentage to do the audits necessary to pay the shift differential. This proposal will increase the number of folks by about tenfold above the current level that is done by the hr folks in the sheriff's office. That increase along with the complexity of simply doing the audits would require an additional three folks, which would be about 150 or 60,000 on top of that. When you stack all these things up together and it is about 1.8 million in round numberscious this is not not--numbers, this is not a precise number but we felt it was more important to be timely with a good guess or a good approximation than to try and be precise and look through the whole year. The other thing is, we have not actually talked with what the impact might be to the payroll system and how that would be add ministered and what that cost might be. This may be some substantive costs associated with that as well. With that, I will be glad to answer any questions.

>> do you have any comments?

>> judge, Commissionercious again, I would--Commissioners, I would echo with bill. I think in my opinionopinion the null are conservative and that means on the low end. The proposal that we were both given to take look at and work up some numbers is a complex proposal. For our organizations since we run everything from eight hour, ten hour, 12 hour sists and only 24-7, 365 days of year, it's complex to implement because schedules change, personnel change. We have a lot of movement, given an organization our size. So I think, again, we are ballparking some of these estimates. Where you see those personnel costs, of course it drives the overtime factor because that dollar is being compounded times 1.5. And that variesthat depending on whether it's, you know, somebody took vacation, holiday, this would be at least on our end fairly complex to implement. And it would require a lot of attention. I agree with bill, we are kind of bouncing things off charles a little bit but don't have any firm figures on what et might take to implement in the ht system ainedo any additional cost on the side of the you had had--and/or any additional cost on the side of the aid tor to confirm this.

>> I'm not closing the door on it totally but it appears at this time we're unable to deal with it at this time. But I would like to see how much work with go into it in the future so we can maybe come up with some precision or more accurate cost, money, in the future. Right now it appears that we don't have our arms wrapped around of when you said conservative meaning the low end that's really significant. So I just wanted to throw that out. Because when this thing came up before during the budget hearing and I heard that number, of course, I had looked at the money that is one time exactly to spend and stuff like that and I wanted to dedicate some of that to deferred comp. Sorry, a shift differential. And of course, by doing that, it kind of loosened up and maybe opened up the avenue for pbo to go into more detail with a lot of thirks and also you to go into more detail as far as putting things on the table so everybody can see it for what it is. So I appreciate what you all have done on that. I don't want to close the door on it totally. I don't know what the rest of the court is going to say, but it just appears that that's quite a significant amount of money. And I say that to say this, because looking at the other opportunities to spend a one- one-time money, and it was a situation where I wanted to look at during or last meeting of markup on our budget hearing, markup session, there was some monies that I wanted to make sure one-time monies that were directed into certain arenas. Not only I mention the shift denver denver--differential at that time but also looking at one-time monies, for example, for elderly, low income, disabl disabled and elderly under hss. I think it's very significant. This is helping and assisting our elderly, low income elderly, by helping them, assisting them during the hard times of their income levels, especially when they are dealing with the utility bills. That in my opinion is really a hardship. I have gotten requests from folks, Commissioner, what can you do to help assist some of us with our utility bills. Of course, we do have an ep emergency assistance program where by we do do some things like that. I don't want to go into a lot of deliberation but one thing I would like to do, and maybe suggest one-time spending of $ $100,000 to disabled and senior citizens here within Travis County that are part of the emergency assistance program. At this time if sheriff flemming would come up and make explain how this works as far as dealing with the poverty, the federal poverty income guidelines and also the guidelines that we have established as far as funding from the general fund that certain percentage that kind of knocked the socks and makes it very difficult for our low income seniors, elderly and dis disabled to qualify where they desperately need assistance when it comes to the hot summer months and also the cold months that are experienced here in the county. So, sheriff, will you kind of elaborate on that a little bit so we can see exactly what the hundred thousand, how it will be utilized and what under what considers.

>> thank you, sherry flemming, executive m?ger for health and human services and veteran services . Commissioner Davis asked us to provide some information to him specifically about the impacts of emergency assistance for elderly and/or disabled residents . One of the things that, upon polling our staff who actually do this work in our community centers, was that one of the un unintended consequences of the income guidelines in our emergency assistance program seemed to be penalizing elderly folk or disabled persons who are either couples, or if they are, you know, living with another elderly or senior person, because both of those incomes, both persons' incomes would be put together to meet the income requirement. Our current income requirement is at 85 percent of the federal poverty income guideline. And by example, what we would be talking about is a person, that would be equivalent to an income of, I have it here, $694.17 per month for an individual and 14,0 14,016.67 for a family of four. In responding to the commission Commissioner's request, I need to qualify we're talking about the general fund assistance that residents would be able to apply for. We do have grants that are available at a different income level from some of the utility providers, as well as a federal grant that we have available for resident, the comprehensive energy assistance program funds that the court is is very familiar with and that we have received for many years. The recommendation that came from staff is that in order to offset that unintended consequence, the recommendation of the department would be for the court to consider raising that 85 percent income level to 125 percent of the federal poverty income guideline. Now, this recommendation would be a temporary change for '07 because the department does have on its plan for next year to come forward to the court to discuss that entire chapter 72 because those policies have not been back before the court in many years. So, in the interest of seeing any potential allocation as a one-time allocation, it would also be accompanied by what we would ask as a temporary change. By increasing the federal poverty income guideline requirement to 125 percent that would allow for an individual to have up to $1020 in income and/or for a family of four, up to 2,083 in income and qualify for assistance through our programs. So by Commissioner Davis's memo, the request would be to temporarily modify chapter 72, to increase the income guideline for elderly residents, with the an understanding that the department would be bringing a modification of the entire chapter 72 during the '07 budget cycle or during the '07 fiscal year. The second part of his recommendation has to do with an additional $50,000 that would also be targeted toward elderly and/or disabled persons. It's a little easier for the department to quantify the increase in utility payments because we can set a cap on that that. Hour housing cost--our housing costs, for example, are a little bit different in quantifying because it has to do with the number of persons in the household and then the number of the square footage or number of bedrooms in the household. So the additional 50,000 would be used to offset or provide a cushion for what we might anticipate to be increased demand based on the change in the income requirement.

>> thank you. And I think there's definitely a need for this. You can get a better assistance and more assistance, I think, especially in these critical times. So that is my particular motion, to approve one-time spending.

>> I think we will get all the issues laid out. I have several questions also.

>> okay. Go ahead.

>> so, this is a gap in our services today.

>> I would call it an unintended consequence, is how I would state it.

>> there's been an unintended consequence how many years?

>> for as long as the policy has been in place.

>> forever.

>> that's correct.

>> okay. The other programs are federal money, the other grant assistance that we get for utilities, sets the bar so high that these individuals cannot qualify.

>> no. Actually, it allows more people to qualify for the federal program than for the general fund assistance. You almost have to look at it differently. 85 percent of the federal poverty income guideline is a lower income amount. But it's kind of the seal ceiling for the amount of income that you can have as still qualify. For example, at 85 percent, if a person has 700 per month in income and the cap is 694.17, they would not qualify at 85 percent for a general fund dollar.

>> okay. Our goal is to enable more seniors and disabled persons to make more income and then qualify for utility assistance.

>> that's right.

>> and we think that, we think that there are a lot of people with this need.

>> well, in our generally fund assistance, the elderly population makes up about one percent of those that are served served. Between one and five percent, or in this memo we say between 23506 and ten percent, but that would be across d?b between five and ten percent, but that would be across all programs. We know the income guidelines are part of the reason. Certainly this is not the only eligibility people have to meet. There's a residency requirement, there is the need to be able to document a crisis in your financial situation. So all of those things apply. There's also the willingness of the utility provider to accept the assignment from the county and also work with the resident to either set up a deferred payment agreement or do something to mitigate whatever the current situation is.

>> okay.

>> so all of those things come into play as well.

>> are we convinced that we would be able to apply all the other county standards and still assist the target group?

>> yesand what additional change changes must--

>> and what additional changes must we make to do that? Any?

>> not at this time.

>> okay. Because I'm sitting here visual visualizing seniors not in crisis but whose monthly income is to low that they are barely making it.

>> uh-huh.

>> so if they meet these, I mean if they, just based on income, they may not necessarily qualify qualify. A crisis is basically, what? Not your monthly income every month being so low.

>> that's correct.

>> that's the problem.

>> right.

>> I have no problem with putting this in reserve. And if our goal is to help seniors and disabled persons, that's what I'm hearing, right?

>> yes, judge, that's what I'd like to put out.

>> are we extending our utility line item annually today?

>> yesand the grant assistance that we get also?

>> yes.

>> I think the challenge is for us to formulate the program in such a way that we make sure we provide the assistance. Your request is $100,000 for this.

>> yes in reserve.

>> okay.

>> that's not what the document, if we go by the numbers.

>> 50,000, for 1 00,000, but we still have rental assistance also with frule, that was the other--pharmaceutical, but that was the other. Is that correct?

>> the memo describes the addition of the utility piece. If the court were to make the income change for rent and prescription assistance as well, and then the additional 50,000 would be what's best described as a cushion to ensure that increased demand would not exceed the approved budget.

>> then hop me out. Because we did on approval of this court put another 100,000 into the basic needs coalition because that is that kind of pool of things outside of the other things that we're talking about. So why wouldn't that hundred thousand that we have already added to the basic needs coalition on top of what's already there, which I think was 400,000.

>> 250,000.

>> so this gets--

>> yeah, plus the five percent.

>> correct.

>> and the hundred, yes.

>> it's close to 400,000. How much is that taking off the table in terms of what we anticipate to be the true need out there? We have already done 1 00,000 into basic needs coalition.

>> right. My an understanding of the request was to add this hundred thousand to the health and human services line item. The hundred thousand, if I understand correctly, was for a plan to come from the basic needs coalition which is external to health and human services. Because if you were to put this money in the basic needs coalition there would be no need for to you modify your policy.

>> not a bad thing. They are the clearinghouse on all your whole range of issues that rather than figuring out more ways to embed this into the county, that really having our providers out in the community, our accepted community providers that they look at the whole range of issues that are out there that are not just one thing. It's looking at all of it. And we went to a higher level to deal with what is only a one- one-time emergency. Help me understand why thas thasthat's not a better strategy strategy--why that the not a better strategy guy. And we did bump up those numbers for exactly this reason. I'm not getting that.

>> we had department under hss not to do this. You still have the capability of doing it and overseeing to be sure those things are happening. My holy point that is I would like to make sure--whole point is that I would like to make sure that it's in your shop. The things I am hearing is there is definitely a need. I would like to make sure that that stays in your shop.

>> okay.

>> and in your purview. That's what my concern is, that it stays within the departmental purview.

>> yes.

>> that's why I would like to vote as directed.

>> if we line up a hundred s?rs in need, would--seniors in need, would their number one request be for utility assistance, or would it be for medication? Medication?? And how do we determine this without giving them an opportunity to come meet with you and your people at a town hall meeting at six o'clock one evening.

>> absolutely.

>> I am mfavor. If there is a gap, I think we ought to address it. At some point it seems the to please those we are trying to help should be given the opportunity to come forward and say, I need help with this. It could be housinging, utilities, could be food or medication or something else.

>> could be all of the above.

>> I see us trying to do the right thing.

>> exactly.

>> that's just, yeah. We discussed some items during the markup and sort of gave directions of and some of those did not get us what we thought. I have two or three of those this afternoon. For example, I indicated, for these vehicles going to the vehicle committee, I did not know vehicle committee does not deal with corrections buses. Nobody does. Those are equipment, I guess. So the question is, I want to lay that issue out and have the court look at it and do something with it this afternoon afternoon. Then there was the issue with joe's system and ms. Flemming, you're number one on that list. I'm suggesting it may that be this afternoon we take the list of issues we have discussed already. This is not new stuff. The vehicles we talked about. So if there's a van for the dis disabled that I want to lay out, and then there is one bus of the two that are needed, those kind of come to mind because of the facts that I have gathered over the last two days on those. So what I'd like to do is lay those out this afternoon and let the court land on them. I think other things, joe's deal we talked about, the hrmd we put in the parking lot. Lot.. That evaluation sort of training type system. We at least ought to land on it rather than let it lay there. We ought to vote it up or vote it down. That's kind of been there. We said we would revisit it at some point. And I think we ought to actively bring it uprb address it one way or the other--up and address it one way or the other.

>> we had the item on the bunch of s folk moving down--es folk moving down to post road. Rehave money but we need to land on that one and get that resolved. That could be an unnecessary of people.

>> if--movement of people.

>> if we call this item up this afternoon, kind of list those rather than trying to do it right now, list those and systematically go down the the.

>> will I be able to include mine?

>> you will be first.

>> sharon, my point to you, when we spoke on this and you said a whole bunch of folk, some of the things, some of the senior citizens are ed on is-- is--discriminated about are the utilities, especially if they are in poverty situation. I have heard it and you have heard it. What other kind of survey do we need the land on that. I'd like to have some kind of control especially if it's operating out of your shop.

>> right.

>> that's my concern.

>> and I would just say that the request that the department received was to identify how we can have immediate impact through the county's program.

>> exactly.

>> so that was what we were responding to.

>> exactly.

>> so we did, you know, talk with our staff who regularly meet with residents, who have various needs.

>> right.

>> and clearly, the judge's point is well made that there are a variety of needs that both elderly and disabled folks have. But the most immediate, I think Commissioner's Davis's word, what's the most immediate thing that we could do to make a critical impact for this population. And I believe hands down from the staff would be to look at that income cap because of what I described as the unintended consequence of those elderly persons who were either sharing accommodations or they are, you know, couples who both of their income has to come into play in order to meet our declines.

>> but the income cap applies to all assistance, utilities and housing.

>> it applies to all assistance.

>> bring us this afternoon a list of assistance that we provide.

>> certainly.

>> that's a good place to start. Move that we recess until 1:30.

(Back to top)

Afternoon Discussion

Prior to the lunch recess, our budget director, christian smith, had us walking or running through some remaining budget items.

>> I believe you were on item 8 f. Court members desire to change the '07 budget. And you were reviewing with Commissioner Davis his thoughts . And the judge identified at least some topics that he had. That's where we are.

>> we commit to give Commissioner Davis an opportunity to conclude.

>> yes, sir. I especially wanted to make sure that the request that I had made this morning as far as placing this particular item within the confines of had hss maybe reserved or whatever, but I'd like, again, persons that deal with the emergency assistance program, and the legitimate concerns of the dibbles and elderly--disabl elderly--disabled and elderly, that they be served in the bound of tract, that we can also do it just as efficiently working with the county. Of course, looking at this dollar for dollar, we do not have to deal with administrative costs because the infrastructure is already in place with the county and is already available so the merge I assistance program is for utilities--emergency assistance for ew tilges, I i--ew fittle I think is viable and needed. When it came down to one- one-time spending, members of this Commissioners court actually spent the money as far as one-time spending, I would like to be afforded the same opportunity. So this is something that is dealing with the elderly and disabled as far as emergency assistance program. And utilities. If you don't mind letting us know where we are on that from this morning's conversations, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

>> thank you, Commissioner Davis. I think the junk had asked for a list of the services that you are offered. I think you have a your place a document that looks like this with some cute little kids on the top of it it. Basically the help that is available is rent and mortgage assistance, utility assistance, food vouchers, which is an actual document that we provide to residents and they can go to the grocery store and buy certain items. And food pantries, each of the our community concerns has had a food pantry where by they can pull together bags of groceries that they give to residents on the spot. And that is one of the least restrictive programs that you have. Most often people can present and identify themselves and needing food assistance and we do provide that without some of the same, you know, stringent requirements as some of the other services might require require. Close closet, that exists also in the community centers where folks have the opportunity to receive clothing. Emergency out of town transportation for very specific needs. It would be if someone was needing to leave the county for a specific treatment that was not available here in town or if it was a domestic violence situation and there were someone receiving them in another county, have you allowed us to provide--you have allowed us to provide for bus tuck bus--for bus tickets. We have spent a lot of time talking about indigent burial. And now the emergency service which false under the tract healthcare district but the certain if I case is available through our site. The other services that you listed there are at no cost to our resident. They certainly have a cost in terms of staffing and staff time but these are not services that would have a dollar amount to you. With the exception of the senior lunch program. You may remember that that program is provided by the city of Austin parks and recreation and so the city takes care of those sites in the city and we pay for the ones that are in the ung incorporated areas or un unincorporated areas or outside city limit. Coats for kids, we do eligibility, and other analysis are involved in that, youth activities, seepsen all activity like-- like--season all activities, here again, no cost but our staff get involved in signing up families, doing eligibility to the christmas bureau, specifically. So those services are also available. So in terms of what we were discussing this morning, the services that will be imed by a change d?r impacted by a change would be the financial assist d?nce. That would be the financial assist thanks that would be paid to utility vendors for a person's utility bill. And if it were your desire, the rent and then prescription assistance that we would also pay on the behalf of residents. Another thing that staff asked me to mention, and I did mention this morning, in that when we change the policies back in 2002, we did do some tweaks at that time and did add a $700 cap. And so, if you were to make the changes that have been recommended this morning, we would ask that either that cap be add adjusted by an incremental amount or that it be waived for elderly or disabled persons. I hope that that addressed the question that you had, judge.

>> can you remind us what things on here are a one- one-time emergency, either once a year or once forever.

>> your policy for persons who are not elderly, which would be anyone who is less than 60 years of age, or a person not disabled, and just briefly, in terms of a disability for us, it would not necessarily be someone who was certified dibbled by social security administration, which is what most people think about about. If we have a doctor --who is willing to provide medical documentation that a person is unable to work or earn an income for specific medical reasons, we will consider that person at the time of their application dibbled. If a d?r disabled. If a person were not disabled or they were under 60 years of age, they could apply for assistance one time in a 12 month period. The policy changes you maids to chapter 72 in 2002 ask that when the person will present the next year, that they would be able to demonstrate to staff that they engaged in some type of work force activity. You gave us broad leeway in terms of determining what that could be. It could be everything from a letter from their next-door neighbor saying that this person mows my lawn, to they participated in a work force training activity. They had a job, they could come in and demonstrate that they actually had a job but had since lost the job in the last 12 months. Anything that would demonstrate to us that the person was actively seeking employment or seeking to improve their employment condition. And that would be the contingency on the next year year's assistance for anybody who didn't meet the elderly or disabled definition. Anyone who meets the elderly or disabled definition would have an opportunity to apply for assistance twice during the year understand the same eligibility guidelines, you know, crisis, income, residency, all of those things, but they would be eligible to receive assistance twice in the 1- 1-month period. And--12-month period. And they would not have the work force requirement for the subsequent year if they came in and applied.

>> thank you.

>> can I ask, Commissioner Davis, this request that you got, this simply is kind of the final up of what we did the day when we each had 400 000?

>> yes, it is.

>> is that what this is? You're just simply asking, here is where I would like my dollars to be spent?

>> exactly.

>> the remainder of what you have attached--

>> I move--

>> sorry.

>> that we put $100,000 in a senior and disabled financial assistance reserve and that as soon as possible after the beginning of the fiscal year, we bring this matter up and discuss appropriate policy changes and move on that.

>> second that, judge. I think I had a good motion, would I have made the same motion, but I am glad you did.

>> you waited too long.

>> I know you have. Anyway, that's the motion. That's why I would like that set aside in the ee serve. And staff, we want to work closely as soon as we fine out how it's going to go because I'm concern about this, this is at ss disposal.

>> yes, sir--hss disposal.

>> yes, sir.

>> anymore discussion?

>> I second the motion.

>> all in favor.

>> that passes by unanimous vote.

>> the other two items was shoring up the summer youth council. I'd like $50,000 to go to the summer youth council. We had set some aside. It always appears there is a shortfall. This is for serving the customer youth program and stuff like that. I kind of want to, there's already been some money set aside. I'd like to add another $50 $50,000 to it where it exist exists now under hss.

>> is that the summer youth employment program?

>> yes, it's already set up. I just want to add additional money.

>> how much is the add on in markup?

>> we added 100,000.

>> another 50.

>> is there a second.

>> no?

>> is there a second.

>> I'll second it.

>> thank you.

>> anymore discussion on the motion? Reason I put 100,000 in, I thought we ought to do that. We have a partner in there and we need to caw cause with our partner--caulk us about our partner about how the program is operated and how contributions are made to it. Our hundred thousand was a good faith move in my book. 50,000 more goes beyond that I believe.

>> let me ask you, then, is this something that you would also see us bringing back later on to talk about this as well?

>> I really think we ought to give it to the city of Austin and make a substantial increase. 100,000 doesn't get you much if you have additional administrative station off the top and--administration off the top and you're trying to serve kids six weeks as a time in the summer. My guess is six weeks you earn how much as a kid? Seven or eight hundred?

>> it's about 650.

>> see, 100,000 would go a long way but 700,000 would go a long way. If we are kicking in half of it, which is 350,000, to my book that would make all the sense in the world. We have been stuck on the same number for four or five years. So, symbolic in the sense that, hey, we really ought to increase it and we're willing to do it unilaterally the first year if necessary. Did you more substance in that, hey, we're taking the lead on this. Let's have serious discussions about serving more kids. Clearly they're out there. Recently we have been trying to reach outside the city of Austin to pick up other youth in Travis County and doing a pretty good job of that. There are disabled kids also that require a bit more additional work to get them coordinated and signed o we're kind of picking up the administrative piece and as a result fewer of our dollars are going into the youth assistance. So, that's where the yesterday is for the parent parentthe, in my--for the parent, in my view. The reason I would do that.

>> the only question I had, is this supposed to be a follow-up from our work session with regards to all of us having that pot of money and everybody having their same--

>> in my view, no. I saw no because when I made the recommendation I said a certain thing and I made my position. Like everybody else here, I just have a position. I considered that deal done when I walked out. And these are new ideas. And in the sense that the book was closed on that deal deal. That dayday in mark--that day in markup. Further information to highlight some other issues, I'm in the saying let's vote because I made the suggestion the other day. I'm suggesting these because there is additional information. Like the vehicles that I hope to discuss. If it doesn't make sense I think you all ought to vote against it.

>> I think there are some other things that need to be discussed because the county is picking up all the administrative costs and that's the piece that could keep inflationing year after year after year. I think it's also going to be instructive when we get shared what we did with all of our social service contracts and what the city did, or should I say didn't do n their markup.

>> since it's not attached to what I thought was sort of a follow-up in the work session, I will retract my second. That's the reason I Commissioner Davis earlier. Did Commissioner Davis have that day $400,000 spent that we signed off on, christian, during the work session? Do you remember that?

>> I seem to remember being reminded. I remember being reminded while I was just talking about putting things into reserves, that it wasn't anybody's money. That it was just trying to get people passion and ideas that it didn't belong to anybody and there wasn't the requirement that each of us figure out ways to spend 400 000.

>> that's not my interpretation or my an understanding. That's why I did not bring this back during the time that we would bring it back because I thought would I have another opportunity to do what I suggested this morning. There are some things that we looked at during that time where we had identical shifts on things that we had a common interest. So of course, if we are going to hit on the same type of program, recommending the same amount of dollars or whatever, putting dollars into similar program, because you lose the opportunity if that person gets theirs on the table first and you have sill lar programs that you want to fund. So at the end of the day, I just reverted to the fact that no, I didn't get a chance to spend it but I'd like to have another opportunity to deal with that. I thought that's where we were at that since everyone basically had gone through theirs and had a chance to exhaust the one-time spending at that time. So just kind of concerned that I'm not given the opportunity. Especially with the kind of programs that I'm trying to push forward with as far as, that I think need the funding, work first develop development, hss, was another one, even though I had a chance to put the hundred thousand, I thought an additional hundred ,000 would be adequate--hundred thousand also be adequate, also enough with the anti antipoverty program, some very significant things in that program, additional 50 50,000 to be added to Commissioner Gomez, which she allowed 300,000, which I applaud her, to go to that. But just the point is that these were the things that were going to be submitted as we went through the processment and I think the opportunity, I don't make the motion, whether anybody seconds or not--

>> the motion is already made. The second is withdrawn. Does another member of the court, will another member of the court second the motion? See, the problem is that Commissioner Davis and I recommended 100,000 in addition. I recommended it and court approved it. So it's there. It ain't my 100,000.

>> thank you.

>> that came from commission Commissioner Davis the same as mine. That's 100,000.

>> the same thousand.

>> the same thing hundred to Commissioner Sonleitner. It didn't happen to Commissioner Gomez because she went first. Otherwise she may have been in the same predicament.

>> right.

>> judge, also--

>> the 200,000.

>> the youth program, you were ahead of me. You know, what I got rid of.

>> that was the equivalent. Christian had my second on the list. I would have gone last.

>> he did it in according with the way people turned in their list. List.. Margaret turned her in first first. Judge, you were second and I was third. When it came to third time t well, of course, one in two, and the judge, had-- had--Commissioner Gomez and the judge, had already gone. I still would like the opportunity to go ahead and fund where I felt it was desperately needed in the community. That's why I am in the position I am now. Otherwise I would have gone ahead and dealt with that then. To at least indicate that that's what my intentions were, to go ahead and fund this money to those in need. Work force development, hsss a very important thing. The ain't poverty program programpoverty--the poverty program is a very important important--antipoverty program is a very important thing. The one-time spending, I think we ought to have it allowed.

>> it's yours and mine. Like you put another hundred thousand in for exoffenders. In reserve until we put the specifics of the program together. That's all of ours.

>> the basic needs coalition everything signed off on thatlve thank you very much. All of usyeah, but I guess--

>> yeah, I think it would be bang for the punch. 100,000 with another 50,000 I think is something that should be included. If the court feels, it's the will of the court that runs things. Whatever the court decides to do on it. I wanted to let the public know that I'm trying the beef up some troubled situations out there that I know we have to deal with.

>> thank you Commissioner. There is a second? That motion dice for lack of second. I want to d?r dies for lack of second. I want to mention a couple things.

>> did we vote, we didn't vote on the one--

>> we approved that one.

>> okay.

>> the senior and disabled.

>> that's going to be no the reserve.

>> right.

>> we have an unanimous vote on that one.

>> a great idea.

>> thank you.

>> we approved by unanimous vote. It's all of ours.

>> I'll tell you one thing, next time we come up with something, I want to be sure I'm the first in line to turn my request in.

>> here is the deal. Two things I want to call to our attention. We have two buses, both of them are 1991 buses. The vehicle, what's our vehicle committee called?

>> vehicle users committee.

>> vehicle users committee does not entertain buses. Is that yes or no?

>> yes, we do not.

>> right.

>> my request is that we replace one of them. My second request, and I didn't know this n?m I was chatting--until I was chatting with chief emby.

>> I will answer to anything anything.

>> there is a van for disabled persons that's also used for persons without disabilities.

>> that's correct, members of the court, and this has always been kind of a pre precare use situation. We have done this before. We from time to time have the need to transport individuals with disabilities to medical appointments, various other issues. And we talk about individuals who are in our care and custody. Sometimes the vehicle becomes what we call under underutilized by the standard of the committee and the set forth by the county--guidelines set forth by the county. We don't have any way around that. You need it when you need it it. It has to be equiped with a wheelchair lift and things like that. Our concern that's come to our attention, and it was in our budget request, was that we not only put the individual transporting at risk of doing it without the proper equipment as well as putting our staff at risk of somebody to pull a back or throw something out and that's going to cost us with people being outlve and there are--people being out. There are several ways to address that. I know talking to captain white head and fleet individuals as well as pbo, our concern, againrb is that these type of vehicles don't get utilized as much as a regular van would be. Because we're going to take up some space with the equipment. But there still is certainly the need for it.

>> the bus costs 100,000.

>> yes, you're correct.

>> the van costs how much?

>> I think when we looked, approximately 45,000to we have enough in car to cover thesethese does anybody know know?

>> you have a million four available resources. All of your car is committed committed. You have a reserve of, in car, that you could decide to use in midyear but if you are committed to take action I would suggest you take action accordinglyly.

>> my motion is that we put 150,000 in the car reserve in addition to cover these two needs specifically.

>> second.

>> now f we have a van that enables us to handle disabl disabled inmates, I guess, and other persons, when it's not used for that particular reason, we use it like to transport inmates and then it won't be sitting there waiting on people to become disabled or disabled foats foatsfolks to be arrested.

>> right, and we have discussed with the transportation staff that they would have to share the vehicle, both dell valley and downtown have needs. We're not asking for two separate vehicles for those purposes. Again, we would utilize as available . Again, it has less seating capacity than the standard van because of the equipment that we'll need to install in it bus we certainly make use of the vehicle.

>> do we already have, mike or rick, embed the in the tnr budget, I'm looking at mike out there, related to we have existing vehicles that need to be recharged, so there's already an accommodation in the tnr vehicle line item related to the normal maintenance stuff stuff? Or do we also need to put something on the operating side as well for these vehicles?

>> given the request would be for a new vehicle, in addition to the fleet, my an understanding would be that the maintenance, again, I can't speak to tnr's budget and their accommodation of it, my an understanding would be we would need to include the operating costs as well. I'll let mike address that if he disagrees.

>> mike joy with dr?n. We're replacing the big bus so that would just be a swap out. The ada van that we're talking about, I believe it would be minimally used. I don't expect a large tour. So--expenditure. Maintenance for the first several years, probably just a far bit into the system-- system--absorb it into the system.

>> I know you get irritated when we forget to talk about what needs to be in tnr's line item.

>> if want to give me money, that's fine too.

>> one condition I have in mind is that you don't just use the disabled van to transport disabled individuals. You use it to transport other individuals when there are not disabled individuals in need. Right?

>> there will be a need for that but the seating capacity is limited. But there are instances where you have one or two females that need to be transported serp rat from anybody else or--separate from anybody else or a more aggressive person transported, so it would still be used.

>> we discussed this in the vehicle user committee and one of the different options that are out there that we can purchase, inserts or whatever. We can get the most use out of the vehicle that we can. Captain white head, chief he hemby.

>> chief.

>> thank you.

>> are getting the most use off of it. They have already said they will plan ahead after share the arc da van between the two--ada van between the two divisions and we will try to use it as best we can.

>> okay. Are we going to try to sell or salvage the other two things? Otherwise there does need to be money embedded in the budget.

>> certainly, I appreciate mike's offer here. And I think to answer the judge's question, we do intend on utilizing this vehicle as much as possible. And it will not sit. The number of miles, it will get them. If they need the funding, I would request that funding or some hybrid therein, I appreciate his offer to absorb it. He knows his budget and I don't.

>> transfer from allocated reserve if we have to.

>> what's happening with the old stuff?

>> one bus would be sold, salvage sold. The ada van is new so there is not a replacement for it.

>> the buts that we have are 1991. We got our use out of them. We did a refurbishment that got a couple more years out of they will. At some point it becomes not cost effective to keep pouring money into them.

>> we have some legal responsibility that we owe the disabled inmates, right?

>> ada requirements.

>> that's kind of delicate. That was my first thought.

>> sure.

>> we have made do in the past but it looks like the appropriate thing. Anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. When I look on this sheet and I see slated for 2007 replacement, that means basically the committee has met and decided the vehicle will be replaced this year.

>> that is correct.

>> to make sure we understand from a budgetary standpoint, the way that the motion was made, this would be 150,000 that will be added to the car reserve. Then when specifics are known, a request to transfer from the car reserve to the department will be made after the budget is adopted at the end, in a week. Was that your intent?

>> yes.

>> that would be the process to get the money to be able to write the check for the bus and van.

>> mine too.

>> that's fine.

>> okay.

>> thank you all. Appreciate it. Any other issues?

>> judge, have I one. Really something that was left in the parking lot with dollars attached. So it's a question, we didn't make those dollars go away. But it has to do with whether we were going to stay in some leased space related to some of the divisions of emergency services. Otherwise, if they do stay put and then go to their one last move, which is over to airport boulevard, there's some operational issues that I think we weren't aware of at the first time we said, oh, go on down to post road and make a second move. We talked about it during markup, put it in a parking lot, and we did even attach the dollars that if we went back to the original plan, and that is stay in lease space and make one move, that was the dollar amount that we would need. I guess aalicia has worked with the department. I know danny hobby has gotten a lot more information. We may want to rethink our original stat guy and I think attach those dollars to the budget.

>> Commissioner, thank you, the proposal was to move cjp fire marshal and emergency service out of the leased space and move them into 22 2201 post road. There are a couple of things that have change. We have some staff changes since the item was brought to the court July 11, and we have discussed it further with the department. One of the things that we have negotiated is a lower cost for the lease. There were areas that the department in discussion said that they no longer needed. So the area to be leased would go from about 9,89 square feet to 6700 square feet. The cost would go then from 105,552 to 72,566 for eight months and that would keep them in that current office until may 31 of 2006.

>> is that the anticipated move date now? Now??

>> yes, it is.

>> if this thing were a year and a half out, it would be s?ck it up, have you to-- to--suck it up, have you to move twice. But there are going fob some operational issues in an area where there are going to be some ongoing construction, I think there will be some noise issues that we dealt with over at c cjc when that was being constructed with what was happening next-door. To me, I'm glad you all brought down the cost, I just think it would be more prudent to go ahead and keep them where they are. And when they move to airport boulevard the lease goes way forever and folks move once. I would move that we would add the 72,256 back to the facilities budget to deal with this lease.

>> discussion?

>> the number again?

>> is it 72,256?

>> yes, 72,256, that's correct.

>> as opposed to 105, 105 105,000, so it's a reduction.

>> of what we had thought it might be. I think this is a prudent number.

>> yes, sir.

>> . Discussion?

>> I think it's 72,000 that I'd like to have 72,000 to send over to the expo center center. I'd like to have $72,000 to put towards debt reduction. I'd like to have $72,000 for a lot of things. It's just $72,000, not 105. Just 72,000. But it's, maybe I'm just not an understanding. I know that they don't want to move. But there's 70,000.

>> I think we've gotten down our leased costs in Travis County from, alicia, was it $4 million? We're down to very little leased space. So halfway through the fiscal year this one is going to go away and will never rear its ugly head again. To me, I think there are some serious operational issues when you have to tell a department, pack it up, go someplace else but don't geo geoget too comfortable because you will be pabbing yet again--packing yet again again. There are members of the public that have too deal with some of these dents, especially related to the fire marshal's office, having to get plans done and going to various and sundry places. So me there are operation issues here. Yeah, $72,000. But it will go away. In the same way that the precinct 2 office building is now owned by Travis County. There's so many other leases that we made go away. This one is going to take a tad bit long tor go away.

>> danny, pete and kimberly. In that or, please.

>> good. I'm danny hobby. I'm in the sure what my title is--not sure of my title but I'm glad to be back with tract.

>> do you want to be sheaf?

>> yeah, I'd like that.

>> okay.

>> but what we have here, I think three components. And I think kimberly can speak to one of those. Pete as well as our fire marshal, interim marshal, can speak to the others. Number one, we have operational concerns. This is not a situation of where we just decided that we're not interested in moving. This has impact. This has impact on not only the staff that's there, but it also has impact on our customers, the citizens of Travis County. So when we went and look at the facility and at all the options of what was going to happen here, then even before kimberly came into the picture with mental health we still are good justification to say where we are. I think it's fair for us to explain that to you so that you get an an understanding of where we are. And that is, when you look at the operational impact, you're not talking about just simply having administrative staff, although I think since I'm an administrative staff person, I'm very important person that serves this community. But we're talking about operational people that work out of these offices. So the large part of this office area where we currently are happens to be the fire marshal's office. Well, what does the fire marshal's office, what business do they conduct? It isn't sitting behind a desk. It's dealing with people that are in this downtown area that are also dealing with tnr and in regards to building permits, et cetera. Since we're now in that business. You remember when I was here we were very fortunate to work with you and you passed and a proved a fire marshal business plan. In that business plan was a fire code. Now we have certain obligations to that. As a result we have more people coming to this office who are trying to do one- one-stop shop here of where they stay and are able to conduct their business. So I'll let brad speak better than I as the fire marshal and we'll hit that operationally. But that has a large impact on why we feel like it's necessary for us to be here.

>> judge, Commissioners.

>> pete, kimberly and brad.

>> thank you, judge. Pete baldwin, interim emergency services coordinator. Reiterate primarily, it's operational. Five months, six months, maybe possibly total of eight months to pack up and move to one area, notify the stakeholders that we have moved, get them down here, hunting parking places to go upstairs and find they didn't get the card, find out that we have moved, gone again. It's primarily operational. We have some issues with some of our downtime in there because we will need to have some things constructed. We do have to have an eds evidence room constructed. Moving the evidence room is not just a single day's operation. Real briefly, I figured very succinctly, if I figured up the staff time and we were very, very fishants and we could pack up--efficient and we could pack up one day and unpack the neck day, we're-- we're--next day, we're still looking at approximately 75 7500, $10,000 worth of over overtime and staff time that we have lost for that one move there. We turn around and do it again in six months. I guess we're really coming from is the fact is that we have looked at some options. We have made some deals with each other on how we can consolidate and remain here for the short period of time until the new permit facilities are ready for us to be moved into.

>> cj's position is a little different than emergency services. It doesn't necessarily up uproot or disrupt our administrative or operations operations. But in anticipation of the mental health public defend defenders office coming on line, it's hypothetical at this point. Ear not sure if it will be a county department or it's going to go with a nonprofit nonprofit. If it goes with a county department we felt it was a good match to place that department with the juvenile public defenders office. If that is the decision the court chooses to make there is not enough room for cjp, the public defenders office, camera shop, emergency services and the fire marshal. That's the reason why I brought that up to roger and facilities and danny and had his staff. That's from cj b stands.

>> any more excuse--i mean any more reasons we ought to hear?

>> yes, judge. It would impact our business business. People are accustomed to finding us now. We would have to reeducate the public as to where they might be able the find us. I think our largest expense would be the evidence room. We would have to ask you all to build us an evidence role that would be several walls going to the roof deck. We would have to commit one of our fire marshals at the evidence room, another at the vehicle watching the evidence go down and be loaded up, committing someone to be in the vehicle taking it to the new facility, getting it into the new evidence room, making sure we had a room to move into before we moved out of the current evidence room. I was here in the last move and moving the evidence room was quite, quite labor intensive. One hopes that you won't have any exfoliation of evidence and different practical matters. As pete said it's a practical matter. It's going to take a lot of manpower. As you know we're short staffed with challenges in our shop. It's not a great time for us to have to do this. We obviously will follow direction of the court. But if this cup could pass from us we would certainly appreciate it.

>> judge, you kind of moving on down the road, I was just getting started. If you want me to stop here, I will stop. But there are other issues here that I think need to be brought up. Up-- . Since I came back one of the things I noticed about the staff, they pretty well rotate among all the offices around here because of one particular person, chuck brotherton, our wireless person. He deals a lot with the sheriff's office. To by, our contract special specialist, he deals a lot with purchasing as well as here. And by having to do two moves, it is now going to require people traveling in their vehicles, both people that are here, out there, as well as here and commission Commissioner you're talking about cost. I'll be more than happy to discussion cost with you because that's part of all of this. Time is money so in order for us to be able to move all this and tell all our customers where we are and all our customers are really here except for the fire marshal's office, I think you are going to look at cost. I wrote down some things here. Travel time. We can walk at present. For staff to conduct business. Cost of mileage for use of vehicles. We can walk at present. Travel time for staff in the downtown offices to go out there. Cost of mileage for the vehicles for that. You also have a situation of where when we went and looked at the facility, there are things down there that we have concerns about I was involved in building services for ten years and immediately when I walked into that building, I told someone that actually works down there, I started asking some questions about the facilities. Immediately it caused us some concernsmpts number one the whole time we would be down there there would be construction right next-door to us. When you look at that, just like you had a while ago here, you didn't notice it but you had someone doing some drilling here. If you can imagine a major construction job right next-door to you, and you have customers that are coming in at the same time you're trying to conduct business. The other thing, the air conditioning unit, and I have been working now with roger in regards to one zone on an ac unit feeding both areas. So what happens if something were to happen over on the construction side, no matter how good they are, or how good they may be, and the system shuts down. That affects us, people working in that side of the building. The other is concern with restrooms. Roger says we can work that out but I have a little concern here. They are going to shut one down u which we were kind of glad they were because it's a public restroom. But there are issues down there with the facility itself besides the operational issues. Then the third thing I was going to mention, and I'll be quiet, is the executive managers. We're in the process right now of having two committees that are in the process of selecting a new executive manager for both areas, emergency services as well as public safety. And so, here we're talking about now doing a major move and doing another major move within a nine-month period. And hopefully we're going to have executive managers in here around January, hopefully February, and what was beautiful about us all working together, we came up with a plan, and I'll agree with you, Commissioner, 105 105,000, no matter how we want to justify all of this even though we think it's good justification, let's also try to work on bringing the cost down because if we immediate to do something on our part. So what we did, we came together and came up with this solution which is stay where we are but go ahead and shut down part of our operations, team up and group together in the office offices that we have, realizing it's a sacrifice for nine months but also more convenient for everybody, citizens as well as us. And also work out a thing with alicia, which was wonderful. She and roger have been great. We're going to utilize the offices which we will have to once we move to airport. She has two vacant offices upstairs. We go ahead and put the executive managers in there. So to me to sit and have new executive managers coming in and having to deal with one move and another move, there needs to be some consistency consistency. One last thing. I think we owe it to the staff. The staff have been down there some 14 months since I have left. And they have had interim folks, which are good folks. But they are ready for some stability. They are ready for some consistency. And so to try to have them move now tries, think about moving your home twice within a year's time or nine months' time, think it's unfair to ask them that. That's why I'm here to fight for that and for them and for our citizens. And I will be quiet.

>> there's a motion and a second. Anymore discussion? All those in favor. Show commission, Gomez and Commissioner Sonleitner voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against. Commissioner Daugherty voting against. Thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> may I make one suggestion suggestion. We have gotten from our Travis County civil service commission a written request and previously several e-mails regarding the one employee who has been hidden from our view for years, at least from mine. My recommendation is that we ask had, rmd to put this on d ask hrmd to put this on the personnel amendments for next week and legal decide exactly where to land. So treating as a budget item let's treat it as a personnel item. They would like to fit her into the new grade for people in that position but they want to move her to a step five. Our question for hrmd is, is step five appropriate, step four, step three, or what have you. And we will make it effective the first part of October. Taking advantage of the five percent. The sqe, how much, if any, amount--the question is, how much, if any, do we need to augment that by to get her where she needs to be.

>> that's a good plan.

>> second that.

>> a salary just am is really the bottom line-- adjustment is the bottom line. Some people may not have met where the person may really need to be. Of course bringing back next week I think is the appropriate thing to do. I'll second the motion and support the junk's request.

>> actually--judge's request.

>> we'll make it happen.

>> all right.

>> any problems with that by anybody? Instead of treating it as a budget item we'll treat it as a personnel.

>> that will be fine.

>> now, this morning alicia handed all of us a pink sheet. Not intended for our dismissal but for our review review. On this sheet she listed two issues of importance to her, two items. First of which is the hr performance management system that we said we would put on the parking lot. Our county judge and other asked whether we could fund this out of the risk manage management fund. And the answer is no, not directly. However, legally, if there is a surplus in this amount and this is not in the risk management funds but back to the general fund, it can be done the other thing is that we could fund it from the one-time money, the part that's one-time. We would have to work with what is ongoing. And the third option, of course, is not to approve it it. My own view is that since I have been here, if this really works, we need it. And that's base on the number of personnel issues that we have seen in executive session. And because of the size of our work force, the personality of employees and managers, my guess is there would be a steady flow of those. My guess is this would en enable us to do a better judge on the front. Right?

>> yes, sir.

>> .

>> yes. I'm reading the memo. We did put this on the parking lot. Does the court have a preference?

>> this is supposed to take out the subjecttivity of how people are evaluated? Is this going to be something where where we really, too often we do these things and somebody says, I don't like what that said. I don't agree with it. All of a sudden, then we're not using it anymore. Convince me that this is something that really is going to be used, will stay around, and will really been fit.

>> who else is using it?

>> you have christine that has worked with this particular system, I believe bexar account.

>> there are other counties in Texas using automated systems for performance management. We're fining that it increases the objecttivity of the performance reviews because it gives the manag managers just in time training as they go through the performance management process and they have got, the if you will, a blueprint of a performance review and actual text that guides them through the process and helps them be more objective in their rate z?g so with just in time, because I'm--

>> so with just in time, because I'm familiar with that, say you get this, what is the next step that you take, having gotten that information? ? Then what are you going to do to rectify and to say, I mean, are we prepared? To we have management in place trained that's willing and able to take the information that they have just gotten and say, okay, here is what I need to make sure that you can do, versus I've got this piece of out output here that says, you know, you are really not doing the job.

>> this package is a tool that with the tool comes the training of the managers. One of the things that we would do in the development of this particular program is, and one of the reasons that it increased, was that we wanted to bring in several vendors that we could have the product tested, one for ease and comprehension, because what the tool does, as christian said, it assists the manager in the development of performance reviews but also performance plans that state specifically what is expected of the employee for that particular year. So that both the employer and the employee know what can expected. Now, those expectations should come, then, from departmental work plans. And then they cascade down to each of the individuals. So you have, in response to your question, we would provide training as part of the package to supervisors.

>> and use it to extend this this. I say we start out with a certain number of department departments and five more said, okay, we want to be part of that. How easy to expand to pick up the additional five?

>> it's pretty easy because it's an electronic tool. Most of the time is going to be spents in developing the come pe tincies. We can make this as centralized as decentralized as we want to which means we can allow the dents to grow their own review. It could--dents to grow their own review.

>> on--dents to to.

>> okay. We have dense who work-- work--dents who work under the Commissioner's court and other departments who have other elected officials heading them and they are free to choose their way. I am wondering who it make sense for to us put this in place for our departments and as we perfect, indicate to the--perfect ours, indicate to the elected officials that we believe it will benefit them to. And as they sign it, we basically sign them on. If we start out with that you're looking at not quite 155,000. The other figure was how much?

>> the 155 would be just for the 1100 employees that work for the Commissioners court.

>> where am I at, I would rather see, if I had a sheriff flemming, I would rather see the largest department say we want to do it, we're willing to do it, and I know at least on tnr, there is a quite different way that you evaluate somebody on the road and bridge team versus somebody who is a case worker at hss. It disturbed me when I heard the words, we need to develop the core competency. That's called tic tock. I hear time going away. I won't be implemented because there are some dents I'm looking at the one ahead of us, that do their evaluations as soon as the budget is finished, at the beginning of the year and other are stack later.

>> one of the good things about this automated systems in general, they have over hundreds and hundreds of competencies. It would be a matter of sift sifting through and make you k sure they are customized rather than taking a boilerplate and generalizing and making sure the cookie cutter approach where somebody has to plug in general things that don't apply for that specific department but being able to go in and develop those come tincies that are specific to that department. It's not going to be going from scratch per se but it will be where we have selected portfolio of different types of come tinc tincies that are from a library.

>> what if we over the next few months as issues arise at travis countiTravis County, ask ourselves, what if we had on our hr system in place, how would it have helped? If we need an office, precinct two Commissioner's office, look at that. If problems sur stas, apply that and come tell us, here is how the system would have helped.

>> Commissioner would be an elected official who could or could not go by this. But I guess, has this been shared with some of our large departments?

>> right. We had someone from tnr and hss at one of our discovery demos looking at an application that would be something that we would look at purchasing. And we their buy in totally. They were excited about it. One of the neat things, it's less time consuming that the process they are doing currently and it's more of an intuitive type of approach to performance management rather than the paper based going through with this word document and trying to write out all of the different things that they need to for that review review. This gives them an opportunity to manage performance review daytho to day throughout the year rather than the annual appraisal looking at the year in the previous.

>> how much of this is one- one-time versus ongoing?

>> as far as the cost?

>> yes.

>> going there we were looking at the one-time portion--going in we were looking at the one time pores going more. Working with its, because we wanted to look at the possibility of hosting it in house, that's where most of the money was coming from, the initial investment of the hardware and software which is about 30 k. And also the contingencies, the possibility of hr integration which meant converting data from hte into the software, extract extracting and importing into the software back and forth. Any additional training, consulting from the vendor. That was another 40,000. So there's about 70,000 right there just off the top that is one time.

>> the ongoing is how much on this?

>> 37,500 and then the licenses.

>> we're looking around 23 to 40,000, somewhere in that ballpark.

>> is there a way for vendor to bring this to a certain number of our managers, let them see it in operation, let them decide, hey, if I had this, it really would help me and I would use it? See what I'm saying?

>> yes, sir.

>> for 155,000, we would have to mandate it for dents under us--for departments under us. I would like to think, before that, that they would use it because it is available rather than our saying you do this.

>> that would be part of the process. It's not like you approve this, we would go out and buy. We would have to go out on a rfgq. Part of the money--rfq. Part of money that we have in here would be a discovery discovery. That would be a demo where vendors would come in. We would have a focus group with department heads and decide what tool would be best for them.

>> I want to be sure that's also, can you imagine, we do need to talk about a pre preprocess. This is not some kind of system that's been picked ahead of time.

>> right.

>> and it could be that the results of a procurement process that a department has said, I really like that one, and that may not be what comes out of the process. I'm just not sure that this thing is ready yet.

>> my motion is to leave it on the parking lot or in the parking lot.

>> second.

>> .

>> let's have a discussion where we talk about additional due diligence we can do to prepare this for approval by the court at some point in the future. Any discussion of that motion? It's basically a wait and see motion.

>> I guess leaving it on the parking lot, I would like to also see are there other counties similar to the Travis County structure. The reason for that is because tnr is kind of unique in itself. You mentioneding on counties that have comparable setting setting. But, setup such as tnr, road and bridge, amount these other different components within the particular department. To evaluate that, are they in the same setting. Similar settings are there, then I think we ought to know what they are as far as the department is concerned. So is that any way possible to get that information as far as how similar we to other counties?

>> absolutely. Of course.

>> otherwise there may be some diversity. Tweaking or whatever else that needs to be done when it does come back.

>> sure.

>> thank you.

>> all in favor of the motion to park? That passes by unanimous vote. Number two, its security network access control.

>> yes. The total of that is two items on there. 110,500 for the network access control and then 98 98,000 for consulting services. The original request was to have a security specialist at a grade 24 for the 98,000 but we have since changed that. If we could have a consult consultant come in for the first year, the court has already approved one fte to add to the one that we have in terms of its security. We could have a consultant come in and advise us on this particular security item and help with the installation, then we could monitor it it.

>> how important is this, mr. Harlow?

>> this particular tool gives us the ability to protect the network, the county network from people bringing in laptops and bringing in software that they have acquired at home or on the internet somewhere somewhere. Whenever they hook back up into the county network, then we can halt it right there. They are not allowed to get into the network. If they are trying to bring something in that they unbit unbit--unwittingly know that they have got. It's pretty important in the sense that it helps us protect the network from intrusions and spy wear and viruses and things like that.

>> we are protecting a potential, and have we had issues that we need to address and part of address addressing those issues is this is this.

>> yes, we have had issues where county employees have taken the county laptops and have taken them home and then working from home k they were hooked up through the internet to get back into the county, so they picked up some virus that was unknown to them and when they came back to work, they plugged back into the network and here came the virus. So we have had to go clean it. So that has happened.

>> do we tell them that they can't, do we say, you shouldn't be doing that?

>> correct. It happens to them and they don't realize it's happened to them.

>> barbara, we can do this out of the help fund?

>> the comments provided, the cost of doing it would not be anymore if we apply it to everything or just the health sidelve the full cost is necessary--side. The full cost is necessary to protect the health thing. We need to protect the confidentiality and the availability of the information for hippa purposes. So to the extent that it's necessary, which it appears to be, for protection of hip hippa protected information, personal health information, personally identifiable health information, it is an expense that is within the types of expenses that are authorized under the rule that the Commissioners court passed about how the funds for the health fund could be spent.

>> that would qualify for that type of funding.

>> mr. Wicker.

>> I was just going to support it wanting this in a the first place. It's a big deal to the auditor's office to have the network secure right now. You remember we're moving to a new financial system. This is a city all piece before that happens-- happens--critical piece before that happens. Right now our financial system is totally separated from everything else at Travis County ap we're hoping to have a much closer link between the two. And their request is a key piece to that.

>> how long would we need consulting services? We're estimate being $90,000 for that purchase.

>> how long? One year or six months?

>> less than a year.

>> then it goes away.

>> move that we found the 1 110 out of the healthcare reserve and the other out of the balance that we have, the one-time money. How is that? One-time money covering the consultant for up to a year, and the 110 out of the benefits reserve based on the legal opinion. Commissioner Davis second that one?

>> yes.

>> Commissioner Daugherty?

>> what was pbo's eyeup re resons?

>> we were urging a rod look at at security, not focusing in on this one item. But there are risks, a wide variety of areas. And we were urging that the experiences that have occurred in the past, which are in many wise invisible to the court officials but very visible to its, the relative risks in all the they're use areas related to security and computer security, and the hacking, all of that, be shared and probably shared in executive session substantially with some time and effort so that you can see the whole picture and a plan developed over multiple years, or one year, to close those or reduce those risks. That was our write-up. As opposed to yes or no on this, it was in is part of a bigger issue.

>> we got that in executive session.

>> yes.

>> excite extensively.

>> yes.

>> and we would, you have funded two items this year. We're very greatful, on security. And we will bring a plan to you on how those will be implemented. One was on auditing and the other one was preventive. We do expect for this kind of money that we would bring you a plan so that you are fully knowledgeable about a time line and the acts that will be taken.

>> absolutely.

>> okay additional comments?

>> no, sir.

>> additional questions? All those in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Were you all clear on the source of funding for those two?

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> where are we at?

>> any other specific items?

>> did we resolve, judge, related to trying to get the correct the--co amount down?

>> we got it down.

>> 13.7 million.

>> we're about 72,0123 off.

>> and if you are reverting back to ag on opportunities with respect to the co, you had really two of the perhaps most, clearer alternatives, which were whatever resources you feel appropriate remaining after the decisions that you have now just made, plus you had the crate barker split into two fiscal years in the event you wanted to do that. Those are the two probably clearest paths towards getting it below 13, to the degree you wish to do so.

>> or even a split of a split, and that is that the 700,000, instead of being a crate barker co in '07, becomes a car, comes out of cash. We have it right up there. We have 1.2 million still.

>> yes.

>> if the decision were made that rather than it being, so you have it in there right now.

>> there's currently 1.2 million in co. You would need to increase car by whatever amount to be able to decrease the co to whatever amount.

>> we can either--

>> what if we pull the co part of the freight barker for '07 out and fund it out of car.

>> that number would go down by 700,000.

>> exactly.

>> which gets you to the 13.

>> right. The co, right, would be reduced.

>> then we still have 1.2.

>> no. The car would need to be increased by the 00,000. The--700,000. The 500,000 would goo into a '08 instead of '07. The 700,000 would be in car.

>> that's what I am suggesting.

>> that would leave how much in one-time left? It would be an even 700--

>> it would be an even 7 700,000, christ.

>> yeah, even 700 out.

>> which should leave.

>> about 500.

>> correct.

>> this is the good freight barker.

>> you keep saying.

>> I would put the other half million in allocated reserve.

>> I would too. Balance, obviously, against any other little thing.

>> that would be some positions would be made during the year that we have to fun. Take 70,000, bring the co down to 1 million and put the other half million in allocated reserve.

>> would you also add that you give us permission to balance in the proposed budget any technical corrections against allocat allocated reserves and we would report back next Tuesday.

>> just to clarify on what the judge said, it would actually reduce ut further than 13 million because you took 1.2 million out of the co and funded 00,000 in--700 000 in car.

>> it would go below 13 million.

>> if I understood correctly correctly. That's not a b?d--bad thing.

>> not a bad thing.

>> I wanted to be sure that was the intent.

>> it was explained so enthusiastically, it must have been my intent.

>> do you wish to repeat the motion?

>> no, sir.

>> we understand.

>> are you going to put on some kind of a preload list for '08 the remainder.

>> correct. We will have, yes, we will know about that.

>> and tnr will clearly remind us. They are good at that.

>> I'm sure cynthia will do that. Cool.

>> we will pull out all of the parking lot that we need to?

>> you have two item in the parking lot. You pulled them.

>> and put one back in. The other one did we act on? The security deal?

>> yeah.

>> we have done f.

>> you have done f. You only have to items.

>> have we done e?

>> e?

>> budget reserves.

>> you have taken two actions, adding, no, assuming that this motion passes, you will have added half a million once and half a million twice.

>> thanks for reminding me, christian. Anymore discussion of the motion? All those in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. So we have approved e.

>> you have approved e.

>> and g we discussed at length.

>> very much so.

>> any other parts still un unaddressed?

>> just I want to put 8 k, you want I to put on your thinking caps, we want to wake around and talk about improvements in the budget process for ny 358 because we're--fy '08 because we're going to talk about that next week.

>> chris, we still have a deficit on the ongoing. That is going to happen when you balance?

>> yes.

>> I want to be sure we haven't left anything.

>> you have not left anything.

>> j. Just authorize you to do.

>> yes. We have to vote.

>> if that's a part of the motion that you have made.

>> move approval of j.

>> second.

>> which is authorize the co to balance against the allocated reserves. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. And k, any other budget items related to the fy '07 budget mark zup we discussed that will we know about, right?

>> all that we know did.

>> did we vote on the freight barker.

>> I don't think you voted on freight barker or the 1.2 million reduction. Maybe the clerk knows.

>> second by . All in favor of that one, that passes by unanimous vote. Anything else?

>> you still have the budget rules. That's agenda item number 7, however. That's another agenda.

>> k we discussed. Anything else unitem number 8. Number 7, we do have a recommendation from the county attorney. To consider and take appropriate action on proposed fy '07 budget rules rules.

>> as a general introduction we have incorporated all the comments that we received from the auditor's office last week that we told you about and those were pretty minor. I do believe there is something that the county attorney would like to address.

>> which is very important, but probably infrequently exercised.

>> county attorney has an item regarding international travel. This is not the big headed recommendation. This is, sometimes we have to leave the country to do our job motion, right?

>> that's essentially where it's coming from.

>> it says and why it says so, that's for the court.

>> you have an existing rule 12 a which spoke to need to go come to the Commissioners court or before travel occurs and before encumbrance occurs. Our concern was whether the -- an office or our office or even the sheriff's office needing to send--da office or sheriff's office, need to go send an investigator to mexico, this is just an exception for justice reasons, we will allow us to go ahead and go without having to get preapproval. Likelihood of it coming up, I can't think of one, a good case, but I'm a lawyer and I think of the worse case scenarios.

>> we had a situation dealing with a murder case where some of the suspects were in mexico. And Austin please department on one of the cold cases was called to mexico. It does happen.

>> county attorney is trying to get around dealing with the Commissioners court. This is when justice and public safetypublic--demand immediate action and the court, in advance court approval is--

>> cannot be timely.

>> would not be timely. That's why I have no objection to this appropriate language.

>> weep be happy to add-- add--we'll be happy to add it.

>> questions and comments? The motion passes. She will be happy to add it.

>> just the add or on the budget rules with the add.

>> budget rules with the add.

>> thank you.

>> discussion? Is that seconded? By Commissioner Gomez? Yes. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. Kudos to you and your staff mr. Christian.

>> done within a half hour, judge, as you predicted.

>> you thought you all would take a very as long as time this afternoon. I stood behind you and suggested 30 minute.

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.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:05 PM25 AM

September 19, 2006 Item 8

Afternoon Discussion

September 19, 2006
Item 8