Travis County Commissioners Court
September 18, 2007
Item 22
Now let's go to the Travis County budget items beginning with number 22, review and take appropriate action on continuation of f.y. '08 budget markup.
>> Commissioners, judge, one of the items that we would like to cover in this agenda item has to do with some corrections that we have completed since last Tuesday. Chris will distribute those to you. And I apologize, we have not had time to summarize those for you, so what I thought I would do is walk you through those corrections. As you are aware, the auditor's office has released the fifth revenue estimate, and one of the things we do on these corrections is to basically balance the expenditure budgets for all of the special revenue funds and the general fund with that fifth revenue estimate. We would anticipate that with these corrections, that we will be ready to file the proposed budget this Friday as scheduled. If you look on page 1 of 9 on the corrections, September 18th recommended changes too the preliminary budget, you will see a balancing entry in the other fund category of 13,950 on the bcp fund. We also had a couple of general fund corrections there that those are the operating expenses on those new vehicles that constable 3 got on September the 4th. The large entry down on capital, the 2,424,525, represents the rebudgetting of car, and we basically had balances in that fifth revenue estimate to cover that and a little more. We did have a technical correction there on fund 28. You see the 111,250 going in and out, which essentially moves things in some line items. If you look on page 2 of 9, I'll be a little quicker on these. We did have those one-time leases up there in facilities, we had to increase facilities by 4,656. We had a little bit of maintenance and fuel costs related to the fm vehicle out of the security reserves. All of the pay grades that changed with f.y. '07 job study, we went in and corrected the grade increases. We did have a decrease in our transfer to the courthouse security fund of 42,804. And also, of course, funding decrease in the requirement in that fund, in that special revenue fund. We had a technical correction in the elections division in the hospitalization line item. Those were temporary regular employees that we had inadvertently missed in the preliminary budget so it increased hospitalization by 27,659. We did have some grade changes on the attorney 2 that the court approved during markup in the civil courts, you will see the next five or six. The following entries are in your health insurance. Essentially what happens, and these entries reflect that, is that once we get the open enrollment numbers in both the epo, ppo and ccppo, then we go in and correct the budget to reflect the actual open enrollment numbers, and that's what the bottom five entries there and the first five entries -- four entries on the next page. We did have the next three entries down there with car on the right. We had done some rebudgetting on car last week and essentially these are some expenditures they were able to make in f.y. '07. And then essentially we increased -- the court had essentially directed p.b.o. To take any of the corrections, use allocated reserve to balance those. So with the reductions in c.a.r., you will see that we increased allocated reserve by 18,845. You will see the rest of those entries in the other fund column are literally correcting to the fifth revenue estimate. Those special revenue funds. The fund is out on the very far left hand column. You will see 31 being your courthouse security fund and the various funds. You also have some corrections in the road and bridge fund. Down 190,000 there. Where we're increasing what we're charging out of the road and bridge fund and reducing the c.o.s accordingly.
>> let me understand why those numbers in the health fund are so large.
>> let's see. I've got travis gatlin here that can explain exactly on those health fund numbers.
>> thank you. Travis gatlin, budget office. What we did was base the changes on open enrollment. Early on there was a question if we kept the e.p.o., actually we had a 107 reduction in the number of employees in the e.p.o. And 589 people moved to the ppod 27. Once the changes were made we shifted claims based on members' cost per claims and the number of employees in those categories is we made adjustments. So the budget in those categories were too high. Once you got to open enrollment, we made adjustments to match the number of people in each plan for expenditures for next year.
>> so the 4 million in fund
>> [inaudible] was simply shifted to another fund?
>> shifted to another -- that went to the ppo and the ccpo for next year.
>> okay. At the end of the day though, the total amount of money was the same?
>> the same. Just shifting them out.
>> okay.
>> if we look on page 4 of 9, I'll cover -- there's more balancing to the fifth revenue estimate. The large number halfway down your page, the 202,008, in the fifth revenue estimate, there's 202,008 for the capcog funding. And we had to rebudget -- we have to establish a budget in '08 for that since the revenue come in in '07. But that's totally covered by revenue in that fund. With the fifth revenue estimate, we go through and recalculate the unallocated reserve requirement. In the general fund debt service and road and bridge fund, that number is 461,172. We did have a little reduction in the debt service unallocated reserve in the fifth of 31,624. We did budget the psychiatric service reserve that you all approved the 100,000 in markup. Now, on the advice at the direction of the court, anything in the fifth revenue estimate above the expenditures was to be balanced against the allocated reserve. And there was a total in the fifth revenue estimate without expenditures against it of 5,764,409, including two amounts that were in there of 2.1 million from the sale of the farmers market that just consummated, I believe, this week or early last week. And it is p.b.o.'s recommendation on the next page that we reduce the allocated reserve and increase the c.a.r. Reserve for the -- as you recall at the end of markup, when you did the proposed tax amount of -- to the current tax proposed tax rate, that you added to the allocated reserve 1,358,264, and then with the fifth revenue estimate, we have added 2,110,395 from the sale of the farmers market. We're recommending that you reduce the allocated reserve by the total of those two numbers, which total 3,468,659, which would take your allocated reserve balance to 3,633,580 and would leave you with a c.a.r. Reserve of 4,206,937. And christian may have a comment in regard to that utilization of that c.a.r. Reserve.
>> you have a variety of capital projects that are going to be before you in October and November related to the c.o. This c.a.r. Reserve will be able to be used by you to be able to in essence reduce the c.o. And rather than propose a -- adopt a budget this Friday that has a $7 million allocated reserve, we thought it appropriate to reduce that allocated reserve to a more appropriate level and move the funds into a capital oriented account, which is c.a.r. This would leave you with an allocated balance, an allocated reserve of 3.6 million. You may remember in the preliminary budget it was 3.4 million. You have $2.0 million worth of earmarks against that $3.6 million allocated reserve if you take this approach. And it is -- the funds -- whether the funds reside in c.a.r. Or allocated reserve, in one -- from one perspective doesn't really matter because the funds are there. It just probably overstates the magnitude of the intent of the allocated reserve, which is for unanticipated operating issues that you have, whereas c.a.r. Is for capital.
>> we have the authority to shift between c.a.r. And allocated reserve after adoption after October 1?
>> absolutely. You do it weekly.
>> okay.
>> but when we produce a proposed budget and you adopt that budget, if the allocated reserve is at $7 million, all of your documentation will show that the adopted budget had a c.a.r. Reserve of 7 million. You may or may not wish that display. But the display will be there. Now, the funds can be moved any time you want to. So --
>> we have several building projects.
>> that's correct.
>> that we have to fund. So I guess I would like to see some of the proceeds of sale used to purchase or construct other county buildings.
>> exactly, which is exactly why we're suggesting that it be moved over to a c.a.r. Account, which is capital oriented.
>> any problem with that? Any objection?
>> no, I don't have any, judge. I think it's the direction we should go.
>> make it happen.
>> yes.
>> that correction will make it happen. You'll notice on 6 of 9, those are cost neutral changes that we go through. Any time we find when we're going through and reconciling the budget that we've got an amount in a wrong line item or any type technical correction, we go through and do a reduction of one account and an increase in another. You'll see on 6 of 9 there's a string of those that basically go in and fund the retirement request that was approved actually in markup for t.n.r. You'll see on 7 of 9 that we disbursed out of the security reserve 282,059 into the individual departments. We had it in a -- in security reserve during markup so we need to disburse that. We had some corrections there in the middle of the page in the executive managers just in the line items that we had put -- looks like we had put the money in 07-01, and they are appointed in 04-01. We had a little correction, 6,000 in c.a.r., that really was an operating expense down there in t.n.r. Then essentially what we did in these following adjustments, we went in and took the gross allocations that the court approved during markup for compensation, both pops and rank and file, and the constables' compensation increases. Then we went in and did the allocation by line item in all of the line items and departments that those, according to the direction of the court. And what we ended up doing was going in in each of these calculations and reducing the -- basically reducing the reserves and putting them into the expenditure line items. These happen to be the other -- the other funds here. I think we've got some others of these on page 8 of 9 that has to do with fund 28, the county clerk's special revenue fund, 56, the election fund, and 57, another records management fund for the county clerk. And you can see all the various different special revenue funds that we've allocated those funds. One of the things at the bottom of the page, you recall that we had recommended in markup that had identified one of the ways to fund the compensation was to increase the hospitalization contra account by $2.4 million. We already had in the -- in general administration, department 10 at the last entry on page 8 of 9, 1,731,517. In working with the county auditor's office, they suggested that we establish a department 89 in which we would not only have the existing hospitalization contra account, but also on the next page we would have the 2,421,166. So now sellerly you have -- essentially we've taken the 1-7 out of department 10 and we've put it in department 89 along with the 2.4 million. Their recommendation was to establish about 23 accounts so that they can control these in the reporting project -- process at the end of the year where they off set this contra against the expenditures, and we have input those into what will be our proposed budget. The net effect of allocating the compensation reserve was that we actually had $168,077 more in the projected cost of the compensation, and so according to your instructions we had moved that amount into the allocated reserve. Which zeros out your compensation reserve with that entry. And then you see that the total allocation on the general fund side of both pops, rank and file and constables of 18,592,001 was your total amount of your compensation that you awarded. We had a little increase from the -- to zero out the security reserve into the allocated reserve. And I will be glad to answer any questions that you might have on any of these corrections. These would be, upon your approval, we'll integrate those into the proposed budget which we will be filing on this Friday.
>> so is the 168,000 already included in the allocated reserve we talked about a minute ago?
>> yes, yes, it was. That was the total. Let me mention one other thing. I was going through the September the 11th corrections, and I apologize that we did it quite hastily. One thing I did want to bring up was that during markup, the court approved for i.t.s. 160000, as you recall, to partially fund those three f.t.e.s involving the windows application. And what we had included on the September 11th corrections, and I think we have walter here. That could give a little bit -- what i.t.s. Proposed and we were going to do that little one-minute explanation last week and I inadvertently did not get that where i.t.s. Went in on the corrections and essentially cut their operating budget by 68,000 $68,000 in order to fully fund those three f.t.e.s.
>> walter, did you want to mention anything?
>> basically what we did during instruction during our work session, the court asked us to see if there were any funds we could reallocate because we were asking for three f.t.e.s and you all basically funded just a little over two. We were basically able to find money that we were using for consulting services that we reallocated to labor. And that was able to get us three f.t.e.s that we asked for. So those three f.t.e.s would have to be newly created positions.
>> those three were approved in markup. They were partially funded with the 160,000.
>> this court would create three new positions without funding those?
>> yes.
>> [laughter]
>> I believe it was --
>> I don't know how you let us get away with that.
>> to para phrase the judge, here's 160,000, you've asked for three, do your best and come back, and they did.
>> thanks for coming back. Thanks for listening to us.
>> if you have any other questions on the -- today's corrections, I'll be glad to answer them; otherwise, we would need a vote of the court to approve.
>> this is already approved by Commissioners court. Move approval anyway.
>> what you are seeing is the wiring of the budget.
>> yeah, that first sheet, the court had taken -- taken votes on the first sheet, that small one, but the others have not had Commissioners court approval. We do need the total approval of all of the corrections, though.
>> that's what the motion covers.
>> I second that. These are all the questions including the ones that i.t.s. Just brought before
>> [inaudible] f.t.e.s. So this is all inclusive in the motion that the judge is making.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, the September September 11th from i.t.s. Was more explanation, and I apologize I didn't get i.t.s. To come forward last week.
>> all in favor? Show a unanimous court.
>> I'm here before to you talk about the use of existing certificates of obligation for f.y. '08 capital items. As you know, this is a process we do every year and we've been able to do it again this year. We did -- one thing I would like to mention is we were a little more aggressive on some of the older funds this year because we're trying aggressively to close out some of these old c.o.s so we cannot have to see them again. I've given you a memo that has a summary of basically the recommendations that we've made. There's also a nice chart that shows exactly where I'm budgeting some f.y. 2008 approved items. These are already approved. There's not anything in here that's new. Most of it is hmac and I must thank t.n.r. For working with me. They are going to need multiple funding services to do the contract next year because they were one of the items I believed fit in and the legal requirements of the old os. The other pending item, if you recall, christian said during markup we would be able to find 116,060 for a day treatment center on the of scrubs. We've basically done that, however, we're leaving the 116 in c.a.r. We didn't really find anything that would allow us to put it in one of the old c.o.s but we made room in c.a.r. So the goal was the same; however, we didn't actually place it in one of the old c.o.s. As a result of the recommendations that we're making today, we freed up $347,000 in c.a.r.; however, we did place that 116, 160 for i.t. Equipment. We moved the difference, 230,840 to further reduce the c.a.r. C.a.r. We left basically unchanged. There's other actions today that have drastically changed c.a.r., but when I wrote this memo, c.a.r. Had not changed one bit. However, we did reduce the c.o. From 14.6 million to 13.3 million. I also further reduced it today on the corrections list by 190,000 that you saw earlier. I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> so the 116 is for what for csc did?
>> it is an item approved during markup for i.t. Infrastructure equipment for the day treatment center lease space. Because it was a lease space, we decided it was best to keep tonight c.a.r. However, I made room through the scrubbing process.
>> okay. So you need approval of these changes too?
>> please.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any other markup changes? We have another markup item, capital ideas. Representatives are here. Come forward.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> considering what I am hearing, how difficult those portions are. The college readiness program has a 90 percent success rate. After one year of graduating, 98 percent of the graduates are still in jobs, earning a living wage and paying their taxes. The average income of a person coming in is $1 1,000 and they leave after graduation earning $34,000 a year. The research shows that the money that is spent comes back, repaid to the county within six years after graduation. So here is the problem. We have a strategy, and here is the opportunity for the county. You've asked citizens to weigh in on a proposal to increase the tax rate to support an expanded budget. However, for the second year in a row while the budget grows it has not allowed for an increase in capital yt --idea. We want to be clear, it is its own entity. Not one cent of the dollars comes to me or the staff or to run interface. It goes solely to capital idea we asked you last week to add an additional $500,000 to give us, this would allow about a hundred slots. This would bring the total investment of the county to about $1.3 million. What we are proposing today is that the county find $250,000 to put into the budget now, and then we would continue to work with you to find the second half through special areas, programs. We've been discussing with some of you. We strongly feel that the money, our tax dollars will be most wisely spent if invested in the people who want to lift their families out of poverty through capital idea. Capital idea did not receive an increase in the county funding in the past year. In fact, they took a financial hit of $100,000. When the cdbg funds that were county allocated for the increase did not come through. At the very least we urge you to allocate an additional hundred thousand to fill the budget gap now and work with us to add the necessary dollars throughout the year. Again, we expect our public officials to invest our tax there proven gist that develop people's capacity to be productive contributing tax pairs, and capital idea we believe is this vadge guy.
>> we met yesterday and it was about the fourth time. Every time I have said that I think the court owes the public a duty and ourselves a duty to be a bit more comprehensive in our review. After October 1 is the time to do it. If we were to provide additional funding today, it would be from the allocated reserve. If we do it after October or November, it will be from the allocated reserve. Is my position hasn't changed. When we met yesterday I said we'll have mark-up. If you are in court, comments are welcome. But that's still my view. If I were on the board of capital idea I would be here requesting too. But if one of them were on the Commissioners court instead of me, I wish they would tell me the same thing I'm saying. I really think that we ought to take look at workforce development programs and try to figure out whether we ought to increase the investment and if so how. It may be that we end up supplementing this very program right here. But there are a whole lot of other skill areas where we do nothing. Instead of talking about a few hundred people, you are really talking about tens of thousands that need assistance. So I think our challenge is to try to get as much bang for the buck as possible. If we end up supplementing this program after a thorough review and analysis and really taking a bit more time than we have today no problem with me. I committed basically to turn my attention to this the after the first of the year but I think we need involvement from county staff that work on workforce development. We ought to take a look at some of the other programs that we fund and add some things that we don't fund. I don't think the level of collaboration is what it should be in the workforce,in the area of workforce development. No what decision we make, in my view this is not the time to make it. We shouldn't rush into it.
>> I understand the need to be thorough and to make sure that the county is being responsible with their dollars. We want that as well. We have been in contract with the county for about seven years and I'm curious, has there been any development where there's some question as to whether the effectiveness, I'm just curious and a little concerned about now after seven years. There is a reason?
>> I thought it was more like ten. The amount that we give capital idea from the additional revenue is really based on a percentage. It's in the five or six hundred thousand range. Two years ago we did add additional funding to the capital idea program because we made an effort during the budget process to try to beef up that. That was based on recommendations from staff. We ought to take look at whether those investments really have produced the results that we anticipated. So I'm not being critical of capital idea. But when two months ago you approached me and asked for a half million dollars more, I suggested that additional work should be done before we made a decision.
>> right. I understand that.
>> yeahi'm just wondering if something has surfaced to raise the questions.
>> the only thing that surfaced is capital idea two months ago came to me and asked for a half million dollars.
>> okay.
>> for the last nine or ten months it seems to me this is an area where we ought to take a comprehensive review and figure out where we are, where we ought to go and who we ought to go there with. We have done a lot of things in the last two years, investing additional resources. I don't know that we appreciate the impact of those additional resources. I'm just one member of the court. I don't think we ought to be rushed foo this--into this, as it seems that we are. But if there is a motion, mow is the time to make it.
>> judge, let me ask sherry a couple questions that need to get on the table. Kind of flush some things out. I have had an opportunity to meet with capital opportunity also yesterday but with the executive manager there. It was a lot of stuff that was disclosed yesterday. And I heard what capital idea is saying in a very, very well aware and supportive of what they are saying. However, I need to lay some things out on the table first. I think the general public needs to understand exactly what we are dealing with. So sherry, on just the base funding for capital idea, how much are they receiving currently?
>> the base contract with capital idea I believe is just over $600,000. The base contract. There was some one-time funding added in 2007 from an allocation of $100,000 that the court made to hss for workforce projects. 30,000 of that one had ever time funding was allocated to capital idea, I believe, for some childcare initiative. The decisions regarding that one had-time funding, which has been I believe, converted to ongoing funding in the preliminary budget, we have not made any decisions about the allocation for '08.
>> okay. But that funding is just base funding currently that they have access to.
>> that would be correct.
>> okay. Secondly, can you tell me the ranking, if you were to rank the workforce nonprofit organizations that we are dealing with as far as expenditure of funds from this Commissioners court to support, how would capital idea rank? As far as amount of funds for workforcewith the exception of our various relationships with the work source board and the various childcare initiatives, capital idea would be fairly close to the top in terms of the amount of funding we provide to them in the continuum of workforce development contracts.
>> can you answer this question? Because this was asked yesterday and I really want to make sure we stay on course. No one here is being adversarial at all. I just think we are just trying to get so some comfort level to see what we can do. And I think it's what I heard the court suggesting, and of course, three members on this court actually determine what direction the court goes in. But can you tell me, there was a direction, I guess, basically asking input from all of the workforce development, all the workforce initiatives that we fund in the county, can you tell me under the rate marshal and all the other inputs that we are looking to, to kind of look to see where we are as far as the effect of the investment of taxpayer dollars that we are making, the effect of where we are on those particular investments as far as workforce. Can you tell me when that analysis would be ready for us to review?
>> Commissioner Davis, those numbers are coming in as we speak. The ray marshal center, as you know, was fuppeded several years ago when the court did allocate an additional $400,000 in workforce dollars to helping human services. I believe the spirit of that was to encourage some innovate I and creative programming in the area of workforce development. At that time we engaged the center to track the implementation of those dollars and to be able to measure the impact of your constituents who participate in those programs versus other programs that you currently fund. So when the ray ray marshal center was here with you several months ago, I think they reported that they had done just about everything that we had asked them to except the final piece, and that was the ability to lay out for you the impact of those persons who were able to participate in our new initiative, the rapid employment program being one of them, and those that were currently being served by our existing contracts. I believe that those numbers are being finalized now. I am confident that we will be able to come back to the court in work session sometime after the start of the next fiscal year to begin to fill in that last piece of the evaluation process. But the department has been proceeding on a track that we feel has been in line with the court's interest in building continuum of services in the workforce development area so that we have a variety of opportunities for folks depending on where they are and what their needs are. Certainly, capital idea is a part of that continuum, but as I would say of any program, in this area or in other areas, one size does not phil fit all. So the most responsibility investments we can make is to ensure that there are services at various levels along the continuum to serve folks in accordance with skill levels, need and expectations, and perceptions of success.
>> okay. Let me ask. (inaudible). Would there be any objection from you, sherry mentioned (inaudible). When will you have that information carry--ready? We are in the middle September. It's about two weeks out. Do you think we will have that information by then?
>> I am afraid so say October 1. Generally we have a chance to review the information with consultant before we bring it to the court. But we can certainly communicate the court's interest in getting the data as quickly as possible.
>> tank you, sherry. Don't run over. Now, to capital idea. You requested about $100,000. Of course, I don't know where the court is going to land on that. But would two weeks out, would it really be very critical to the point where in the month of October that you could live this outing in October?
>> I understand that--
>> just asking the questionwe would prefer that the court make a commitment to us today and say we'll do the hundred thousand and work with you--
>> I don't think that's the point of commitment. I'm trying to work something out here--
>> I understand.
>> --where by you can be maybe assured that you could maybe receive that. However, I'm trying to maybe look at the next fiscal year which is after October, to make that happen. I don't know if to do that today and if it does come from allocated reserve, of course it has to come from allocated reserve. But it's just two weeks out. I'm just trying to figure out from you, could you live without a decision on that and maybe a commitment coming from the court but looking at the funding end of it in October. That's what I'm posing to you today. Do you follow what I'm saying?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> what's the question? I mean--
>> hold on k Commissioner. Let me finish.
>> what I'm asking you is--
>> let me--
>> I don't onthe question.
>> okay. The question is that the allocated reserve, I don't know, I need to get pbo up here, I guess, to tell us what is in allocated reserves. The point is to do it this fiscal year or the beginning of the next fiscal year which is October 1. That is the new fiscal year.
>> sorry, judge, were you going to say something?
>> no. I'm not playing county judge yet. Just observingwe will.
>> we will work with what the court decides.
>> okay.
>> somebody else made the question as far as what we have in allocated reserves currently.
>> let me just, we will, let me just, I just, this is a he is tan si and this is why the hen tant si about when and how and the allocation. Process for getting into capital idea depends on how much money we can count on, because then you have to go through an orientation process. The orientation, that is the hard part. If we can get a commitment that you understand kind of our restrictions as well that we would be able to speed this up--that is the direction I'm trying to go in.
>> okay.
>> let me be the Commissioner a little bit.
>> okay.
>> now, how much do we have available now--
>> after the corrections today.
>> yes, after corrections.
>> after the corrections you have in allocated reserve $3,633 580.
>> we have ear marked against that--
>> about $2 million.
>> two million. That is what I suggest. I want to make this a formal motion. I don't know if we will get a second or not. I'm trying to maybe look at this as far as making a commitment this year but also releasing the funds in '08, after fiscal year '08. I don't know if we can do that legally, to make a commitment in this year's budget and have the money available in next year's budget. Is that a legal?
>> are you not talking about this year's budget at this point in time. You are talking about next year's budget right now.
>> yes.
>> and the commitment you are making will not be available until next year in relation to the budget you're talking about now.
>> okay. So I'd like to move that we award capital idea $100,000 out of the allocated reserve, and that money be available to capital idea, strictly coming out of the reserve, after October 1.
>> second.
>> just a point of discussion. I know this may sound like you're in a game show, but if we move forward with this kind of motion, this means we will not have, we are unlikely to, how should I put this. Reviewing capital idea in materials of our comprehensive workforce development and our commitment as a county to workforce development is good for you. I think that you will, and already have the last eight years, competed very well in comparison to our other workforce development. I am concerned about jumping to a number today. I am not convinced that, I am convinced that it's not in the county's best interest in terms of looking at our comprehensive workforce development program. I'm also not convinced it's actually in capital idea's best interest to land on a low number today in advance of looking at the comprehensivest.
>> I wasn't understanding that it was an either-or.
>> I am concerned it may end up that way. I don't want, again, I don't want to make this sound like a game show.
>> well, I mean, I see the Commissioner is proposing the hundred thousand to make up for kind of last year's shortfall. I done think that it's, I didn't hear from the other Commissioners that this was an either-or situation.
>> we hing we have a few million dollars coming from the feds. They changed that to 800,000. We thought we had a few million and we had you all down for a hundred thousand. When that number went from two million to 800,000, we didn't have the federal money. So we told you all we don't have the money, we told others the same thing. So I don't know how that is a deduct. It's just that the federal money did not materialize.
>> we understand that is not--i.
>> I don't know that there is a commitment to restore that.
>> we understand from your perspective you didn't take it away. It wasn't there to give. From capital idea per spep think of, they enrolled people. That is what the difference is.
>> any discussion of the motion? All in favor. Though show commissionrs Gomez and Davis voting in favor of the motion. All against? Show the rest of the court, Commissioners eckhardt, December ty, and yours truly. Thank you very much.
>> show--
>> you're out of order. Let's go on with budget mark-up.
>> can i--
>> you certainly k.
>> thank you judge.
>> we will vote next week on the budget including any other mark jump changes that we have. Last opportunity, right?
>> right.
>> several other things before we get to resolution with the constituents.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 18:30 AM