Travis County Commissioners Court
August 5, 2008
Item 9
Number 9 is to receive update and take appropriate action on preliminary fiscal year 2009 budget.
>> morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> the preliminary budget has been filed and I'll just run down some highlights of the preliminary budget for you.
the 2009 preliminary budget total for all funds equals 644.7 million as compared to the 2008 total funds adopted budget of 663.6 million.
which is a 2.85 percent reduction.
the general fund budget, the preliminary budget is filed at 436.4 million, compared to the 2008 budget of 436.8 million or a.percent reduction.
a total of 4 -- 48.5 million in requests were submitted to pbo.
the preliminary budget currently contains 13 million in recommended requests.
included in the general fund budget or maintenance of current effort items for such items as fuel, utilities, corrections, corrections line items for food and pharmaceutical supplies, its, maintenance agreement increases, court-appointed attorney fees for volume increases, we have funded the new county court at law number 8, corrections staffing for building 12, which is scheduled to open in June, juvenile probation staffing for the last phase of the buildout.
and there is a three percent cost of living included in the budget.
staffing recommendations for 2009, a total of 73.22 positions, 66 funded with new resources, 7.22 positions funded with revenue related or midyear funded or internally funded sources.
not included in the budget you have received a handout this morning, item number 12 on today's agent the compensation for market survey, non-tso pops, green circles and others make up approximately $2 after the 500,000 is netted out that's currently in the compensation reserve.
staffing for the new financial system of 1.7 million, and that includes the be facilities requirements as well.
outside agency requested funding of 2.1 million and then ongoing revenue adjustments required to bring us into the 2010 budget of approximately $3 million.
those items are currently not included in the 2009 budget.
the tax rate for the preliminary budget is set at 40.06 cents.
by comparison, the 2008 adopted tax rate was 42.16 cents.
that is a reduction of .21 cents.
and I will note this is the third year in a row for the lower rate going back to 2006.
the rate has been reduced by 9.87 cents.
>> homestead values for 2009 came in, the certified homestead values before exemptions at $282,894.
by comparison to 2008, homestead exemption was 257,022.
the current budget with increases in the homestead tax would increase the average homestead bill by 24.53 or 2.98%.
now, you have a list before you, as I said, of all of the unfunded items that are not in the budget.
these are the items that pbo feels are significant enough to highlight and address, compensation issues obviously being one of those, but also the other items that you have before you.
we have also detailed out for you what the tax rate implications would be and the impact to the average homestead so you can get a feel for each of the items and what the impact would be.
and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
>> you've highlighted some of the unfunded items, but the departments have others.
>> yes, sir.
>> that we'll discuss during budget hearings.
>> yes, sir.
>> and have we asked the departments to prioritize their list?
>> we have.
because the funding availability is fairly limited going in to this year, you have approximately 1.3 cents available to you or one and a third cents available to you before you hit roll back, which equates to about --
>> 12 million sphwhuks.
>> about 12 million, but when have you to apply the allocated reserve or the unallocated reserve requirements, it brings it down to about 8.9 to 9 million.
>> so that would bring the tax impact on homesteads to what?
>> if you went rollback, it would bring the tax I am on the average homestead to -- impact on the the average homestead to $52.01.
>> and a percentage would be -- that would be double what we have now?
>> approximately, yes, ma'am.
>> so about five percent increase?
>> a little over five percent.
>> so what is the $47.57 represent now?
it's .4115?
>> I'm sorry, judge.
>> in the summary that you gave us, right under the amount in the preliminary budget equaling a tax increase of $24.53, there's another figure.
>> yes, sir.
I'm sorry.
if the court chose to fund all of the items included in this list, that's what the tax rate impact would be, and that's what the impact would be to the average homestead.
should the court decide to fund just these items.
>> okay.
so if we generate $12 million by going up to just below the rollback, the unallocated contribution would be 11 percent of that.
>> yes, sir.
>> and that's about 1.4 million, right?
>> that's about right.
>> I've got a nine-million-dollar big.
you subtract that from $12 million --
>> it's about 1.12 million for unallocated reserve.
>> so that really leaves 10.7.
>> 10.7.
>> okay.
questions?
>> ronnie, I think it would be important for people to really understand what rollback means.
I mean, I think we all know, but why don't you articulate that?
>> the rollback rate is calculated off of the effective tax rate.
the effective tax rate is basically the amount of money, in simple terms, basically the amount of money required to generate the prior year revenue.
by law the rollback rate is eight percent above that.
>> which causes you to witness what?
>> if you go above rollback, you can go up to rollback.
if you go above rollback, then it kicks in the ability for a voter petition to petition to set the tax rate back at a rate -- I believe it's the prior year rate.
I'll have to verify that, but I think it's the prior year rate, and it would require voter petition.
and we looked at the truth in taxation legislation the other day, and I believe -- jessica, do you recall what that percentage was of the registered voters?
it's 10%, I think.
I think it's about 10% of the registered voters from the prior election.
>> now, explain that.
it would go back to the prior rate.
well, going back to the prior rate wouldn't make any sense because the prior rate is larger than this year's rate.
>> the prior mno rate.
you have the cumulative total at 42.17 of the mno rate and the debt service rate.
>> so right now our prior tax rate is 42 cents per 100-dollar valuation.
if we were to -- if we were to fund both the a and b categories here, we would a 41-cent per 100-dollar valuation tax rate.
it would still be one cent left per 100-dollar valuation in our current tax rate.
>> you would actually just be under the 41.36, the rollback rate of 41.36.
you would be at 41.15 if you did that.
>> is that it?
>> now, one other thing to note.
as far as the category a items on the handout, this does not include performance based pay.
it does not include market adjustment beyond the matrix utilized last year.
>> that's correct.
it's only including what has been submitted to you based on the study that was done by the outside consultant.
>> now, we asked you to think creatively and try to come up with ways to generate additional revenue.
>> yes, sir.
>> and your memo dated August 4, 2008 I think offers some ideas, right?
>> yes, sir.
we put together a memo and we had some excellent ideas from a number of sources.
one of the things that I might suggest that we do is go back and look at each of the items and classify those in terms of maybe things that we can do immediately and things that would require either long-term or legislative changes and kind of group those altogether.
it might be a little easier to work from.
there are some great ideas on there.
there are some -- I think some things that can be immediately done, things such as reviewing fee schedules, things like that, other things that might take a little bit longer to implement and see the benefit from.
>> do we want to set aside an hour or so after the tail end of the budget hearings to discuss some of these ideas?
figure out whether to move on them or whether to kick them into '09 with an eye to implementation in 2010?
let's just add this to the list of budget hearings, maybe this will be the last one, allocate like an hour.
>> right.
we can do that.
I was going to touch on the budget hearing schedule.
at this point we have Thursday, August the 7th, the afternoon of Thursday August 7th completely full.
Monday August 11th there is a small window in the afternoon at 4:30.
and then Wednesday 13th we -- we might be able, judge, if it's okay, we may be able to squeeze it in on the 13th if that would be okay instead of waiting until the very last day of hearings, which is Thursday the 14th.
>> okay.
right now we have the 13th scheduled from when to when?
>> right now it's scheduled from 1:30 to five with a public hearing scheduled for 6:00 p.m.?
>> what's that public hearing on?
>> on the proposed tax rate.
>> it is completely optional.
in the past we have chosen to have that public hearing and it's on the court's schedule it was approved as part of the guidelines in March and it will be advertised.
>> all right.
but the hearing on the tax rate is required by law.
>> that's correct.
and we're working on that.
>> have we scheduled that one?
>> no, sir.
it should be in the calendar.
if you have that, rodney.
>> did we ever have anybody come to the public hearing on the preliminary budget?
>> I would say it's not highly attended?
however, I believe there might have been in the past some employees that have used it as an opportunity to comment on the preliminary budget, but I don't believe it's hielly attended -- hielly attended.
highly attended.
>> a first public hearing on the proposed tax rate is September the 16th with the second public hearing scheduled for Friday, September 19th and then final adoption on the -- the following court.
>> is one of those hearings in the evening?
>> it looks like both of them are at nine a.m., judge.
>> we have hearings scheduled through five?
>> we have a capital budget hearing from three to five that afternoon to lay out both the short-term and long-term plan for capital budgeting.
I don't know that we're going to need all that time.
belinda is saying we will probably need all that time.
>> what do we have from 1:30 to 3:00?
>> we have the district attorney --
>> we have other hearings.
>> public defender, criminal justice planning.
>> we may be challenge this court too much to ask them to meet at 5:00 and have a public hearing at six.
my preference would be another day early in the morning when we're fresh and bright.
>> would you prefer that day to be on Tuesday the 12th or Friday the 15th?
>> let's just put it on the 12th.
is that okay?
and the question for us would be whether we want to go ahead and try to implement some of these ideas.
>> and what's short-term and what's long-term.
>> right.
if we could separate those and which ones we want to basically recycle.
anything else regarding the list of revenue generating ideas?
anything else regarding the preliminary budget that we need to discuss at this time?
>> judge?
I just want to give personally a word of caution to where we stand with this budget and what this community is dealing with, with government spending.
in my guesstimation, the major print media in this town is poised to weigh in on what we are all doing, not just county, but the city, the health care district, all of us that have the power to tax people.
we, in my opinion, want to go nowhere near rollback.
I mean, to put this community into a tailspin to where you would have -- and there would be people in my opinion that would activate a signature petition to cause a referendum I think would happen because I think that people are concerned enough.
I know we have a packed house here because we have people that want more pay.
but I think that some of the things that this court could do could turn out to be very detrimental to us as a Travis County government if we are not very careful about how we go about doing this budget.
because I think that most people want government to live within their means, and we are in one of those tough periods.
for the last five, six, seven years we have been living euphorically in this community because we have had additional building and we have had revenue that we could depend on every year, at the same time growing our general fund spending.
but we didn't have to worry as much about a lack of dollars.
I know that I have talked to the pbo office and really wanted to find out if there were really things that could be cut in order to go back and to look at things like compensation, because this is filled today for compensation.
this room is not filled today because of county park fees.
I mean, it is filled with folks thinking that they are not being paid enough, and in some instances probably not.
unfortunately, we are taxed with how are we going to be fair with our workforce and yet still do a lot and most or all of the statutory things that we have to do.
so I want all of us to be mindful that going through this process is not going to be the easiest and that we are probably going to have to prioritize what we're willing to spend money on.
and if compensation -- I've said it before.
if compensation is the most important thing that Travis County government has to do, and after about six years it sinks in, it's about compensation, because that's when we get the room filled up.
I want to make the point that this is not going to owe that this is not going to be easy, but if we're going to get right with compensation with folks, then going to have to say no to some other things.
you can't say yes to all of the other things and still take care of compensation.
quite frankly, I don't know why we're going to have 10 or 12 budget hearings after we get through with with this little process right now because I don't think there's going to be enough money to do anything, but I that that's the way that we go about it and we do budget hearings and people come up and make their appeals for things that didn't make the preliminary cut in the preliminary budget, but I just hope that we're all mindful of what we're going to have to deal with whenever it comes to setting this tax rate.
>> well, I think there's no doubt that we have to provide a balance as members of the court.
we have to think about the needs that taxpayers have.
and I think some of the services that we deliver as a county government are as a result of what people have asked us to do, to provide, because they need these services.
so as long as we stay with that -- that core connection between county government and the taxpayers and why we're here to provide those services that they say they need, I think we're in good -- I think we have a good balance.
I agree with you that I don't think that we need to go above the effective tax rate, causing, you know, a referendum, but I think we do need to be very careful about what we put into the budget and how we come up with a revenue to pay for it.
and so I would hope that we are about the bread and butter issues that we have to deal with with the public, and that we don't have extras, that we're not raising taxes in order to have extras or frill or fluff.
and that when taxpayers call on us to provide a service, we are courteous to them and we realize -- and of course all of us in this room, including the five of us, are taxpayers as well.
so I'm hoping that we all remember that and that we also remember, though, that county government is here to provide services that the public needs, and that that is first and foremost some of our responsibility responsibility to deliver those services in the most courteous way to the public.
and so that kind of keeps us in business to do what we need to do, but I don't -- I just don't want us wasting money funding things that don't accomplish anything.
but I would hope that this is the process when all elected officials, all department heads can collaborate with with this Commissioners court.
yeah, I think we ought to collaborate and coordinate more on the things that are important to the departments and work with us to come up with the money that we need to come up with to deal with the workforce that we have, to provide the services that county government is expected to provide its residents, its taxpayers.
and I think as long as we -- that's one of the most important things to me as I vote on these budgets.
are we connecting with the taxpayers and are we delivering the services that they say they need.
>> I'd like to put this memo with a brainstorm list of different items that might increase revenue.
some of these items are efficiency measures also: I would put it out to all our employees, of course our most valuable resource in government, government anywhere is our human resources.
so I'm asking our human resources, our valuable personnel, to dig deep and think of all the ways that we can increase our efficiencies, reduce our costs, reallocate so we can provide the services and appropriate compensation.
if we could post owe is there a way that we can post this -- get a brainstorm list essentially going on the intranet, the county intranet, so we could get as many efficiency recommendations as we can?
because some of these of course -- in order for us to share the benefits of government, we've also got to share the responsibilities and the sacrifices.
some of things are going to hit rank and file in the pocketbook.
for instance, subsidized park being.
if we were to go to a fee for parking.
and I think we've got to think about that.
take-home vehicles.
vacant slots that provide one-time salary savings that are then reallocated.
these are things that we are going to have to think about in order to streamline and get much more efficient in order to pay for the shared benefit of government.
so I'm wondering if we could develop an intranet list so that of us who are working in county government can participate in making suggestions of how to our efficiencies, create business plans for our various divisions so that we get real clear sighted about what we are putting our resources toward, and get rid of whatever fat we have.
I do not believe we are a fat organization.
I think we're pretty lean, but we can always be leaner, more effective and with more efficiency we can increase the benefits of government.
>> any other comments?
Commissioner?
>> thank you, judge.
we have continued to struggle every year to see how we can become more efficient.
this year is kind of a tough one because of the increase in our fuel and other things that are happening within the governmental work of Travis County.
when we started this process, of course, I think all of us were willing to look at ways of how we can become more efficient.
I think the jury is still out.
as we stated earlier, in an earlier discussion, when we established an efficiency committee, we actually looked at the ways of how we can become more efficient by doing certain things and looking at the outreach across the board.
to see how departmental input could be actually utilized to accomplish that end.
we are seeing illustrations of some of the efficiency.
I want to go back to an example of maybe using the sheriff's department for an example.
the one gallon per day type concept.
well that's all well and good, but again, there were questions asked at that point, can we do better than one gallon per day concept as far as saving as far as fuel?
because fugue is a hot commodity these days.
and of course, I think that in response to some of these things, and I really don't have all of the information probably that we need to have coming back from the sheriff's department and other departments that I think can even enhance what we're doing today.
but some of the things say well, we can do better than just one gallon per day saving.
we can do maybe like 20 gallons or even greater by initiating certain things in the overall view of being efficient and also saving money and also reducing our expenditures as much as possible.
so I think Commissioner you're right on target with some of the outreach aspects.
and I think we've discussed this.
in fact, I think during our last discussion there was a request -- I think it was made by Commissioner Daugherty, I believe, that asked what was some of the savings that would be experienced if we were to, for example, look at the mileage for vehicle use, was it out of county, as far as the sheriff's department is concerned.
so there was I think take-home vehicles and thing of that nature, what's the mileage on those things?
I haven't seen the final report on those, and I guess rodney, have there been something that has been brought back as far as the overall savings since we're looking at generating efforts to save money, become more efficient?
has there been any final information brought back for the take-home vehicles, for example, with the sheriff?
>> it's my understanding that that discussion will take place if not next week, the following week.
they were supposed to be compiling the information.
we haven't seen anything from them yet.
but I believe they're still in the process of compiling that information.
and then we'll take a look at it and go some verification on that.
>> but I think on the offset -- I'm going to conclude here.
I think on the offset, I think it is encompassing I think for everyone to be as forceful as possible to come up with the proper recommendations I think where we can cut costs in county government.
I think this is what this court is really asking is for us to get involved.
if you're not involved, this is your opportunity to do it.
and I think the proposal that Commissioner heart made along with others here, the intranet and other ways of getting information here in is something that we probably need to consider.
because the jury is still out on this thing.
it really is.
we still aren't there yet.
short-term we're looking at stuff, but we have long-term challenges also.
how do we get there?
so that's my two cents for the day.
>> if we add a one-hour discussion to the end of the budget hearings, it seems to me that our primary purpose to be to generate additional revenue that we can certified to help in this budget process.
>> okay.
>> we can talk about efficiencies all of next year.
it ought to be an ongoing effort.
I don't know that efficiencies will give us additional revenue during the budget process, though.
so if we add this hearing to our budget hearings, then our goal ought to be to generate additional revenue that we can certify and use during this budget cycle and I think that's the purpose of figuring out what can we act on now and what do we need to kick to basically post October 1.
>> we will work on putting that together.
judge, if I could, I would like to publicly thank my staff.
this has been a tough year for them with me coming in right in the middle of this --
>> if you remind them that their real work is just beginning, you can thank them and we'll join you.
>> [ laughter ]
>> they told me that last week.
I just wanted to -- if you don't mine, just say thank you to them.
they did an outstanding job in putting all this and helping me get through this.
>> thanks to everybody.
>> .
y'all do not get a vote on compensation, now.
>> [ laughter ] we appreciate your help.
there is a little imbalance on the bottom of page 3 of 3?
>> yes, sir.
>> one time and ongoing.
>> yes, sir.
>> explain that to us.
>> what we did, the final certified roll when it came in Thursday before last, it kind of threw us a curve ball.
we lost another $2.2 million in additional revenue.
consequently we were at an imbalance of about $800,000 and I felt very comfortable with that.
what we had to do in order to make up that shortfall to get us -- get the imbalance back in check, if you will, is go through and take out the reserve for potential cost increases and the reserve for economic downturn.
now, I had been -- it was my intention going into 2009 to try to hold some dollars in reserve because quite honestly I think 2010 will be an even turfer year.
so -- an even tougher year.
so I was hoping we could hold those reserves.
unfortunately with the certified roll coming in we had to use those reserves to keep the budget balanced.
the imbalance is between ongoing and one-time dollars.
>> so you have three dollars of one-time money covering three million dollars of ongoing needs.
>> that is correct, yes, sir.
and just so you know, from my perspective, what we'll see is we'll see that ripple effect hit us in 2010 if we don't correct that imbalance on ongoing dollars.
>> but we still have four million dollars in allocated reserve?
>> anything else on preliminary budget?
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:
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 3:51 PM