Travis County Commissioners Court
September 16, 2008
Item 6
Number 6, consider and take appropriate action on continuation of fiscal year 2009 budget markup. We did not reach that item due to the fact that other items took much longer than anticipated. Judge evans is back this afternoon. Judge steed I guess couldn't make it?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> all right. Then after p.b.o.'s opening comments, we'll call up that part.
>> thank you, judge. Good afternoon, Commissioners. We touched base on the proposed budget and tax rate this morning during the public hearing so I won't go back through that again unless you would like for me to. I did want to -- as I was thinking this morning coming into the office, I -- it dawned on me that we landed on the financial system team being put in reserve, but we never landed on clarification of the rusk building. And I don't know if that's an item that we need to take up, but I wanted to bring it to the court's attention. Do we want to hold that in abeyance or do we want to address it?
>> we did approve the budget to make renovations to the rusk building to accommodate that staff. Beg pardon?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> they have money left over from '08.
>> yeah, I was referring to the allocation of the space for the financial team. Did we take action on that? I don't recall. I didn't see it in my notes.
>> I think
>> [inaudible] for the rusk building but the renovation of the rusk building all of them are in f.y. '08 fund.
>> so we never actually took action because we didn't have to on the assumption the funds were already available in f.y. '08 so we're needing clarification that the rusk, as a county resource, is being dedicated to the auditor's team?
>> correct. I went back and didn't see it in my notes.
>> I'm not sure about -- I believe jessica did mention to the court that we do have $209,000 in the budget.
>> right.
>> if we need to expressly allocate the space for that purpose, I think we'll need another agenda item.
>> okay.
>> we've approved it implicitly by approving the budget but I may be cleaner to allocate the space in an item that address it specifically.
>> yes, sir, I was thinking about it this morning and went back through and looked at my notes and I didn't see anything reference to the allocation and I just wanted to bring to it the court's attention.
>> we can do that.
>> so I will let --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I think we did.
>> we voted on the money and where it would come from, et cetera.
>> correct.
>> I don't know that we addressed the space directly. That was an agenda item two or three weeks ago. It was set we would pull it up specifically later on and did not. If the minutes do it clearly, that's fine. If not, we'll put out the agenda.
>> I will certainly go back and look. With that I'll let leroy update you on any changes that have been made since the last markup.
>> last Friday you received a short memo from me with some changes, and then this morning we have included on the list this morning those changes that resulted from the fifth revenue estimate. And mainly balancing a lot of the special revenue funds. Let me just quickly run through these. On the list that you received this morning, page 1 of 8, there were some of those nontcso pop increases that were the result of markup. Those were just minor changes. There were also some fund number 50, the i.t.s., market salary survey results on that first sheet. You'll see on page 2 a couple of little technical correction in the counseling center. We did have a budget correction to the child-parent public defender office, reducing c.a.r., and it was actually 33-50 of operating expenses. You'll see on the middle to the bottom of that page, those are the entries necessary to bring the city of Austin flight nurses and paramedics that you discussed this morning over to Travis County payroll. And if you look on page 3 of 8, you will see that what we deducted from that contract with the city was 1,751,156. And the balancing entry is we actually had a balance to allocated reserve of 57,889. Now, they have indicated to us that there may be a few minor additional charges, but that's basically the transfer of all those flight nurse and paramedics. We did have a correction to a contract in the sheriff's office. Those school resource officers where we added a sergeant and eliminated two deputies in those. We did have the downtown district attorney interlocal that was included, the revenue was included in the fifth revenue estimate, so we needed to go ahead and put the expense in. We had a little prosecutor longevity correction of $780 there in the d.a.'s office. We did have the Texas mutual interlocal come in and the revenue was included in the fifth revenue estimate. So we needed to put the corresponding expenditures to go all the way -- about half of page 4 of 8, all of page 5 of 8. And then we had some correction you'll see on page 6 of 8 on the hybrid vehicles, you'll recall last Tuesday there was this discussion on the hybrids and we've made to the allocation corrections and moved from c.a.r. To c.o. Funding on several of those hybrids. The new vehicle for agrilife was moved from c.a.r. To c.o.s. Then essentially what we've done in these next entries is where we had reserves during markup you were given total amounts to fund like the green circle and market adjustments. What we did was went in and did those allocations to each of the departments. And you can see we had allocated -- we allocated to departments 1,172,541. We had a reserve of 1178519 so we balanced the 5,978 what we didn't need against the allocated reserve. The same calculations on the 3% cola, we allocated those to the departmental budgets. In that case we had 4,664,790 that we allocated. We actually had estimated that at 4,646, 687. On the nontcso pops cost, it cost us an additional $8,888 over the estimate. And on the annualization reserve on the pops, nontcso, it cost $48. We had -- then we go into the other funds like fund 31. Most of these are just going in and adjusting to the auditor's fifth revenue estimate, either up or down from the fourth that we've been working with during markup. You can see that the -- it increased in the courthouse security fund. It decreased by 58-55 in the dispute resolution center fund. The voter registration fund decreased 52,446. The professional prosecutor's fund increased $358. The district clerk's management fund, number 55, decreased 4,135. The family protection fund on 7 of 8 reduced $188. And then you'll see going down on that -- the other records management, these are all reductions to balance the expenditures with the fifth revenue estimate. You had the law library, fund number 11, went down 43-58. The records management fund 30, going down 25-18. These are the results of difference in revenue and expenditure estimates between the fourth and the fifth revenue estimate. The reason these have gone down. Emergency services went up 46-99. The county clerk's fund 28, went down 9,034. County clerk's fund 57 went up 11-8-18. The 525 risk management fund went down 316,468. The health fund, we made the changes in the various expenditure amounts based on the open enrollment. You can see there for fund 526, those various reductions to the -- the self-insured fund.
>> should any of these be highlighted for special attention?
>> no, these are merely balancing entries to the fifth revenue estimate. I can quickly go over the -- on page 8 of 8, the court had indicated to us that we -- we balance against the allocated reserve, and at the bottom of the sheet you'll see that with the fifth revenue estimate we had an additional requirement for the unallocated reserve of 203,383. And what was left over after we made all of these corrections was 494,016 from the fifth revenue estimate. And we applied that to the allocated reserve.
>> okay, so today we have how much in allocated reserve?
>> 6.5 million, I believe it is.
>> yeah, 6.5.
>> how much is in c.a.r.? 9.5? 8.5?
>> we have -- in c.a.r. We have a reserve of 2,865,553. Allocated exact is 6557457.
>> so basically we have two and a half million dollars to work with in c.a.r. And that includes that contingency.
>> well, the contingency -- the capital acquisitions is a reserve that's available for any contingency that you have.
>> okay. Questions? Thank you. If, let's hear from the jps from the technology fund.
>> can we get approval of those changes?
>> in just a minute we can. A suggestion that we listen to them but not hear them?
>> good afternoon.
>> afternoon.
>> appreciate the time that you've taken to listen to us here today. My name is recall gonzales on the justice of peace precinct 4 and with me is judge evans. Judge steed apologizes that she wasn't able to be here but she had a matter to deal with with school officials out in her precinct. But we wanted to talk with you since we haven't been asked on what our position was on the funding of a -- two positions from the justice court technology fund. We know that you as Commissioners have the discretion in allocating the justice court technology fund, but the jps are opposed to using that fund to staff or fund these two positions that i.t.s. Is asking for. These positions were previously staffed by the auditor's office. It's my understanding these position will not be working exclusively on jp matters. We've been anticipating converting to the facts system for at least eight years and we've been frustrated by the delays from what apparently seems to be lack of communication between county departments. And we would like to see more of a better project plan on how that's going to go. We met as recently as three weeks ago as jps to discuss new technology needs we may have for the jp courts whether it be e-filing or a new document management system. And we really can't move forward right now until we have facts put in. And so I'm not going to take up too much more of your time because I realize your time is valuable as well, but we think that it's -- we want you to reconsider the funding for these two positions. And I brought along an attorney general opinion that has an interesting discussion in there on what would be the appropriate uses for the jp technology fund. It's not directly on point, but I think it's very similar and it raising an interesting discussion on whether or not the technology fund is having this staffing fund -- these positions as an appropriate use. So I'd like to at least hand this to each of you to review and at least have the county attorney review that as well and maybe even ask for an a g opinion as to whether or not this would be an appropriate use for the technology fund and staff and funding these i.t.s. Pox.
>> how close are we to fulfilling the facts implementation at the jp's offices? And I know we ought to be getting close, but I don't think we're there yet. And, of course, I hear what your concern is, but it would be good if we can just lock down a closure date to complete the facts implementation for the jps. Can we basically get a comment or statement on that?
>> yes. The current plan is that we would finish up the probate court between now and year end and in January we would be ready to start working on the jps.
>> start working on it.
>> right.
>> start back.
>> start back. You've been work on jp.
>> I'm talking as far as facts.
>> for their facts conversion, which is a pretty big deal for them. And I can hear what they are saying here.
>> well, but I thought we were told that these two people would work on jp technology issues only.
>> that's correct.
>> and wasn't it that a part of it was a data cleanup aspect?
>> they would assist with the data cleanup. They would assist with the financial tables that have to be built, the actual conversion of the data and balancing the date that has has to be converted from the jp systems. Now, after the jps are converted, you know, we've said they would not be eligible for this funding from this fund, but it's my understanding from p.b.o. That that's the case is as long as they are dedicated to the jp activities, then they were eligible for this funding.
>> that was my -- that was our conclusion during the budget markup. Now, the auditor has the authority to transfer those people. And she has decided to do that. And for some reason, joe and others talk to me and said here's why we ought to go to probate and get it done because we can get it done in two to three months. There's a big effort to clean up the data for the jps, and that may take many, many months, hopefully not many, many years. These two people are supposed to spend time on technology issues. When judge snead came by and chatted with me, I told her before there was a technology fund there was a general fund. So if the technology needs come up in the future and you need money and there's no money in the technology fund, then the Travis County general fund is what covers it. That's how it's been done historically and I don't know that we've done anything to change. That so to me it was six to one, half dozen of the other, but we discussed four or five issues. The softes is whether we do allocated reserve for these two people or the technology fund. If they work on technology issues for the jps exclusively, then it seems to me that the technology fund is really the best source at this time. But it's not a life or death matter to me. On the other stuff, though, I think our hands are tied. Those, the people who have been working on facts for jps will be transferred to the new financial system. These are the auditor's people, and by law she has the authority to make the transfer. Does that help any? I would be happy to get with the county attorney.
>> you all have always been fair to us. Since I've been a jp, I think we've gotten a decent hearing from you and your colleagues on every issue we've come before. And we're happy to trust y'all in the future too. But that particular fund is set aside for jp technology only. And we don't have a lot of other resources, and we know that next year and the year after that this county may really be in dire straits. And that's when we're really going to need that fund. And we are very lee reluctant to hire people for another department, particularly in view of the continued slippage we've had in our facts installation. We're real nervous about it. I came on board January 1, 2000, was told our facts system would be installed later in 2000. As you know, judge Biscoe, ever since, every to months we push it back. If I were going to be a betting man, I don't know that I would bet that we're going to get it installed next year. Maybe we are, maybe we're not. I know that next year we're going to have some technology needs that we're going to be hard pressed to keep up with, and that fund is something that we are very, very reluctant to turn loose of to the auditor and i.t.s. For whatever purposes. We don't know. We weren't consulted, we don't even know what they were specifically going to do. We also have received word from what we think are responsible people that those folks are going to have other responsibilities besides just jp work. And we think that the law clearly prohibits that.
>> so we need to clarify this. Now, let's just say hypothetically, hypothetically if it is shown that these f.t.e.s funded by this source will be working exclusively on the implementation of facts as it pertains to the justices of the peace, do y'all have any issue with it?
>> are they going to work for ms. Spitaro?
>> let's just keep it to those facts. Irrespective of who they are reporting to, if it is shown that they will be working exclusively on the implementation of facts as it pertains to the jps, do you all still have an issue with it?
>> are they going to work for i.t.s. --
>> irrespective --
>> work for the jps and i.t.s.
>> we don't know they are going to be working for us. We haven't had any discussions what they are going to do, we haven't been called.
>> why don't we do this. I don't know that we can get the level of trust we need to make everybody happy.
>> not today.
>> what if we take a little more time and if we conclude -- all right, if they are not working on something covered by the technology fund, we'll just shift it to the allocated reserve. Right? Let's make sure of that. Let's also make sure of who they answer to and what they do. My question for you, though, is: if you have $100,000 in the technology fund and $500,000 worth of technology needs, you come to the Commissioners court. Unless you all have $400,000 I don't know about.
>> no, sir.
>> so that's what I'm saying. I mean this fund has existed for a short number of years. Jp technology years have existed forever. Some we address, some we did not, but I think it addressed it as fairly for any other department. Why don't we do that, and if you are still uncomfortable with what they are doing, who they are anting to and whether their legitimate purposes covered by the technology fund, then we'll just transfer it to allocated reserve. How is that?
>> not only that, judge, and along with that, though, I think it's very imperative that we hold somebody responsible to deliver had a product they have been promised as far as facts is concerned which has not been delivered. As you know, we've had problems with implementation of facts and meeting target dates. I have probably been frustrated as anybody on the dias as far as timely delivery of facts all across the courts. Their concern is that it will not be delivered in a time lie manner. So as far as my support is concerned, I would like to also see that the facts implementation is tied in with what these gentlemen have brought before us today because there's no need in us continuing to have a slippage, a slip inch, a slippage to another date. It's not acceptable in my opinion.
>> what's the problem? Let's get that on the record. What do we think the problem is?
>> the problem has been with the number of modifications we've made particularly in the financial arena to the system. Then the fact that we have to convert all the data and all that has to be balanced. And some corrections made to those data records before they are converted into the new system. That's what's got us where we are today.
>> we are posted on the money. We are posted for a budget markup. What I'm saying is if the level of discomfort has not been addressed over the next few days, we'll just put an item on the agenda to transfer this expenditure to the allocated reserve. How is that?
>> we've made our case. We trust the Commissioners court.
>> we acted on a set of facts that were quite different from how y'all see it. That's thought to make you wrong, though.
>> yes, sir.
>> and so if you are right on that, it really should have been more a general fund expenditure. But I think we ought to take the time, try to address it, try to land on it and figure out whether the two f.t.e.s ought to be covered by the technology fund tore allocated reserve of the general fund.
>> thank you for hearing us out and addressing our concerns.
>> thank you all. Thank you for your patience.
>> just a clarification, the justice court technology fund has 980,197 in it.
>> and this particular, the f.t.e. Request will take up how much of that?
>> about 180,000 in total.
>> so a little more than 10% of the available funding in the technology fund.
>> 20%.
>> but they are saying they don't know what the future holds and money in the hand is better --
>> exactly. I can understand their concern.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> a couple of other budget related issues.
>> we need to get action on the changes leroy talked about and also go over the capital project scrubs that we've done, get actions on that and --
>> move approval of the changes that leroy described in minute -- I mean in detail.
>> [laughter] discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Bottom line on the scrubs?
>> with the accounting budget office. Went through the scrubbing process. It was better than we had original expected. We had estimated we would be able to scrub 500 to a million dollars. That amount has gone up to $2.6 million that we've been able to scrub. You have a list, under memorandum number 1 that list the specific projects or equipment that we are recommending to be scrubbed and the specific c.o. Fund. This has been reviewed into the county attorney and he's okay with this. And if you have any questions on any of the specific projects, I would be happy to answer them.
>> so you generated two and a half million through the scrubbing process. You recommend that there are money be used in certain ways.
>> correct.
>> can we accept those recommendations but move the discussion to the followup discussion of debt and capital purchases, which we said we would have two or three weeks after budget markup, right?
>> right.
>> it makes sense to me, but I don't know what you're what surfaced during our discussion. There may be more critical items during that discussion that we need to cover. We can always issue debt but our goal probably ought to be to keep that as low as possible. So what I have in mind is a tentative acceptance of your recommendations as to how the 2.5 million generated should be spent.
>> would dc of o be eligible -- do we know it would be eligible to be spent on-.
>> what the $2.6 million is, that's resources that are available in existing c.o.s. What we would do is move -- what we're recommending is moving projects that in the c.o. List right now for f.y. '09 into those old funds and using those reserves there so that then you have more space on your c.o. List. And then memo number 2 gives the step by step of what was changed to c.a.r. And c.o. List during markup. Some projects were added and then if we scrub these other projects out, these $2.6 million worth of projects into existing funds, it gives you the detail on where we are with the c.o. Issuance and the c.a.r. Balance and c.a.r. Reserve balance.
>> walk me through this. If we were to approve this recommended use of the scrubbed c.o.s, would it reduce our options two weeks from now or whenever --
>> no, no, no.
>> whenever we discuss debt and what projects would be funded by debt?
>> this is the -- the scrubbing process is something we do every fiscal year and it's to give the flexibility. P.b.o. Would recommend the approval of this list signs deanna has gone through great deal with the county attorney to ensure the projects she is proposing on the existing c.o.s meet the legal requirements and are fiscally our recommendations. That actually provides you greater flexibility when you are speaking of new capital projects in the future.
>> it provides more money but not more flexibility bass as to this money once we approve how it's used, you can't spend it twice.
>> right, but this --
>> I don't have any problem with this list except that if a more critical item surfaces during our next discussion, what we really be able to -- that's my only concern. The other thing is I did -- I glanced over the list here, but I don't know that I'm that familiar with the projects. As familiar as I would be when we have our full discussion of capital items is my only concerns.
>> these are all approved project. You either approved all of the projects listed here either during preliminary budget or park of markup. These are not new markups.
>> and the money, the c. Os have strings attached for which those projects matched.
>> are eligible.
>> that's what I wanted to point out. These funds that we've identified fit within the projects that you have before you for use of those existing c.o.s much.
>> move that we approve the scrubbing, the recommended -- I guess rebudgetting of the $2.5 million with the caveat that Commissioners court reserves the right to change this after a thorough discussion of capital items and debt issues.
>> I'll second that. Reserve the right to change. I like that portion. I second it.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, lastly, we have received a number of requests from departments to go ahead and begin posting the positions that have been recommended in the proposed budget. And we would like to try to get court's direction to go ahead and make that happen.
>> move that authorization be given, the jobs be appropriately created with the understanding that the money is not available for expenditure.
>> second.
>> until after October 1.
>> yes, sir.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
>> a couple other requests that we got, alicia, at the expo center memo, this is one of the items on the list. We have been subsidizing the expo center. Alicia in a memo has an annual reduction of the amount of the subsidy.
>> yes, sir. Thank you, judge and Commissioners court. During markup, we had discussed a five-year step-down for a reduction for the subsidy. Right now the subsidy has been $125,000 a year and that went down from I think about 150 previously. And we are requesting in f.y. '09 that go from 125 to 100,000. And then 80 in 1060 and finally 20 had in 13 so we are give ann opportunity to increase our revenues to make up for the subsidy.
>> move that we indicate an allocated and earmark against the allocated reserve in the amount of $100,000 for f.y. '09.
>> second.
>> and I guess my fear is if we run out of money and need $100,000, that's where we would go nape. Nape -- go anyway.
>> it's not like we can sell the expo center overnight. Luckily we are moving in the right direction in terms of generating additional revenue hopefully it will be needed only as a last resort. That's what p.b.o. Had in mind.
>> because the fifth revenue estimate shows that the revenue for the expo center for f.y. '09 is $1.589 million, whereas in f.y. '08 it was $1.1 million. That's what p.b.o. Recommended taking the transfer out because it looks like they are being very successful with their new management in getting a lot of really good programs and events there. And so we thought they don't need the money.
>> agreeing with both of you all. Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, judge. And I guess along with that, didn't we indicate -- and I know these are five-year projections and stuff like that as far as how to off set the subsidy, but taking into consideration the forecast in these projections that a more aggressive direction be given to make sure that the county events or the number of events is either outweigh this as far as generating revenue. So we don't be so much out and biting into the subsidy. So I'm concerned about that, the aggressiveness that I think really needs to -- not that it's not happening, but to make sure that the aggression of what events that are scheduled there is still on course. And so that's my concern. What is the attitude and whether the attitude will be there to be very aggressive to book events out there to off set some of these expenses.
>> Commissioner Davis, one of the reasons that we had requested that the subsidy not be taken -- reduced to zero from the expo center, was that there are on an annual basis maintenance issues that need to be addressed out there. Because we have such large crowds and we are increasing business, that on a regular basis we do need to provide paint and mowing and repairs.
>> I understand that.
>> so in response to your question, yes, sir, we continue to market the facility. We continue to make better deals with our customers. One of the reasons that you saw the increase, it was not necessarily an increase in revenue, it was -- it was a result of decreasing the expenditures by not hiring individuals, leaving positions open or hiring temp position, using that strategy with an increase of about $170,000 over last year in revenue. So yes, we are aggressively pursuing that. We will move forward and continue to utilize the funding to bring about repairs and some improvements, really superficial improvements because larger capital improvements need to be funded by c.o.s, but we will continue to aggressively pursue increase in revenues. It's just when you are doing good, you don't want the rope pulled from under you.
>> we want to keep a positive role on this so that's my concern. And to make sure that what are we doing, we deep doing it make sure there's not any decrease in type of performance as far as what we're doing. That's my main concern.
>> yes, sir, we will continue to try in hard economic times usually the entertainment business is what suffers first so we will monitor that and do everything that we can. We've developed a good customer base and will continue to cater to those -- to our good customers and also try to bring in more.
>> thank you for the explanation.
>> the motion is an earmark against allocated reserve in the amount of $100,000.
>> judge, is your motion just one year?
>> yes, sir. I think if there is a plan that we should consider that ought to be a separate agenda item.
>> yes. We've got a five-year plan is what we had proposed and we can bring that back, judge.
>> and I second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Gomez trailer off the dias. You all had another item?
>> I'm bringing back the -- to your tension the security need for facility management department. The security was a -- the security need for additional staff was an ongoing request from f.y. '07, and the court did approve additional security staff for the daytime security with the approval of the security committee. And the security committee also approved to have additional two staff in the daytime -- I mean in the evening shift and also two staff in the overnight shift for the f.y. '09. It's a phase 2. And it was listed on the approval list of priority number 5. There were about eight or nine items of security. P.b.o. On their markup, you know, review they said that they -- if the available fund is -- if the fund is available, then they will fund -- they will recommend two in f.y. '09 and two in f.y. '10. I'm here to remind the court that we have that approved by the security committee and it's very important to us to have a staff at night in those buildings or securing those buildings in the county. We're talking about we have right now one person overnight going all over the county buildings, you know, to make sure that it's locked and secured. It's not enough. It's insufficient. So we ask the court to reconsider the -- in approving four security personnel for facility management to do a better job on security for all facilities.
>> how much are we talking about?
>> we're talking about $145,832. And we are dropping the request for additional vehicle at this time. We don't need any vehicle. We can use existing vehicle that we have.
>> these were part of the recommendation from the security committee.
>> security committee, yes.
>> and I do recall that. Do we need to hear from them again? We kind of committed to fund those recommendations if they made sense. We skipped over these. We funded those ahead of these and those behind these. Why did we skip over these? I can't recall.
>> we presented this to the security committee did present this to the -- this request in executive session to the Commissioners court. And I believe p.b.o., they said they would have no fund because it's ongoing fund. And then they have to do a two in f.y. '09 and two in f.y. '10.
>> no, that's not correct. We actually received that request after the submittals and the security commission did rank it and recommend it, but the memo to p.b.o. Came in late.
>> after deadline.
>> so consequently that's why it was not included in the recommended budget.
>> and to spend money now, you would have to add money.
>> yes, sir.
>> is this part of the reason some of those projects that were ranked below it were funded because they were one-time costs or capital one-time issues and this is an ongoing expense, and at the time when we were filing the preliminary budget we had those parameters. That was another issue.
>> I have a procedural question that I suppose goes to p.b.o. My concern in the security staffing as well as the -- some of the other requests by facilities in this agenda item, it goes to kind of a stare decisis argument. I'm concerned about reopening these markup items because there are many other really worthy and laudible projects from other departments that also received only one check on the markup sheets. And I'm afraid that we would then start a dangerous precedent of then reopening markup for every other one check extremely laudible project. And I am very reticent to do that.
>> do I go need to get my stuff signed? Eye just want to mention --
>> because with the exception of the expo center roof arena, all of the other -- and, of course, we've -- we have addressed the five-year step-down and put that earmark on reserve. But this does concern me. We had budget hearings and we had -- we dedicated quite a large amount of time to facilities. And then we had markup. And now we seem to be having another budget hearing.
>> could you like us so address that, Commissioner?
>> yes, I would like you to address specifically why I should -- why this will not create a precedent whereby t.n.r., h.h.s., courts or whoever else had a one check item shouldn't come back to us at this point and reopen markup.
>> I think in the items that you have before you, that there are some -- that there are exceptions. Security issues, okay. That was --
>> which correction could make the same argument regarding their staffing.
>> who?
>> securities.
>> the security committee, I don't believe they addressed remembers.
>> that's what I'm saying. I'm saying in comparison, security doesn't really set this apart because I have other departments that deal with security who also had very laudible projects for which they did not get funded that go to security of some nature.
>> but they were not recommended by the security committee and that is the distinction. That I'm making anyway, that the security committee recommended about eight or nine projects of which this is the only one that was not funded. Over a technicality, and there seems to be a disagreement on that particular technicality, rather the request should have gone to p.b.o. Or to the security committee. And so that is none of the other items recommended by the security committee were not funded, only this one.
>> alicia, we shouldn't put you in a spot to try to argue something that doesn't make practical sense to argue. What sara saying is right. We have done the budget. It's like doing your checkbook and then coming back and saying, oh, there's something else that we need. We know that we would like to have the security. We absolutely know that. But we have done the budget. This is additional spending, and I realize that the security committee said this is what we need. The security committee does not identify how you pay for the things and that's what the court does. I mean you know, I don't want to put knew a spot because quite frankly, other than --
>> let me give you another example. Okay?
>> do we need to hear further from the security committee to find out how critical this is? To be honest, I had forgotten. Why don't we do that.
>> we're going to open the door, judge.
>> but security committee -- the security committee should be out there looking at security issues and bringing them to our attention, we ought to hear about them t other thing is that a deadline is a deadline, but at some point you can't exault form other substance. If there are security issues, I feel a lot more comfortable trying to address them if possible. But I guess I'm sort of at a loss now because I can't recall exactly what was said interest these security issues. We know we funded all the others. I guess I would like to know what we were thinking or what the security committee -- the security committee may walk in and say hey, we've decided these are not worthwhile anyway so let's drop them and I don't have any problem dropping them.
>> this runs right along with we had a security problem brought to our attention at the airport site, for an example. And, of course, those elected officials came in and did discuss with us to the best of their ability that under certain conditions we would like to have more security at such location. And I'm just wondering if this is the same flavor of those conversations that we heard in the past, is this some of the same similar stuff, and I really don't know and I need to hear more.
>> yeah, and I'm not sure either. I think it's easier for us to give the security committee an opportunity to go back and review the research on this, talk to us about it in executive session, if there is a security issue at a certain location, rather than telling the world about it, especially if we're not going to address it, let's keep it to ourselves. But I think we ought to hear exactly what they had in mind when they made the recommendation. And whether they have reconsidered the recommendation that they made. How is that? I'm glad we resolved that.
>> with collaboration.
>> talk about it real soon.
>> two other issues talking about precedent setting, Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, judge, there is an issue -- as you know, there was an issue that was brought before us during the budget markup as far as listening to testimony and as far as funding is concerned as far as the senior citizens at the blackland development corporation who have made I think a good argument as far as funding some senior citizens home improvements that was very, very necessary and needed. And I believe previously we had funded them out of the corporation budget and I think they requested similar funding to come from the same source that it came about before, from the housing finance corporation. So I would like to make sure that we have a chance to fund that because of the need -- we're helping a bunch of senior citizens over there and, of course, we had funded them in the past. And it was just basically a one-time type setting but it's coming from the corporation and from the housing finance corporation, I believe. And I just wanted to know if there is anything in the budget per se to allow us to utilize that $26,233 to go to the blackland housing development corporation.
>> that was not included in the housing budget that you approved earlier this afternoon.
>> okay.
>> and the -- the housing corporation is not -- has never funded a grant or contract with blackland.
>> we never have?
>> no. I think the health and human services has --
>> what source of funding was that previously?
>> I know the health and human services has a small amount in there for blackland. This is I guess a capital project so it seems like it would be more appropriate for the corporation.
>> it's not a capital project. This is case management.
>> case management. For senior citizens.
>> they said we had funded this historicry.
>> yeah.
>> I know there was two items on the markup sheet. One was a general fund request and one was a capital request. I thought this 26,000 was for capital. I guess I can verify that though.
>> well, we have budget markup one more week. Next week.
>> you adopted --
>> we're scheduled to adopt next week. After the public hearing.
>> any of these additional funding items could be brought forward on a
>> [inaudible] if you want to entertain them. We're getting very close to locking down the proposed budget which we're scheduled to follow on Friday. You know, if you want to do something today, we obviously can incorporate it, but this is probably about as late as what we can incorporate.
>> yeah.
>> and is this the type of -- do we know in regard to the services -- I recall in listening to them in a budget hearing it was to provide financial literacy services to seniors and also --
>> for folk that had just moved into the housing situation and they needed assistance.
>> right. And in addition to that I seem to recall -- and I can check this out with sherri fleming, that there are -- that was in the flavor of what we had put the $450,000 aside for to be distributed by r.f.p. For the types -- those types of -- as we identified priority areas that needed to be filled, that there are was the kind of service or perhaps could be the kind of service that we would put out for r.f.p., rather than doing out a service provider by service provider request for funding.
>> I remember that. I don't remember that income that 400,000, but it could be.
>> no, no, I'm not -- right, I'm not claiming that blackland community development corporation is specifically inside that 450,000, but my understanding that 450,000 was in lieu of the extensive list of specific service providers' requests so that we could get a handle on what our priorities were as a county in investing in health and human services.
>> I think blackland had two items.
>> a $6,000 item, which was -- and was that -- that was a general fund request.
>> right. I thought this was the capital part but I need to verify that.
>> let's bring it back next week. We'll have the facts and we have the will, we'll fund it, if not we won't. Is last one that I know about is request that came from dr. Forgione at aisd. He, the city of Austin, acc, naacp are trying to put a plan together to raise $100,000 for the african-american men and boys conference. They meet about once a week -- or once a month. There's a list of meetings they've had in '06 and '07. And are having great impact on african-american males in the aisd. And I think dr. Forgione, part of the program has worked wit and taken it upon himself to try to raise $100,000 of funding. He's asking for a multi year commitment. I'm asking the year for a one year commitment of $25,000 pursuant to his request. This will be I think a good collaboration completing consistent with the report we got from -- what was the name of that report?
>> quality of life.
>> quality of life thing. But I have participated in two or three of these as a speaker and they do generate hundreds of young african-american males, and to be honest there are others there too, but it's basically focused on african-american males.
>> judge, it's a real good program and it's something that I think we really could gear up and support. And I second your motion whenever you make it.
>> this came to me from -- came to the county judge from dr. Forgione. Touching base with others and trying to get it done. It's a small amount of money. I think it has enormous impact. It will send the right message and I think it's the thing to do.
>> judge, I mean I looked at that. I would have a question that it's a $425,000 program and 25% of it goes to pay an executive director $100,000. Now -- maybe you got to pay that much.
>> I saw all of that and I think if we were to make a contribution, we would do an interlocal probably with aisd and we would basically stipulate how our money would be used. But I know historically mr. Loston has been working without a salary. His salary has been zero. And they have been asking for contributions for-they try to do refreshments and we've had our health and human services people out there. I made a financial contribution a time or two. Gone out to speak. And I remember the first one of these meetings some of the judges went out there, I mean I just think that it's kind of taken off. I really thought they would meet two or three times and probably fade away. But they've been there two and a half years and well worth this investment, I think. But I do agree when you do something like this, and I tell people if our small agency dealing with a governmental entity, sounds like fun up front but it really is not. There are specific things you have to do, requirements you have to meet, no staffed, understaffed, it can be a burden for you. So my request is a one-year $25,000 commitment. If we do this, we would just indicate that the importance of an interlocal. I have chatted with mel -- what's general counsel's? Name. Waxler and he is prepared to do this if we do it.
>> judge, like I said I have no problem with it and it is a good organization. In fact, I have contributed also to this organization financially. And we're seeing the results of a lot of things that are real positive for a lot of young men here in the county. And again, I think it's a step in the right direction and so that's why I seconded the motion because I'm ready to support this.
>> they've had speakers coming in from different parts of the nation. And I don't know who has been picking up travel costs, but they've been coming, speaking. And I'm talking real impressive speakers with great accomplishments. And this program has been recognized by via awards, various awards nationwide.
>> would this come out offal crated reserve? That's the 25,000?
>> what I would do is just tell them and get an interlocal agreement, basically we would provide the funding, send it to aisd, if we can, send it to them with interlocal with aisd and basically take it from there.
>> judge, would -- if this is approved, would this be budgeted in h.h.s. Next year?
>> we need to chat with misfleming. She's kind of sensitive to what comes through --
>> I can't speak for her, but I made her aware of this and she mensed she was supportive.
>> in that case yes.
>> one thing that I would -- one thing that I would request for next year for us to look more deeply at because I am concerned that the total budget is 425,000, three-quarters of which goes to personnel. And one quarter of which goes to service delivery. Now, I am also sensitive having worked with northern profits that there probably is a good amount, as you said, judge, of in-kind resource being expend on behalf of the organization that may not be reflected here. But as we go down this road, again I'm looking at precedent, we are going down a road of contributing toward k through 12, which is not necessarily a bad thing. We have a serious, serious k through 12 education deficit in our community and across the state, but I think that we need to have a strategy for our investment and collaboration with aisd and other isds in the community rather than on it being case by case and project by project I think it would be very helpful to sisd and to us as a county to have executive manager fleming look into a strategy for our investment.
>> in that case I move approval.
>> I second it again, judge.
>> we will do. That I'll find out exactly what the '08 budget was, how the money was spent and specifically what piece Travis County funds will be used for if this is approved. Sort of funding allocated reserve. We'll get an interlocal, send it through health and human services, but I'll report back on the specific bunch father matters historically and this right here. I would be willing to guess, if I had my dream come through kind of budget. It's hard to go from zero to $450,000 overnight. But it's easy to get to 100,000 and stay there if you keep performing in the manner they have been performing in my view. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and judge, on that other item, I just checked with my staff on the blackland development corporation. It was specifically for improvements, as I stated earlier. So we'll get a little more detail as far as specific improvements, but it was improvements.
>> I'll go back right now and --
>> that's exactly what it was as I stated earlier. That's what it was for.
>> okay.
>> we haven't been able to contact the person until she came to court a couple times.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> anything else on this item? Thank you very much. October will be here real soon. It will be behind us then. It's a little after 2:15, y'all.
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, September 16, 2008 2:37 AM