Travis County Commissioners Court
June 30, 2009,
Item 13
.
mr.
nellis has been sitting there patiently today.
and 13
is to consider and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2010 departmental budget hearings and markup schedules.
>> the court has rodney rhodes' memo to you dated today in which he lays out the planning and budget recommendation for no budget hearings for 2010 budget cycle.
in the past as you know, we've entertained discussions from the departments during those budget hearings over a period of five days based on what rodney and I have observed, our observation is that there's not a whole lot of interest on the court to go above the -- three percent above the effective tax rate.
and as such, we didn't see that in that economic environment that possibly there would be that much benefit to spending the time in budget hearings.
we have recommended also that markup normally has been covered over two days and then we've reserved a third.
sometimes it's gone three days in which we're recommending that it be held on September the ninth from 9:00 to noon and two p.m.
to five with a place holder on the following day.
if that becomes necessary to complete markup, markup being the court adopting the tax rate and essentially making any other adjustments once we've received the third and fourth revenue estimate.
as susan said earlier, the third revenue estimate will be based upon the certified tax roll that we receive from patrick brown, the chief appraiser.
and then we will have one additional revenue estimate before we go in to markup.
the adopted budget normally during markup, the court gives us authorization to make some adjustments normally to the reserves to balance to the fifth revenue estimate.
he further recommended, rodney did, in his memo to you, that in the past we've used a gender request worksheet that has listed every single budget request and every single cut in which members of the court had expressed their interests as to whether or not they would desire to have that item placed on an agenda for discussion during markup.
what we're recommending is that that sheet, if any sheet is distributed to you, be limited to reductions, which would be substantially fewer items than putting the entire list together.
i would remind you that the court, once we file the preliminary budget on July the 27th, you will have a list in that document of all of the budget requests, all of the recommended five percent cuts, and the ones that are recommended inside the preliminary budget, both requests and cuts.
we'd be glad to answer any questions you might have about our recommendation.
i have jessica rio here, assistant budget manager here with me.
>> the recommendation sounds sos fine to me; however, I have recently been made aware of a real critical situation involving the juvenile justice programs.
by law the county judge is a member of the juvenile board, is how I learn about it.
and unfortunately the state reduced the budget for tyc.
and when we asked what Travis County's allocation would be, based on the fact that we have not sent many juveniles to tyc during the last couple of years, the answer that we got was shockingly low.
so it looks like the board has figured out a way to deal with some of those issues in 2010, but that would transfer the pain to 2011.
and we have not given up on getting the state agency that regulates that and sets the budget and allocates the money to change its mind, but what's clear is that some work needs to be done for that to happen.
here is language that I think we should add.
departments with critical budget issues may request a discussion with the court during work session or voting session prior to September 9th, 2010, and the court may grant such request.
and I think the difference in this language and what we normally do is that we really have had sort of routine budget markup.
it may well be two or three departments that come to us and persuade us to really hear them out.
and in that case I don't know -- in that case I think we would be arbitrary not to hear them.
that is not to say we will agree with them, but on some of this we really ought to be placed on notice because the 2011 impact will be big.
the other thing is that on something like tyc, if there's a significant cut in money and juvenile justice, either we have to start sending youth back to tyc, or they go without treatment here, which is a big deal.
and the problem with tyc is I don't know that anybody is standing up and saying the problem has been fixed.
so it may be that our tand hands are tied and there's nothing we can do, but I don't know that closing our eyes to it helps any.
and what I'm thinking too is that during a Thursday work session or a Tuesday situation, we could in 30 or 40 minutes hear about the problem, address whatever issues there are that we can,, ask questions, get answers, etcetera.
and before it's put on the agenda, though, someone has to conclude that it's in fact a critical budget issue.
and my preference would try to get them to go through pbo to do that first.
but if there's not agreement, come to some member of the court.
speaking of critical budget issues, you may have one yourself, right, ms.
fleming?
>> yes, sir.
and in terms of user use of the word critical, I wanted to ensure that it would include those departments whose services are demand driven and, for example, health and human services and our melt programs that serve children -- and our mental health programs that serve children with deep mental health needs, both programs are seeing just exponential res.
while pbo has been very supportive in us in actually working day-by-day in budget and to ensure that we can do our best to stay in it and have also made adjustments to what we expect to be in the preliminary budget to account for that.
we can only predict based on what we see.
so we certainly -- it will be our intent to discuss with you what we've seen for this year and then what we will project based on what we've seen this year, keeping in mind that we expect it to get a little bit worse before it gets better.
>> the idea of having discussions of critical budget issues doesn't bother me, so we've kind of made it clear this will not be a routine budget markup year.
but on some of the others, you know, we may disagree that a particular issue is critical.
we may agree that it is, however, it's difficult to make that determination without hearing the department out.
and really, as I said in our meeting I think last Thursday, listening to the juvenile situation -- and they have not met with pbo, by the way.
>> and we have not met yet.
we're meeting Thursday.
>> it was shockingly dramatic and traumatic, I thought, just hearing it and trying to figure out, well, what options did we have.
they all kind of turn on Monday.
and -- they all kind of turn on money.
the 4-e reserve has been there and they can use it for 2010, but if they use it for 2010, it's not available in 2011 because that fund has been depleted also.
and that revenue source is pretty much gone away.
so I'm sitting there thinking this is a big deal that the court should hear about sooner or later.
>> sure.
>> and based on past experience, when we have heard those departments have real critical issues, haven't we kind of done some ear marks as well and parking lot type of approach and ear marks on one of the reserves?
probably allocated or otherwise.
because it was such a crucial issue to face.
but they went through pbo and it was identified that way, but the evaluation of the critical status of the issue I think we've been able to handle in that manner.
as well.
>> and in regard also, you know, the departments having whatever critical subject matter they think need attention, I guess every department may have in their mind was critical.
and I guess it's up to us to determine what we perceive as to what's critical, and especially when it comes to trying to fund some things.
that is going to be the crux and the nexus of all of this is going to be availability of funds.
so I don't want anybody to leave here today thinking that because you have a critical need does not necessarily mean less funding associated with that need.
it's very tough times and there ain't no doubt about it, and as the judge stated it's going to get worse in 2011.
so that's just a matter of fact.
so I guess those folks that are hearing this, you need to take into consideration that just because you defined it as being critical, associated with critical is the funding to relieve, to bring some kind of relief to that critical concern that you may have as a department.
>> those reserve funds are good to have, but once you use them, either you replace them the next year, I mean, or they're gone.
and on some of these being placed on notice is a good thing.
this year we have, you know, sort of hefty reserves, I would say.
and in the preliminary budget, there's an intention to put a significant amount in reserve, but part of the strategy is also for that to be available in 2011, right?
>> right.
you know, the allocated reserve that I shared with you on the budget parameters for 2010 had three million dollars in the allocated reserve.
in 2009 I think we started off with six million.
so the resources are constrained obviously in 2010.
in the preliminary budget there will be earmark recommendations on those issues that still have some doubt as to whether or not the funds will be needed.
we've used that.
we've used it in the adopted budget against our allocated reserve.
let me just mention one thing that has come to our attention since I was here last Tuesday.
we were notified by dusty knight that there was a house bill out there, 3613, that allowed -- that was passed and is waiting.
the governor, we haven't heard whether the governor signed it or not, but it does give 100% exemption for unemployable veterans.
and we do have some categories.
dusty has shared with us the veteran category 4.
it has total taxable value in it of $356 million.
those are veterans with 70% or more disability, and there's still work being done as a speak on what impact this could have on our third revenue estimate.
i just want to mention there still are some uncertainties about things.
as susan said earlier, we don't anticipate any big changes going through this process, but this is one that could have come impact, depending upon the amount that it ends up being.
>> that would go into account when?
>> it goes into account for this tax roll.
>> it would be used in 2010.
>> so the estimated projection that we have at this point as far as what susan has certified does not -- of course, does not reflect this 100% exemption for veterans as far as this particular estimate we're seeing.
>> that's correct.
we did not have the -- it hadn't passed at the time of the second revenue estimate, and I think we're trying to find out whether the government signed it.
>> that would be good information to have at this point.
>> if the deadline -- if not whether the governor signed it, it's whether or not he vetoed it.
because if he doesn't veto it, it becomes law.
>> and you know, quite frankly, the question is what piece of those exemptions will qualify under the statute as the vet being unemployable.
>> you know, one of the things just as an overall theme, with other revenue sources going down and these kinds of things happening, you know, the property tax is more and more of a critical part of our revenue because the other revenue is going down.
we don't have that much revenue outside the property tax.
it is going down.
and as you see these things, tif's, things that -- Commissioner Davis, you mentioned earlier this morning, things that take money out of the roll, it's a serious situation unless you really want to raise taxes.
it's the only option you really have as the pool continues to shrink with the property tax and the other revenues are going down.
so it's a very tight situation.
i'm concerned about the roll, no question about that.
we just don't know what the impact on this amendment is yet.
>> do the departments that have critical needs, were there any indications from those departments, whether it be one time or ongoing, based on that critical concerns.
i know we have several departments again, as I stated earlier.
it depends on who looks at what as far as what's critical to that department.
and my point is have they been categorized to tell us of the ongoing -- to tell us are they ongoing or one time?
>> yes.
all of our recommendations on cuts that will be in the preliminary budget will be characterized by either one-time or ongoing.
>> okay.
>> and any budget request that we recommend funding, will be one time or ongoing.
>> maybe we need to tighten our belts up and go for the ride.
this is straightforward.
>> any issues with this language regarding critical budget issues?
>> are we also saying you have to go through pb.
so -- po so they can identify the status of each critical request?
because I think they need to follow the process that's in place.
they need to visit with pbo.
and then we again would have a recommendation from pbo and probably -- I mean, the best thing I think would be yes, it's critical and we can earmark it against one of the reserves.
and knowing -- and then the other thing is knowing that if this is an ongoing expense, we'll have to consider in 2011, or it's one time type of thing.
because I think even the whole issue of the economy is critical.
>> we can have that requirement that it go through pbo, but the clarification here is that instead of being part of the budget markup, it would be either a work session or a Tuesday voting session discussion.
>> sure.
that's fine.
>> prior to September 9, which is when you have that --
>> markup.
>> -- markup of the reductions.
>> so we would definitely have September 9 as the markup day, the whole day, just in case we need the time in the afternoon?
>> and we do need to reserve the 10th.
there are some statutory requirements that we have to accomplish on the 9th and 10th in order to adopt the budget on time.
and just so you know, the importance of adopting it within September, within the guidelines, is that if you don't for any reason, it will go back to the effective tax rate if it's adopted after October 1.
>> right.
>> or September 30th.
>> so we need to reserve 9 and 10th for markup and other budget issues.
okay.
>> judge, under that format that you mentioned how you would like to handle it, maybe on a Tuesday session or work session, was that in the form of a motion?
if it was, I would second it.
>> yes, sir.
i said work session or voting session prior to September 9th, 2010?
i also said we may grant the request.
not that we have to.
>> and pbo has scheduled the departmental hearings with the court before.
i think what you're asking us is to first of all assess whether or not in our opinion it's critical.
and let me just say that departments have been extremely cooperative in working with us on our recommendations.
you know, I would assume that it would only be the most critical issues that a department would come forward to the court either on a Tuesday or a Thursday to discuss further.
we have had good cooperation with the departments.
>> that's great.
>> and worked with them.
>> I totally appreciate it.
>> mr.
pena?
>> thank you, judge.
i appreciate you allowing me to speak on these issues.
these critical needs.
for many years we in the community have been speaking about the need for increased funding for mental health issues both here and the city council and the school board meetings.
everywhere.
i caught governor perry -- I was waiting where they have the press conferences, I caught him twice, and people in the governor's protection team are friends of mine, d.p.s.
troopers, but I let them know with the governor, letting him know specifically it is a critical, catastrophic situation if our youth and that any kind of funding is cut for mental health issues for youth arrest adults at any level, it will be cat traffic for the community.
what -- it will be catastrophic for the community.
what I've said here and to elected bodies and the school board meetings and once at the community action network is we have a lot of anger management problems, bipolar problems and issues within specifically the youth also, we knew and we attended all forums to increase funding for Austin-Travis County for these issues, mental health issues, ptsd issues and substance abuse issues.
that's becoming an ever increasing problem like we did in the early '90's.
you remember I was here on those issues.
i think that -- I'm begging anybody can here that has extra funding at the state level, and I know working with the state on those issues and funding is critical that the mental health issues and substance abuse issues that the kids have and adults also needs to be fully funded because we're entering in a catastrophic situation, especially here in the summertime where the kids don't have anything to do and they're trying drugs, etcetera.
yush right, it's an emergency issue, a critical issue.
i thank you for bringing this up.
i didn't evening know it was on the agenda, but I hope there is funding out there to address the mental health and substance abuse issue that these kids have and adults have.
thank you for allow meg to speak.
>> okay.
any more discussion on 13?
>> no.
>> move approval?
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, June 30, 2009 1:31 PM