Travis County Commissioners Court
September 22, 2009,
Item 27 & 28
>> number 27 -- 27 and 28 look so similar some would say they are the same.
is there a difference?
27, consider and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2010 budget rules.
28 says discussion and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2010 budget issues.
-- budget rules.
>> issues.
>> thank you.
>> good morning.
planning and budget.
as you recall last week we went over the budget rules and the proposed changes we had for fy 10.
i provided a memo that included the summarized changes just so you would have those.
since last Tuesday there's been a few very minor changes that we've went ahead and incorporated through suggestions from some of the departments such as the auditor's office.
really the only point we have left to discuss this morning is some language that the county auditor's office had submitted to us for consideration by the Commissioners court related to the newly installed parking pay stations.
and if this language is what the court would like in the budget rules, they've suggested that it be submitted other under transportation, which in the appendix under central.
the guidance would read the county will reimburse cost of on-street parking charge by city of Austin if the employee is on county business and employee submitted pay station receipt are filed within 30 days with the county auditor's office.
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> move approval of the rules.
>> second.
>> with the change.
>> with that change.
>> and additional language.
>> so on that particular item, we would provide a log that's supposed to be completed.
>> and jose from the auditor's office is here.
he can speak a little more directly to that point.
>> I think that's -- that's sufficient for me.
there would be a log that we provide, and if you want to be reimbursed, you complete the log.
>> yes, that's what we are suggesting because as you know right now we do not reimburse for meters because there's no receipts.
now that the city of Austin is going with the pay decisions, there are sick -- stations, there are sticker receipts and we are devising a log that dealt with county business arrest and they attach those receipts to the log and then we'll reimburse the employee.
given now that we're going to have a few more now that it's out there that they can get reimbursed for on site parking is going to be a budget issue that probably they are going to be funded from their own departments.
because I mean we don't have that right now.
>> is there a -- a general authorization for the court to waive any and all of these rules for good cause?
>> you mean during the fiscal -- any time during the fiscal year?
or --
>> I mean let's say that the rule requires one thing and somebody adversely impacted believes that in view of the total circumstances, application of the rule would be totally unjust and they are able to persuade the court that in fact that's the case.
do you see what I'm saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> so is that person able to come to court, prove that to us and have us waive the rule in that particular case?
>> I think generally most rules -- departments have the ability, especially elected officials, to come before court and provide an argument.
i would be hesitant to answer the question in case there are legal issues that I'm not aware of, but as far as allowing departments to come before the Commissioners court and provide their individual circumstances, that has been done in the past.
>> our process is that if something is against the budget rules, then we send them over to Commissioners court for them to be approved.
now, we're assuming that also that the county attorney advising the court should they or should they not, but if it's against these budget rules, we will not do it.
i guess that's what we do when it's
>> [inaudible] then bring it up to you all.
>> generally speaking the rules really are to provide guidance for us to conduct business efficiently and effectively through the year.
>> right.
and what we do on the back end is enforce your rules.
some things are fuzzy when we look at them, and you've seen cases where we've said we'll take this to the Commissioners court and if they vote to pay it, we'll go ahead and do that.
so I think they are -- I mean my opinion, if the county opinion doesn't disagree, those are your rules and you can change them.
we don't change them for you, but you could take a vote if you saw there was something there that was unique or you thought it was the right thing to do.
i mean that's kind of been the stance of our office.
>> okay.
>> and judge, I don't know if it's appropriate at this time, but I want to make sure that we wrap our arms around the situation whereby we, county employees, are guilty of parking in handicapped spots.
i know this is parking and stuff like that.
i'm concerned about that.
it might not be the right format to talk about it, but I'm concerned about that as far as how we address that in the future.
of course, I will continue to vote to not support the county paying for employees that park illegally in handicapped slots.
and I just want to make sure that that is continued to be looked at because I think every employee ought to be responsible for where they park, and handicapped slots are very expensive.
they tell me it's up to $500.
so in the parking arena of a lot of these things, I know you mentioned parking stations and all of the other kind of things where people may be reimbursed, blah, blah, blah, blah, my concern is still in that other venue, which may not be a part of this, but I just want to make folks be mindful of the fact that we are still going to be looking very strongly at those situations of employees parking in the handicapped slots.
>> and our office's position on that, Commissioner, is that Travis County does not pay for people to break the law.
in that when they decide to break the law, that is not a decision that's condoned by the Commissioners court or this government and therefore we do not pay that.
and if there are extenuating circumstances, which sometimes there are, again, that would be something they would bring to the Commissioners court and you would get legal advice and if you directed us to pay it, we would, but our stance is we don't pay --
>> and there's a budget rule for that too that we put in there that we do not pay for any violation.
>> pardon me?
>> there's a budget rule that we don't pay for any violations or penalties.
>> right.
i just want to make sure that the employees of Travis County get a firm understanding of what we're doing here and that we are not embracing them breaking the law in any type of situation as far as parking is concerned.
including parking in handicapped slots, which we have had to wrestle with in the past.
>> judge, may I ask on clarification, on the proposed language from the auditor's office, the employee is on county business and both the auditor's prescribed parking log and
>> [indiscernible] are filed within 30 days.
the employee is on county business.
is that distinct from an employee who is parking at meters during the regular course of their work in the granger building?
>> absolutely.
>> that was my understanding, but how are we making that distinction in the verbiage of the rule?
>> the people who are finding their own parking because they don't have parking or haven't rented parking or aren't in the garage, would not be submitting parking logs to us.
>> okay.
>> at all.
so we would expect a parking log and that log would not say I work in the granger building and I have to be here every day and therefore I need parking.
you know, it's more where someone has to leave their work home and go somewhere else on county business.
>> uh-huh.
>> is definitely what this rule has in mind.
jose, have you seen anything where people are trying to submit --
>> at this point, no, because it hasn't been, but the log tells us the location, the parking, and what the purpose is for that parking.
>> I just wanted to make sure the distinction was made.
>> sure.
>> and also, I mean I favor us treating parking as a benefit so it's not that I influence and make it clear that for the purposes of this budget rule this does not include parking --
>> at your workplace.
>> we kind of struggled with that and the wording we were able to come up with ties to the parking log specifically so that the auditor's office has accounting of that, of that instance.
but also the timeliness issue of getting those submitted back to the auditor's office within 30 days, we felt was appropriate.
>> thank you.
>> any discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
27, discuss and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2010 budget issues.
>> we had a few additional changes and corrections, mainly those to balance to the fifth revenue estimate that we received late last week.
and you have a list before you.
my cover letter kind of summarizes those lists.
there were a couple of things that were -- are listed on here.
the district attorneys workers' compensation interlocal was certified in the fifth revenue estimate, and as such we included those expenditures that corresponded to that revenue.
also the senior financial analyst for the corporations that is funded through a transfer from the corporations to the general fund for the nsp-1 grant.
i'm glad to say that contract is going to be on for next Tuesday and we have been awarded that $1.3 million.
so that will be on.
there was a little expenditure that we were able to handle in the auditor's budget through an encumbrance of this year's funds and that's agreeable with the auditor.
and then of course the allocation of the car amount, the capital acquisition resources accounts to the individual departments that we had reserved in a car reserve in the preliminary budget.
and the rest of it is just minor changes.
>> questions, comments?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion and a motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
>> actually there's also a memo from me on the use of existing c.o.s for f.y.
10:00.
and we would ask that you approve this list that we've submitted to you; however, based on a conversation that we had or a meeting that we had, I'm going to need to make just two minor changes to the list.
on 454, the dump truck is going to have to go back to the c.o.
and I'm going to have to include a truck and a prisoner bus because of the rules of reimbursement resolutions, the expenditure wouldn't go made in a timely manner to utilize a reimbursement resolution.
>> so --
>> [inaudible].
>> I've got the revised sheets, however, I just rerealized they didn't double side print but the changes are all made on the front page.
>> so the total funding would change?
as far as the amount of funding?
>> it's not very much, it's just $6,000 difference between what I had to shuffle around.
>> how much?
>> $6,000.
>> with the new expenditure?
>> right.
the new is going to be 1,420,118 instead of the -- what's in the member know, 1,425,818.
>> $6,000 increase.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so the new amount now?
>> the new amount 1,420,118.
and what this did, just so that you know; that the -- this will reduce the proposed f.y.
10 certificate of obligation.
down to 15.15.
>> okay.
>> judge, as we've done prior years, we'll have a discussion regarding capital in the fall in preparation for the sale in the early spring.
>> so it's requested we approve the c.o.
separately.
>> yes.
>> so moved.
>> discussion?
all in favor say aye.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you.
is that all for 28?
>> yes, sir.
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 22, 2009 1:30 PM
