Travis County Commissioners Court
March 23, 2010,
Item 17
Our counsel has been here on 17.
we've had residents here dealing with starflight.
so the constables -- constable 2 on 17, consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
they'll be very brief, they've assured me.
after which we will listen to the residents who have come down on the starflight invoices.
>> thank you.
>> we're requesting that (indiscernible) be moved from a line item to other purchase line items and this be able to fund needed to pay research tools for both air cards and cell phones.
i've written you for fy '10, 2.6 million revenue collected for fy '09.
that's what our office has been doing.
and it's highly grossing year for precinct two ever.
and we're on pace to exceed three million for fy 10.
last year we turned back to Travis County $40,000 in salary savings, and every month so far this year for fy '10 has exceeded best month ever for that month in previous years.
and while the economy is in a recession, we've been able to bring in revenue.
for fy '10, the air cards and cell foandz was $12,013.
the actual amount that was needed to cover the operating expense for fy '10 is estimated to be $21,021.
and what we have done is we've added an accurate account and the Texas workforce commission account in order to do research to better do our job, and this research, which will cost $6,000 for fy '10.
the actual amount was not budgeted for fy '10, but it's been a valuable tool for us.
and we're not asking for additional funding.
all that we're asking is to use funds allocated to us in order to keep the revenue up.
and our deputies are now using cell phones where we had budget prior to that, pagers.
deputies went out there and purchased on cell phones and in doing so we've improved communications and also increased the revenue.
and making it more cost efficient and more productive in order to go out there and raise the revenues.
additional air cards were needed for the new computers that we received and we needed these air cards in order to get them up and going.
again, the databases are a proper resource tool.
with this, this has allowed us to actually pinpoint the addresses and made more efficient for us to go out there and make this revenue.
and it more than pays for itself in return.
and in fact, in our opinion the revenue
>> [ inaudible ].
so we're asking that again, 11,520 be moved from the line items to our other purchase line item in order to meet these expenses.
>> is it possible to let them use the money, although we know we changed the rules about all that,?
but kind of like an advance and then once they get their revenue in, which we believe they're going to get it in, that we would repay the sal resavings?
>> the revenue for this year will end up in the ending fund balance for the fy '11 budget, so I'm sure that the constable will be putting in a budget request for the fy '11 to normalize these operating expenses.
>> right.
>> this is a situation where the new constable is attempting and, you know, we have not analyzed at this point what he's indicating, but I'm sure that it's accurate, that they are exceeding their revenue.
we had asked the court to implement the budget rule in an effort to curtail in these economic times the utilization of salary savings so that we meet our budgeted salary savings.
so that's the reason we brought it to the court under the rules that the court approved.
and we wanted to have a discussion.
so I mean, it's up to the court if in fact the case that the constable has made is compelling to approve it and move on and we'll deal with the fy '11 issue in the fy '11 budget.
>> are they exceeding budgeted salary savings?
on salary savings we budget?
we anticipate salary savings and then we turn around and spend it.
so when you exceed the amount that was budgeted, that's the surplus.
until you meet the budgeted amount, you really have not met the amount that we spent for the county.
but leroy, what they're saying is that notwithstanding that they have not met budgeted salary savings, their revenue exceeds projections.
>> that is what the constable is saying.
we will be able --
>> do we have reason to believe that that's not true?
>> I do not know.
i have not seen the analysis.
>> we ran an analysis.
i think leroy had me do that back in January and they were on track to meet or exceed their projections then.
i haven't done that for the month of March.
>> the fiscal year started October 1.
>> yes, sir.
>> so we look through October 1 through today, do we think they've exceeded projected revenue generation by at least $11,000?
>>
>> I'd have to go look.
i can't answer that question right now.
>>
>> by their own documentation it appears they are exceeding revenues for all four of the months in this fiscal year, October, November, December, January by a considerable margin by their own documentation.
i do want to commend the constables for being -- for his financial stewardship as well as innovation that we're seeing in constable 2.
i believe that that innovation is leading to these higher revenue numbers.
i'm very respectful that we have budget rules and that we don't want to deviate from them willy-nilly, absolutely.
but I think in this case this is a precalibration of priorities in constable 2 that's leading to a higher revenue and so they're asking to basically rearrange the furniture within their existing budget accommodate that rearranged prioritization for innovation.
>> I think we have to factor into those two things.
>> perhaps if we could take another week to get pbo's numbers on their actual revenues over last three to four months, we could prove up that this really is just a recalibration of priorities within the existing budget that is leading to a higher revenue inside the office.
>> my motion is that we grant the request, conditioned upon precinct 2 meeting its budgeted salary savings and projected revenue.
i would think that would be the standard that we would set for any department that comes with a similar request.
we believe that you do, and if pbo can confirm that, then if this motion passes, we basically grant the request.
if it doesn't pass, then we've got a problem and let's bring it back.
is that -- how is that?
>> sounds good.
>> yeah.
we appreciate your patience this morning.
thank you.
discussion?
that's my motion.
was it seconded?
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.
>> thank you.
>> did that motion, judge, include the transfers including the add-on?
>> it does now.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez?
discussion?
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, March 23, 2010 2:53 PM
