Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item 18
Number 18, discuss and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2011 budget issues.
>> what number is that, judge?
>> number 18.
>> thank you.
>> > good afternoon.
under item 18, the first item we would like to discuss is rebudgetting of capital funds that includes both the capital resources and the general funds and the cos ban bond funds.
this is a process we go through every year.
I just handed out a revised recommendation for the car rebudgetting.
that's based on information I received yesterday.
and it actually decreases the amount that p.b.o.
will be recommending to be rebudgeted into fiscal year 11 from 1.7 million down to 1,080,000 that's shown in the bottom of that revised sheet.
this is, by the way, under the memo car, the page numbers are car 1, car 2 and car 3 and then the attachment, if you will use the revised one that I just passed out.
each year we have criteria that we use for c.a.r.
it has to be the overall same project approved by Commissioners court.
needs to be in progress, expected to be completed in the next fiscal year.
and I will say that all the projects that are listed here today I have talked with the departments and they are in agreement with our recommendation.
so unless they've changed their opinions, I think we are good to go.
under i.t.s., the pro projects that changed, they've actually ended up needing to encumber additional funding so identity and access management, the request weigh 1,458,000.
that's gone down to 780,124 and that is reflected in the sheet I just handed out.
for the breakers, that went down to $21,754 as listed there.
the two requests under
>> [indiscernible] they actually revised that request before I finished my memo so that information was already reflected in the memo.
>> projects listed under facilities management include signage for the courthouse, energy efficiency recommendations at the cjc, precinct 1 office building.
this was a mid-year transfer Commissioners court approved not too long ago.
expanded parking lot, starflight, jury box chairs at the cjc, an elevator and roof replacement originally budgeted in juvenile probation that has been transferred to facilities management for them to continue that project.
under the sheriff's office, it is control u.p.s.
upgrade and under juvenile probation there's carpet replacement that they weren't able to complete this year.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
I tried to provide a statistic news the boxes and I can certainly go into more detail.
I have noted that in the past it's been easier if I just give a high level summary and let you ask any questions that you may have.
once again the total that we are recommending for next year is $1,080,353, and I should note that this amount will show up in the next revenue estimate.
we'll be showing that the expenditures will not be made that will impact the fifth revenue estimate and then you'll see on the corrections list next week that I've listed -- actually I'll probably -- if they get approved today, it will just be implemented.
the unallocated reserve requirement, there is one for next year.
it will be 11%.
of that amount.
so that will also show up.
are there any questions on the c.a.r.
portion of the rebudgetting recommendations of the budget?
okay.
the next is bond funds into fy 11.
I do need direction on each of these funds that are listed.
I don't know if you would like for me to give you just the high level of some of the projects or if you want me to get direction on each fund.
we've done it either way in the past and it's really up to the Commissioners court how you would like me to proceed.
>> generally speaking the rebudgetting is what?
>> generally speaking it's projects that the courthouse approved that are in the midst of being completed that are not yet complete and therefore this process highlights the status of those projects and then allows for the court to direct p.b.o.
to rebudget those same amounts for next year so the work can continue.
we actually rebudget based on the actuals at the end of the year.
these are estimates.
they are subject to change marginally.
the other importance of this process is that the cos, those funds that are certificates of obligation, you will be seeing next week on memo concerning the scrubbing process and I will be making some additional recommendations on capital projects that were in the preliminary budget for fy 11 that we will be shifting perhaps to some of these old cos that have allocated reserve amounts.
>> these are projects that we have approved previously that are now underway.
>> yes.
>> but will not be completed this fiscal year.
and so the question is whether we want to roll the money into next year so that the work can continue and they can can be completed.
>> I move we roll the money over and complete those projects.
>> second.
>> do any of these appear to be problematic for you as you recall us in our optimal good government spirit?
>> no, sir.
and I have -- as I said before, I've talked to all the departments.
they should be very well aware of all these recommendations.
>> okay.
will you be disappointed if we approve this motion without your long presentation?
>> not at all, sir.
just a little bit, maybe, but not too much.
>> any discussion on the motion?
we typically -- we typically approve a motion such as this anyway, right?
>> that's correct.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you for your outstanding work.
>> we do have one other item, we do have a couple of corrections that have happened since last Tuesday when you approved the preliminary budget and went through markup on last Wednesday actually.
the first list has to do with those -- those actions that have already been approved by Commissioners court.
as you can see that those first entries there have to do with the cte, cc interlocal approved on August 24th.
the next one in the criminal courts, that's fund number 59, you can see in the other fund column where the office specialist senior was approved.
we also, as you recall, during markup that he we had all of our compensation and all of our retirement and health insurance in a reserve in the preliminary budget.
and you'll see that that fund number 31 is the courthouse security fund where we have allocated from a reserve into the individual retirement account there in that fund.
and you'll be seeing more next Tuesday on some of those allocations with the 2.5% and the health insurance and the retirement.
if you look on the next page, cost neutral changes, all funds.
>> what page?
>> that would be one of three.
the next -- at the top it says recommended changes to fy 11 budget after markup, cost neutral changes, all funds.
>> okay.
>> this is the various retirement increases that we were taking out of the reserve account and actually putting in the departmental budgets.
and that's that 549,165, which we reduced the compensation reserve by 545, 505, which means that we essentially missed the calculation based on the court has approved some additional positions since we did that calculation on the preliminary budget.
we did have to increase the transfer on the courthouse security fund.
as you recall that you did approve some security positions in the courthouse security fund, and as such we had to increase our requirement calculation there.
and then essentially reduce the allocated reserve for that amount.
the other entries on that page have to do with allocating the specific retirement increases from the compensation reserve to the individual departments.
in this case it was in the other funds, fund 1123, all these different special revenue funds.
on page 2 of three, that's a continuation of those allocations of those retirement increases out of their allocated reserves to fund the increase in the retirement.
on page 3 of three, we had some additionals, starting at the top on these cost neutral changes, fund 99 being road and bridge of the allocation of these retirement increases, you'll see about halfway through the page you'll see the sheriff's department allocations there.
essentially what the sheriff's department recommended and we were in agreement with was eliminating two slots, slots number 1725 and 1769, to convert to a psychiatric staff contract as opposed to the employees.
and so we felt and the sheriff's department strongly felt that was the most efficient and effective way to address those needs.
we did have a little reduction there in constable 5.
they are moving some -- some of their salary line items to operating line items. We were requested to increase the bond fees in the 525 special revenue fund per the auditor's office.
that was 5,000 coming out of the allocated reserve in that.
if you go to the other changes, all funds, page 1 of two, you can see a couple of changes there where we essentially corrected the funding source.
we had two ftes that we shifted to the general fund and we had two ftes that we shifted to the road and bridge fund.
and we felt like that that -- that was the more appropriate funding source for those.
we did go in, you can see at the bottom the 118, 294 in the road and bridge fund, fund 99, where we funded that through their allocated reserve.
we did -- the line item listed is incorrect so we'll fix the line item.
the 188, 294 should be out of 9892.
>> that's the third entry from the bottom there.
as I was mentioning earlier, the adjustment on the health benefits in the retirement for the courthouse security fund in the sheriff's department, fund number 31, we had a few corrections for the total amounts due to the three ftes that were added.
the same happens on the health benefits there on the general fund side on the page 2 of two.
likewise, we had to adjust -- in markup the reason we have these adjustments is that in markup we're using the old retirement and health benefits numbers.
when you approve the five ftes and the 12 ftes in connections, what we had to do was go back and based upon the revised numbers and put the calculation of those expenses into the sheriff's department.
so that's what -- for the five ftes in law enforcement and the 12 ftes in corrections, we had to do those adjustments.
we did have a calculation error.
we do make mistakes.
and when we find those mistakes, we do bring them to you to correct them.
we mate a calculation error in the constable precinct 3 on a salary computation, and we have corrected that in those four line items. The -- when we did the calculation on the 2.5%, we actually did a rough calculation in the preliminary budget, and what we have seen is that we actually had missed that number based upon the fact that we -- we had not included the temporary staff at that time, and we also had done more of a global calculation out of $6.6 million, we missed it by about $75.6 thousand.
so we have made those corrections and we're asking that you approve all these corrections.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> there's just one question, where does that -- that -- I really am very serious about that fund that we need to set up so we can pay back what we borrowed.
>> we are working currently and we'll actually have an agenda item on next week.
we are looking for your $1.7 million and we do have an opportunity that you'll see on the agenda to make up some of that space next week.
and we are going -- we are not going to forget that amount and we will close that gap by the time we come to you in late January or February for the fy 12 budget.
>> I think we'll do better than most entities in that regard then.
thanks.
>> uh-huh.
>> thank you 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 14, 2010, 2010 7:56 PM
