Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 22, 2011,
Item 19
>> now, since we have p.b.o.
and miss rio present, let's go to 19.
consider and take appropriate action on issues related to the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget guidelines.
>> I was expecting 18.
sorry about that.
one second.
>> well, we need other people here on 18, don't we?
>> I don't know that that we do, judge.
>> I believe you need mr. Eckstein, correct?
>> we have called 19.
>> okay.
>> good morning.
jeff greer from funding and budget office.
I have today -- and I've got extra copies if anyone in the audience would like some.
the proposed f.y.
12 guidelines, this obviously sets the framework for the f.y.
12 budget process which officially begins April 25, 2011.
you will hear in a little bit on item number 18 about some of the issues that are facing us from the state or what we're projecting might be facing us from the state.
we obviously consider Travis County to be impactd by local and regional economic climate.
we do expect this budget cycle to be more challenging than the last budget cycle.
it might be more comparative to the f.y.
10 budget cycle when there was also -- the legislature was in town.
as far as the economic background, I believe the guidelines provide a good background for you on what we're facing.
there was just a couple things I wanted to point out that I found interesting when we were going through this.
on page 4, last year we had shown you a graph from the federal reserve bank of dallas that indicated that single-family housing connectivity was beginning to increase.
if you look at that same graph this year, you can see that increase actually went down again.
I am actually going to turn it over to leroy momentarily to go over the property tax impact on the homestead owners and then I'm going to go through the specific guidelines very briefly and answer any questions.
>> obviously at this time these are estimates on the total taxable value for Travis County.
I have made these projections based upon conversations with patrick brown out at tcad.
of course, they're very preliminary at this point.
you can see that our average homestead value in fy 11 was $272,820.
that is projected to drop about 2.5%, at least at this point, which would take it to 266,000.
for display purposes we have shown you a taxable value based only on the 20% homestead preservation exemption that you give.
that's what's required in your publicized ad when we start -- when the court gets ready to adopt a tax rate.
so we have not included the other exemption that are available.
and then essentially what we've done is taken the best estimate that I could come up with in conversations with tcd and essentially incorporated those into the assumptions on running the effective tax rate, the tax office runs as far as based upon the current truth in taxation requirements out of the comptroller's office.
and what that would show is that our adopted f.y.
11 tax rate is 46.58 and our effective tax rate on that calculation is 48.76.
so you can see that there's some increase in the tax rate at the effective tax rate which essentially would give you the same maintenance and operation funding as you had in f.y.
11.
the guidelines that you have adopted for us over the past 15 years have been to direct planning and budget office to bring the preliminary budget in at the -- at or near the effective tax rate where "near" was defined as being 3% above or 3% below the effective tax rate.
the number that I have here woulding the worst case scenario.
3% above the effective tax rate would be 50.22.
to give you just a comparison going back several years, of curse, this year we have a 46.58.
back in 2008 your adopted budget was 57.69.
on the average increase in 2009 it was 60.41.
and then in 2010 it was 46.41 increase.
then in 2011 the 42.26.
so what we've attempted to do in light of what you will be briefed on the potential state -- the projected cost of the state cuts, the number that Commissioner eckhart referenced earlier during the presentation by judge muir and the others was that we have projected and the backup reflects about -- potentially about a $7 million potential cut.
I'm sure all of you have read the article in the "american statesman" this weekend about our negotiations on the central booking considerations depending on how that negotiation goes.
and one of the things that rodney and I have considered in requesting that court give us the same type of guidelines to certainties is the timing.
when we could possibly not get an appropriation bill until the first week in June.
now, that's unlikely that that will happen, but it is possible.
so we wanted to have the flexibility.
you'll recall we had essentially the same guidelines for the f.y.
2011 budget and we did bring it in below 3%.
and we'll be doing everything that we possibly can.
>> with that $7 million proposed to come from the state, I guess another or the higher, or probably from the fed probably.
but anyway, coming through us to serve or provide services to several county departments.
and I went through these.
and it appears that about 12 departments that may be affected by this particular cut as far as money's concerned, right at $7 million.
my concern is this.
what can we also expect, or are we expecting that we might can put our arms around early on to make the necessary adjustments that we have to make?
I guess as we go through this process doing the budget year?
this is just one phase.
it may be other things.
I'm just trying to --
>> one of the things that we always do, and we lose grant fund.
and that's what's involved in the $7 million.
>> exactly.
>> is that essentially when you lose a grant you essentially reduce the expenditures by the amount of the grant.
I mean, that's the simplistic answer.
now, it's more complicated in these cuts specifically some of these cuts which we'll go over in detail.
but they have impacts.
these are have impacts on our inmate -- potentially on our inmate population that all of us know that the last time the state essentially reduced picking up as quick the inmates from our jails, we ended up with inmates in tents and average daily populations at that point under sheriff keel exceeded 3,000.
we're very fortunate that we're hovering around 2400 today.
and there's any number of reasons for that.
all of the fund that commission's court has put into the various departments to expedite the process and to move them out to the state.
is those are the el them we're going to have to see what action the state takes and see what kind of impact in addition to the $7 million that we have identified for that.
we're watching very closely.
obviously the impact on -- projected impact to see what kind of inmate impact we may have.
>> and judge, Commissioners, just to add onto that, one of the things we are asking the departments to do --
>> Commissioner.
>> Commissioner.
>> thank crew.
>> regarding the budget submissions for f.y.
12 is to provide us with a list of priority advertised programs at the department -- prioritized programs at the department level.
we'll process that back against some of the potential state cuts to see where they line up.
and our hope would be that we can continue as we go through the coming weeks and months.
we can it with a discussion item to provide you with any updates that might be coming out.
obviously the things going on over at the state is a fluid process and could change at any point.
so it's going to require us to continue to monitor.
>> thank you.
>>
>> hundred evaluation is a -- this 50 cents per 100 evaluation is a worst case scenario?
>> correct.
>> this would have the impact on the average homeowner going from $1,000 a year to $1,068?
I'm thanking you all for bringing this item now.
I think that we just need to state and restate and restate that this is what's happening at the state level is not a reductions or -- in taxes, it's simply a shifting of tax burden to the local level.
they are not cutting your taxes, folks.
they're just moving them down to us.
>> to give you a little bit of comparison, in f.y.
99, Travis County adopted tax rate was 51.43.
then as the assessed values increased, obviously we were able to bring the tax rate down.
>> and even so, and I'll get this web site.
I was just looking for it just now.
the legislative budget board has a handy dandy Texas facts books.
and even at that tax rate -- and I'm going from memory here, but even at that tax rate we are I think 46 or 48 -- I can't recall -- in the nation for come bind state and local taxes.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] there be -- would that mean they would have to lay off employees?
what would that mean?
overall if the money is not there, it's not there.
and then you get the reduction on top of that that we're asking departments to do, and of course I think Commissioner Eckhardt said it eloquently when she stated that it's just a shift from what the state is doing and falling on the local tax bills as far as looking at increasing taxes, which I don't think none of us want to do, but they aren't going to pay it, so we have to look at it.
but I'm trying to make sure that where overall are we?
when will we overall see what the real picture is when it comes to those grants, federal or state, and also on top of a five percent reduction for those departments that handle those type of federal and state grants, what kind of impact that will be.
and of course, I won't support reducing or laying off any employee of Travis County.
but I want to know if advance what the impact will be.
that's what I'm trying to figure out right now.
I just don't know.
I guess maybe the jury is still out, but I just think I need to highlight or put a circle around that to make sure that we can make those kind of adjustments so it won't hit Travis County so hard.
>> there are actually three pieces to the answer of your question, Commissioner.
one is prioritizing departmental programs throughout all departments, whether they're state grant fund at stake or not.
that's the first piece.
the second piece is prioritizing the state grants, which we'll talk about in item 18, to have the departments prioritize those programs and at the state level that they feel are priorities or that the Commissioners' court has expressed or your priorities in the past.
thuj -- then for us to begin a process of working with the departments to make sure that there's an alignment of their priorities for their department as a whole and their priorities with regard to any state cuts.
and then making sure that those line up in terms of priorities.
and again, as the process continues to unfold, you know, we'll continue to monitor and continue to report back to you if things start shifting on us.
but that's kind of the process that we see that would make the most sense that way the Commissioners' court has a full picture of the programs within the departments, the programs at the state level and you will begin to have a better picture of how you want to prioritize should we have to start making cuts.
and we're hopeful that that doesn't happen.
but at this point it's really anybody's guess until we know what the state is doing.
>> thank you.
>> moving on through the guidelines, as far as compensation and benefits, at the time that the guidelines were written and developed, obviously we did not anticipate any compensation increases for fy '12.
that would include implementation of the results from the market salary surveys that are currently being conducted.
however, the session unfolds and the results from the comp study are reviewed and studied, this may be revisited.
important to note that there will be a public hearing in June as there always is to give the employees an opportunity to comment specifically on compensation and benefits, changes for fy '12.
career ladders will continue to be funded internally by departments.
any health benefit increases will be shared between county employees and retirees is what we're projecting.
and elected officials salaries are expected to be matched to any rank and file increases in 2012.
also compounding some of the issues that Commissioner Davis brought up, departments are going to be required to prioritize their resources to current funding or increases or new need and obviously every year we have maintenance of current effort increases and we realize that.
so if a department requires perhaps an additional position, it will have still the flexibility to create an additional f.t.e., excluding new programmatic enhancements if they can find permanent resources internally.
however, we're encouraging those situations to be minimized and pbo will actually not be authorized to recommend new f.t.e.'s in the preliminary budget other than those that are internally funded on a permanent basis, supported by new revenue, which includes the indirect cost rate, related to the opening of new facilities, related to new state or federally mandated programs or to continue long-standing programs. Obvious that is all within the context of availability of resources, which are not looking plentiful this year.
in addition, we're going to look at pilot programs that were funded in the past.
we're also going to look at programs that were changed from one time to ongoing and vice versa.
and another thing I want to note is on loan county requests, it did not appear that there will be many resources, especially for the preliminary budget, where we would be recommending additional program enhancements, but those requests are due to county -- the relevant county departments no later than March 25th.
so I want to say that out loud now because obviously it's February 22nd and that deadline is fast approaching.
we are meeting with the departments also to go over the guidelines March 21st and 24th.
and we'll be second out an e-mail today, later today with the guidelines if approved that gives those dates to departments so that they know when they can meet with us and ask any relevant questions.
we are obviously encouraging every year departments to identify reasonable ways to increase nonprofit tax revenue or efficiencies within their departments.
and then obviously pbo will also review the last three years of unspent operating budgets, which we've done in the last several years, and we will also be reviewing or requesting some line items be zero based.
not very many, but just a handful of those larger line items that really are specifically noted for different things.
I think leroy mentioned earlier some of the future unknowns that we just don't know at this point being that it's February, some of those are just estimates that we have on new construction, the estimates that we have on property values, tax collections obviously could drop below the expected value -- expected levels.
we don't know the outcome of the central booking interlocal agreement.
there could be litigation from property valuations that could increase.
and then another one that we're keeping an eye on is obviously energy costs.
they're ol volatile, trending upwards.
we're all filling up the gas tanks and seeing that the price is not going down.
I'm happy to answer any questions, but that is basically the guidelines in a nutshell.
>> let me just comment on d, meeting maintenance current effort, new needs without new resources.
the fy '11 budget has $3.8 million of maintenance current effort additions in the fy '11 budget.
a lot of those are contractually stipulated that they escalate annually.
one of those each year that continues to escalate and it's just nature of the beast has to do with our maintenance contracts with our automation and its.
that number is -- has been projected at this point to be about 560,000-dollar increase for fy '12.
and what we do with the five percent cuts that the departments show us is that we attempt to look at those cuts and attempt to cover as the guidelines authorize us to have the departments internally fund to the extent possible any of those escalating costs.
that is a big number right there.
that we have to try to cover.
>> the five percent applies to the total department budget?
>> total fy 12 target budget.
>> and we define target budget as being what?
>> it's essentially the fy 11 adopted budget, plus any funding and plus any increases that the court has approved during fy '11.
>> so if we justify the five percent to -- just pli the five percent to the total, what amount do we get?
I'm sitting here thinking that's a huge number.
>> it is a huge number.
the fy '12 target budget is about 416 million.
>> five percent of --
>> (indiscernible).
>> 20.8 million.
>> 20.12348.
20.8.
>> 20.8.
and we obviously are very optimistic that we will not have to take all of the five percent, and we have not taken over the last two years that the departments have submitted those five percent cuts, we have not had to take those.
the year before last we take about 2.5 million from the sheriff's budget and that was based on adp.
so -- but we do need, we do need those cuts itemized and prioritized in the event that the legislature at the last minute takes some cuts that inadvertently are going to have to in our opinion be picked up by Travis County.
>> I think that's the sticking point to all of this in that we don't know what -- what we're going to be required to pick up in order to keep up with current effort of services for our folks.
and.
can we also say if we take those steps that we can anticipate not laying off anybody?
>> I have heard several members of the court, including yourself several months ago, and obviously our objective is to get through the preliminary budget without having to indicate layoffs of employees.
now, having said that, depending upon -- we will be briefing the court in late June after the legislature hopefully approves the appropriation bill and after we see the size of the maintenance current effort requests that come in, we will be coming back to the court with what it appears at that point the.
and obviously we're working under that objective.
>> and one of the things that -- for the court to consider is when we're asking for the five percent, that's as leroy said about 20.8 million.
that's roughly a third of the number -- a third of that number could potentially be what we're facing at the state level should the state take all of the cuts that are currently being proposed.
and so those are the things that we have to keep in mind as we're going forward to make for sure, but Commissioner, you know, the last few years we have I think made numerous statements as leroy has said, both the Commissioners' court and pbo that we would endeavor to do everything we could to protect our workforce.
and we're committed to continuing to do that.
>> will you also be reviewing -- I know how well we have transformed to paperless because we know there's a savings of paper and printing costs.
and so I know our church boards have gone through our budgets as well, and one of the savings that we have found there is printing and copying.
and so I don't know -- I would think that that has a huger impact on an organization like ours.
>> we can brief the court on those savings.
one of the largest savings that records management is in the process, in conjunction with jp morgan chase, in microfilming the records.
and the large savings on that is as we microfilm and preserve those records in an electronic form, and they digitize them in addition to that, we avoid the storage cost of those archival records.
and that is huge.
so we have literally digitized hundreds of thousands of records over the last two years through that service.
but we can come back with a report on that.
>> in addition, we are currently engaged in a process of reviewing how we can consolidate some of our printing operations in each of the departments.
we have a number of departments that have volunteered to be kind of the guinnea pig so to speak for this.
and we're -- we hope that the outcome will be a positive one in terms of overall savings even to the extent of paper savings or toner cartridges, things like that.
so we're looking at that right now to try to determine what savings can be achieved.
>> they're all getting more expensive, even on a personal level the price is rising.
>> that's correct.
>> can you explain to me the definition of guidelines?
in other words, I'm sitting here looking at those categories for guidelines and I'm thinking we still don't know what our worst case snoirio is.
so -- scenario is.
so my question is if we put a guideline in effect that then we need to come back and revisit because in lieu of cutting imiez employees as opposed to how we deal with compensation internally as a trade-off, what is the meaning of that in the definition of guidelines?
>> let me respond to that.
the guidelines authorize us to prepare the budget manual that sets out the procedures for each department in Travis County to submit the budget request to planning and budget office.
that is the significance.
and we always get the court to approve those because we don't want the department saying to us, well, who gives you the authority?
and we say the court to ask us to do these things in preparation for them turning in their budget requests.
so that's the significance of the guidelines.
>> but they -- if we ended up with absolute worst case scenario, we can go back and revisit however the budget was put together relative to these guidelines.
that's my question.
>> yes.
these guidelines do not include what Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Davis have spoken about no layoffs.
when we brief the court in June as to what it appears, at that point having initially received all the budget requests, we can give you a better idea on that issue in June as to whether or not we believe that there will have to be layoffs.
our objective is not.
but with a budget that is 80 percent -- approximately 80 percent personnel, if we get some unexpected cuts, then the magnitude of which are larger, significantly larger than what we're going to share with you today on various things, then we would come back.
and it's perhaps a piece of these guidelines would be if we had something hit us unexpectedly, we may have to ask you to bump it above three percent.
we don't intend to come back and ask that.
>> but that's what the five percent is more.
>> that's correct.
and we believe that with a five percent departments identifying five percent, that we would not have to come back and at least adjust the tax rate piece of the guidelines.
because we do have the flexibility in these guidelines of going to three percent less than the effective tax rate or three percent above or somewhere in between.
>> and just to add what leroy was saying, these are the guidelines for the planning and budget office to prepare the preliminary budget.
obviously that preliminary budget has been prepted to the Commissioners' court and further discussion decisions are aid after that point for the proposed and adopted budget.
>> I think I understand, but let me just use one specific point.
if we reached a point where it looked like we might have to consider laying off people, we're looking at a guideline here on career ladders where we would go ahead and keep those in place if they could be internally funded.
I would hate to think we would be laying off people and still funding career ladder increases internally.
>> correct.
anything -- this gives the department the flect to present that in their budget proposal to the planning and budget office.
obviously if we had circumstances such as you just described, the planning and budget office would not recommend that.
>> we're good to go.
>> two or three questions.
one is that if the effective tax rate is the tax rate that would generate pretty much the same revenue for 2012 that we had in 2011.
>> that's correct.
>> excluding new construction.
>> that's right.
>> so do we project what revenue we may get from new construction in 2012, assuming we would apply the same, whether a 2011 tax rate?
>> yeah, I can do that very quickly.
>> just roughly.
>> the new construction currently is projected to be about $2.1 billion.
that's in comparison to two yoors ago of 3.9 billion.
>> it would yield about $10.7 million additional revenue.
>> okay.
>> do we think that 2.1 billion is pretty conservative?
>> no.
I think that what tcad has indicated is that's probably the most.
I think that we're going to see it real close to 2.1.
>> if that changes, we ought to anticipate it going down rather than going up.
>> that would be my estimation.
we do get monthly updates from tcad.
I talk with patrick regularly.
and as he sees -- one of the difficulties, quite frankly, currently in the appraisal process has to do with any number of short sales that go on in neighborhoods, especially the residential.
the residential piece of the appraisal.
appeared once they get short sales and they get documented sales, then most of the tax services that actually file claims with tcad use that as certified numbers.
and those are appraised certified values, so the entire neighborhoods get adversely affected by their appraisals.
so that's hopefully for '13, there's going to be less of the short sales because I think we're seeing some uptick in the real estate market.
we are working, just to remind you, all of these values are as of January 1 of '11.
everything is in the bag.
all the uptick that's going on now is for fy '13.
>> what are we hearing now regarding employee health insurance?
>> well, we have done -- by the way, united health care, I think y'all are invited, this Thursday are going to brief us on some of the potential escalations in the health care.
I think the national trend has been about eight to nine percent increase.
we've been real fortunate that our increases have been significantly less due to everything that's going on with the wellness clinics and everything that we're doing.
we're kind of estimating that there could be a seven percent.
I understand that there is an area in our health plan that has had some very significant increases, which will be discussed on Thursday.
and that those increases are substantially above the norm for other groups that are approximately our size.
so we do have one area that is of concern to us.
we will know once the actuary comes back in the next couple of months as to what we would be expecting on health care.
right now I'm using about a 4.4-million-dollar increase for our total health care, potentially.
those are real rough numbers at this point.
>> okay.
do we have in the guidelines -- I know we have language that comes close to this, but do we have in the guidelines something directing pbo to identify 2011 savings, shortfalls, and hold that amount in reserve?
because that -- those shortfalls really are being spent.
>> the planning and budget office, the analysts go through monthly and we project expenditures.
and those are the expenditure estimates on each.
the general fund being the largest one, but each of the general revenue funds that we submit to the auditor's office that they incorporate those expenditure estimates into the revenue estimate for fy '12.
>> right now pbo doesn't have the authority to take 2011 savings or shortfalls and put them in reserve, right?
>> no.
essentially what happens is as the analyst identify any shortfalls in the departmental budget expenditure projections, they get with the departments to see what we can do with the departments to mitigate those projections.
>> I really have in mind more savings than anything else.
so I have in mind expenditures that are lower than the budgeted amount.
because we've been fairly generous with authorizing apartments to -- with departments to go ahead and spend that if it's budgeted.
and what I'm suggesting is that this may be -- in view of our discussion of 18, which I promise is rom coming up shortly, we may ought to consider in these guidelines something that kind of chills that.
do you see what I'm saying?
because in the past it's almost been, you know, all of a sudden two positions are free, the department figures out a way to use the salary savings, comes to us and we pretty much routinely approve it.
and I guess during good times it has made all the sense in the world.
where we sit today I don't know that it makes that much sense.
>> there are two provisions in the guidelines that authorize the planning and budget office to address this issue.
number one is that to the extent that a department has increase in contractual obligations, which we will refer to as maintenance of current effort increases, that we will be working with those departments starting right now to see how they can internally fund the maintenance current requirements.
the other thing is we're asking departments to provide an analysis on any of these cuts that we've identified and distributed on the grant side, the state and federal, to see if they have any potential --
>> what's the reverse of that, though?
>> well, the -- what we do not have in the guidelines is the authority to look at the county judge's office and say we'd like to have x number of dollars from your budget to offset anything on this seven million dollars.
that is not.
>> my recommendation was not to be that legal.
>> [ laughter ] but my recommendation was about to do this: what if there's a contract in place that for some reason or another it's terminated early, and the budgeted amount is there.
do you see what I'm saying?
in the past if you were to come to the court and say, the xyz contract has gone away.
I would like to use those funds to do this.
we have rubber stamped it.
do you see what I'm saying?
>> sure.
>> so I'm saying that in view of the bad news we're getting about the next budget cycle, why don't we just get out the word that unless there is something real critical, we won't approve that?
and I know four or five specific examples, they don't add up to millions and millions of dollars, but they certainly add up to a significant amount of money.
and when you're looking at the food pantry running short, the emergency shelter needs growing, do you see what I'm saying?
then a few hundred thousand dollars can make all the difference in the world.
so I'm saying that I don't know -- a department may come with a need more critical than I'm sitting here thinking, but in the past we have not -- we have not gotten -- we have not focused on criticality.
we have almost looked at whether or not it made sense from department's perspective.
so I'm saying -- we really ought to do that.
and that's tienting up a little piece that we can control that won't cause that much harm into tboafn because in a whole lot of cases if the contract were to go away, it kind of went away.
and I'm thinking of several little buckets that it will add up to a good size bucket of money.
>> yeah.
most of those requests that come to the court are really the utilization of temporary salary savings in which the department has come up with what appears -- if pbo recommends that they be approved, they're normally justified and we look at it.
and what I'm hearing you, judge, is that you want pbo to tighten up and us make -- go back to the budget rule that says that if in fact it's not an emergency, that we won't be funding additional expenditures during the budget year, that it needs to be a crisis because we do have a crisis on the state grant level.
is that what you're saying?
>> that's exactly what I'm saying.
I would word it a little bit better than that, but that's exactly my point.
and what I'm thinking is that we don't -- in addition to the state and its decision, budget related decisions, we really don't know what other emergencies we'll be faced with over the next few months.
>> sure.
>> because the level of need out there really is increasing.
and I think if wemp we were to get a report from health and human services, it would be that the lines are longer than we anticipated during the budget process and they would run short before the fiscal year expires.
>> (indiscernible).
>> right.
so I'm thinking that either we've been that cavalier about approving sort of midyear adjustments, it's that we have not really used a strict standard.
and I'm saying that we ought to get out the word, hey, you know, we've been saying the situation is a whole lot tougher than we thought it would be during the budget process and this -- these kind of funds that we've in the past been generously short of authorizing adjustments for, we'll apply a higher standard the rest of this year.
if I were a department, I think I would like to know that up front.
>> sure.
>> we will get that word out to all the departments.
>> if the court agrees.
>> absolutely.
I think it's necessary.
>> and that we will reemphasize it on that March 21st and March 24th meeting with all the departments.
but we'll get something out today to departments saying that in discussion of the guidelines for fy '12, the court intends to have a higher standard of approving the utilizations of temporary salary savings for other purposes.
>> unless there's objection -- unless there's objection.
I'm not saying don't come to us, I'm saying if you come to us you've got to understand we plan to apply a stricter standard.
and we'd be looking at something that's real critical before we will approve the adjustment.
sorry, Commissioner.
>> I guess my question, though, is it would be good to see exactly what that language have been.
I'm wondering do you want another agenda item to see exactly what that is?
or do we operate not off the cuff, per se, but to make sure that it's accurate and precise, to the point where you get this message out to the departments and it won't be no misunderstanding.
>> I can tell you what the language that I intend to send out this afternoon would be, that the Commissioners' court has expressed an interest in observing the budget rule that unless departments have an identified emergency that they won't be approving in the future those requests coming from funding from temporary salary savings.
I would quote the budget rule that you approved the end of September of '10.
that's a printed document.
>> I guess I would say emergency or critical need.
there's a little bit of difference there.
>> sure.
I think that some of these departments, ie, health and human services, that are getting hit with the increased expenditures, will probably be coming to you with salary savings perhaps to help cover some of these operating expenses.
and we would encourage them to come forward and probably recommend that they be able to use those.
>> all right.
>> so is there a motion to do just that, judge?
>> unless there's objection.
now, are we expected to approve the guidelines today?
>> yes, sir.
>> I second whatever that amendment to that language, especially the -- I guess the language that leroy just read to us is what it's actually going to be.
I don't have no problem seconding it.
>> I move that we add that language to the guidelines.
>> to the guidelines.
>> is that okay?
>> that's fine.
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion on that motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
move that we approve the guidelines as revised.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
thank y'all very much.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
