Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 20
Item 20, consider and take appropriate action on fiscal year 2012 budget issues and request for funding.
>> can we get media to pull the screen up on our computer?
>> in the meantime, I wanted to let you know one of the items I passed out was an email I sent I believe on Friday in response to a question brought up during markup regarding the changing of the tax rate and that is an email that I forwarded from barbara wilson and she is here if there are any questions on that.
there was an ad in the Austin american-statesman that notified the public that we will have a public hearing next Tuesday and next Friday on the proposed tax rate.
>> that public hearing next Friday is in this courtroom.
that's before the Commissioners court, I take it.
>> that's correct.
>> what time is it?
>> 9:00.
>> I believe at 9:00.
>> next Friday is the 28th.
>> 23rd.
>> they are both at 9:00, Tuesday and Friday at 9:00.
>> that Tuesday one is just in part of our regular Tuesday meeting?
>> right.
>> leroy nellis, planning and budget with my staff.
today we will continue the discussion on the f.y.
12 budget.
I would like to initially show you where we ended up a the the end of markup.
you'll recall we had a total of remaining funds of 130,207 and the ongoing was 42,467.
we get one time funds of 91,740.
since then we have had several cost neutral changes, some other changes, and then some c.a.r.
changes, which I believe all of you have a legal size page.
the first one are cost neutral changes.
any time we have things that change between what the court has approved, we put it on a changes list.
you'll essentially see, like the county attorney had some internal reallocations in accounts there for $7,810.
one of the things on the t.n.r., we had a reclassification that was approved on September 6th and we rearranged some internal funds there for t.n.r.
when we approve the vehicles for the sheriff's department with the package that was approved, we had some funding in there for fuel and maintenance, and that's actually expended out of the t.n.r.
budget so we moved it out of the sheriff's department where it was approved into t.n.r.
we did the same thing with juvenile probation on their vehicle.
the last entry on page 1.
one of the things that we do on the hospitalization account, we budget according to a composite rate.
after hrm and p.b.o.
analyzes the open enrollment, we go through and actually adjust those allocations based upon the actuary report.
what we found this year was that there were 62 additional employees that brought families on the plan.
and, of course, that cost additional funds.
so we went through and posted, as you can see, not only in the various general fund accounts of 426,024, but also all the special revenue funds.
now, the only special revenue funds that essentially affected the general fund were the courthouse security fund, because we do a transfer from the general fund and any additional expenditures in there result in additional funds from the general fund, and on the road and bridge fund, because as you know, this year the road and bridge fund has been less than it has in previous years, so any increase.
so we have done those adjustments on page 2, 3 -- 2 and 3.
we had some other little adjustments on page -- bottom of page 3 in the lcra parks fund where we had some internal adjustments just to change the account numbers where we took some money out of the allocated reserve and put it into an expenditure line item.
the same happened on the bcp fund where we reduced the reserve and put it into an expenditure line item.
so those are all revenue neutral.
in other words, the expenditures were covered internally from other sources.
now, on page 4 you have other changes, all funds.
essentially we mentioned the fact that we had received the first of five payments from seton hospital that was an agreement between Travis County and seton that resulted in the purchase of a third helicopter.
and so we have set that up in a starflight maintenance reserve, the 640,000, and so the fifth revenue estimate will be increased by 640,000 and we will off set it with the allocated reserve for starflight maintenance.
we have been notified that the downtown interlocal with the city of Austin, those funds will be in the fifth revenue estimate, and what you can see is that we've put the expenditures that are associated with that interlocal, and we'll go through and put the revenue side of that transaction on the revenue sheet in just a second.
at the bottom of the page, when we went through -- do you want to mention that?
>> at the bottom of the page is just a reduction that you'll see when I bring c.o.s back to you in the fall, we'll have -- right now the c.o.
in the preliminary budget was 33 million, we'll be reducing that 128,500, just basically a technical correction to align the recommended replacement vehicles in the sheriff's office with those on the approved -- or the list that matches the current policy.
that's just a correction.
internal correction that we found.
>> on the top of page 5 we have the correction in the criminal courts to reallocate $154,654 in the indigent defense enhancement project.
they were certified midyear f.y.
11 in professional services line item to a one-year special project temporary with the end date of September 30th of 12 and also to the professional services.
what this is is a reappropriation of these funds funds.
because they did not spend them in 11 it's a reappropriation.
there is no financial impact.
the funds will be left in the ending fund balance at 85,000.
so that's the allocation for f.y.
12.
the same thing happened on the temporary salaries in the redistricting funds that the court approved in f.y.
11, there's 9,000 that's going to be left and the tax office has asked those be reappropriated.
they will fall to the ending fund balance and be used in f.y.
12 through December of 2011.
the central booking agreement with the city of Austin is scheduled to be approved and included in the fifth revenue estimate.
the revenue on that interlocal is 590,089.
and incorporated in that interlocal are the seven nurses that -- that are integrated into the interlocal and the revenue is based on that.
that last entry there is the courthouse security fund adjustment for the hospitalization savings.
jessica, do you want to go over c.a.r.?
>> page 6 is just -- I thought the easiest way to show the c.a.r.
changes was just to give you a couplery of all the changes that occurred since preliminary budget.
you have approved everything on this sheet except for that last line which I'll go over in a second.
c.a.r.
18.8 million.
basically the next line we allocated the capital for the projects into the different departments.
then there was a change that was on the last changes list for 580 so you've already approved that.
that would be cost neutral from a c.a.r.
item to another c.a.r.
item.
reduction of c.a.r.
during markup, 1.2 million, the 750,000 plus I believe it's 449 actions taken during markup.
and then c.a.r.
that was approved during markup was 1.4 million which was mainly the sheriff's vehicles and associated equipment.
then we also increased the c.a.r.
allocation by 747,000 related to recommendations during markup.
all of those actions have been already been taken by court t last line we're requesting today you approve this and increase c.a.r.
this is actually going to also reduce your c.o.
by the same amount and I should have mentioned that in the description.
what this does is moves the noncapital portion of the c.o.
funded vehicles from c.o.
to c.a.r.
and if you recall a couple weeks ago there was a budget adjustment that you approved that took some funds from the general fund allocated reserve to deal with reclassifications of noneligible capital items that were on the c.o.
this year, things like extended warranties on vehicles and I think there was some training costs and i.t.s.
so I'm just making sure next year we don't have to come back to do a budget adjustment so we catch that up front.
we've asked departments who look at that that totals less than 33 million and make sure all items on there are capital so that's what this correction will do.
and that 74,629.
>> what's 20 million compared to what we did last year?
>> last year we had -- do you have your -- actually there is a chart in the preliminary budge that's gives you a history.
let me pull that out instead.
>> I can pull that out later.
>> I think we can get that for you right quick.
>> this is an efficient Commissioners court, mr. Nellis.
>> c.a.r.
was 10 million last year but that's why I wanted to show the history over the last several years.
it's gone up and down.
do you have that?
thank you.
so it's gone anywhere from in 2002 it was 12 million, down to 6 million in 2003, it was up to approximately 23 million in 2008, and then it was like mr. Nellis said 10 million last year and it's 20 million proposed this year.
>> we use the c.a.r.
account to utilize fund balance, which is one time, and we use it against those one time capital expenditures so they are not recurring the next year.
what we would ask is that the court approve the changes that we have explained to you here on these sheets.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion?
when we see those seven nurses, there is a big number in the first line.
then there are about six smaller numbers.
why is that?
see what I'm saying?
363,000, and then there are smaller numbers.
>> those -- okay, so the first -- so the cost is $495,885.
the first line is the salaries and then the other lines below it are the associated benefits.
that's the cost for a registered charge nurse, pay grade 21 at the minimum of the pay grade.
>> so those seven numbers would add up to 400 --
>> 95,885, correct.
that was the amount that was approved in the past month in the central booking agreement.
been approved by the county and due to timing on the city council operates that's scheduled to go on the 22nd.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> and we will include those totals in your summary sheet.
those other changes total 1,713,789, of which 495-885 was ongoing and 1,217,904 is one time.
now associated with those expenditures -- we'll go to the revenue -- are amounts of revenue which we'll put in now.
the seton hospital payment is $640,000 of one time money.
>> do we contract to put that money in some sort of maintenance reserve for the helicopter?
>> that's correct.
and that's what the entry on the correction sheet did.
it essentially established a $640,000 starflight maintenance reserve, and therefore if in fact they don't need those maintenance in one year that it would be reappropriated automatically, the balance in that.
the other, the downtown d.a.
interlocal was 414,250 in revenue.
the criminal courts idep funds was 154,654.
the tax office redistricting reappropriated funds was $9,000.
and the central booking interlocal was 590,089 of ongoing revenue.
now, the revenue that we've just posted does exceed the total of the expenditures that we posted.
however, any time we have additional revenue we have to set aside 11% for the unallocated reserve.
so this chart shows that the 1.8 million of additional revenue actually generated an additional calculation of 179,171 in additional unallocated reserve, which we will be putting in.
now, if we go to where we are currently -- oh, we need to put the c.a.r.
changes in that were approved which included -- you got it?
yeah.
and then put one time -- and so you will see that the result of providing for the unallocated reserve and the addition to the c.a.r.
account, that we actually are very close to having the available resources balanced with exception that we have an imbalance, we have $136,671 in ongoing and we have a deficit of 162,060 in one time for a net amount of just a deficit of 25,389.
if you have an imbalance, the way you want the imbalance is to be using ongoing funds for one time purposes.
we do have a mechanism which I can explain to you how we just go in.
we just adjust how much we're funding in allocated reserve, but between the ongoing funds and the one time.
so we can -- we can do that.
but that's essentially where we are with the corrections, and the provision for the unallocated reserve on that additional revenue.
>> so we just need to plug that $25,000 hole.
>> right.
and you do have -- you do have your reserves that, you know, are intact.
and so if in fact there are items that members of the court are interested in discussing, that would be the time we would take a look.
that would be the funding source.
>> may I ask a couple questions about funding sources first?
>> yes.
>> normally about this time we hear from the d.a.
and the county attorney.
and they bring word that revenue is available from their --
>> and we have received email from the district attorney and the amount of dapso, I believe it's -- it's forfeited property account.
I think it's $15,000, maybe a little more.
>> and that will show up in the fifth revenue estimate.
>> what about the county attorney?
>> the --
>> by with way, why do I remember the figures being a lot larger than 15,000 previously?
>> well, we -- we have had amounts from nothing -- it's based upon the balance in the district attorney and the county attorney's funds.
let me see if -- I think we had capso inside the preliminary --
>> the one transfer is $18,000 for the underaged drinking grant, direct transfer for expenditure that is correct grant match.
I have not heard any word of adding anything on top of that.
>> yeah.
the -- right.
>> can we put that phone call in sometime today?
>> I will.
>> we don't want the county attorney to think we're ignoring him.
>> so we would anticipate an additional 15 -- it's 15,000 some odd dollars from the district attorney's.
>> when is that supposed to come in?
>> we will receive the fifth revenue estimate, it's scheduled for the 20th of September, and we will have another session like this on next Tuesday on the 20th.
and then we file the proposed budget on next Friday.
>> leroy, there has been some discussion about reapraising some of the properties that were burned, which is statutorily permissible.
if that occurs, will that affect our revenue estimate?
>> that does not affect the f.y.
12 revenue estimate.
once the chief appraiser certifies the roll, those are the numbers by which all of the statutory ads, all of the taxable value is determined and that will be adjustment for the f.y.
13.
and we do intend to get something on the agenda for y'all next Tuesday.
>> thank you.
thank you for writing that down.
>> my question is simply with that additional revenue from the d.a., does that then lower our deficit?
>> yes.
>> that's applied to the deficit.
>> I think it was -- I thought I had that number and I didn't bring the email, but about 15,100 of one-time money.
okay, we're at 11,785.
>> negative?
>> negative.
>> negative 11,785.
>> did we receive an email from the district clerk indicating available revenue from the district clerk to the general fund?
>> the district clerk?
>> right.
>> we have not received anything to my knowledge from the district clerk.
>> no.
>> okay.
anything else from your people?
>> no, I think if there's anything else that wants to be considered, this would be the time to consider it.
>> well, judge, I've got to apologize to the folks who are supporting project recovery.
I was really -- I couldn't remember quite right what it is that we did.
I was under the impression that we had earmarked their money because -- and then it was put under criminal justice planning to continue working on -- on the measures or other information, correct?
>> we had come to you about a month ago, in fact, let me --
>> I apologize for doing that y'all.
I just walked away.
>> we have
>> [inaudible] on a one-time bay toss for three, four years, in criminal justice planning.
>> what we did is about a month ago, p.b.o.
had not recommended funding for f.y.
12 based on the current project model.
what we had done is come to you a month ago to describe, we have been working with stakeholders, the downtown Austin community court, atcic, the mental health public defenders office to come up with a better project recovery.
and in a nutshell, what we are proposing for f.y.
12 is that we -- that we didn't have for the current program is use an evidence based assessment tool instead of just admitting people based on enhanced p.i.
charge.
we added -- actually the city added a permanent supportive housing component because a lot of these folks are homeless or emergency transitional housing depending on the need.
the city and county instead of the city funding the in patient and the county funding the after care, we're blending the funds so that we're funding both essentially, but there will be beds available tore to downtown community court as well as the mental health docket.
and we anticipate that we will get much better outcomes as a result of these changes and we're respectfully asking that you all considering funding for f.y.
12.
what we had asked, Commissioner, is that it be included in consideration markup and I think you all ran out of time and funding at the time last week and so we're just coming back and respectfully asking for funding.
>> and I understand from the folks downtown because they run across the population much more in other areas is that the housing was very important to include.
otherwise folks won't improve their situation unless they have a place to stay even if it's transitional housing.
>> yes, that's true.
>> I was just under the impression that we had earmarked something.
>> we discussed it I know a couple times.
who are the other partners besides us?
>> so it's the county and is city, the downtown Austin community court, the Austin downtown alliance is a strong partner, atcic is a strong partner.
they are providing the treatment, yes, that's important.
>> ttcic stands for.
>> Austin-Travis County integral care, the old mhmr.
>> the city's contribution is.
>> $397,000.
93,000.
and then we're requesting funding for 150,000 to augment that.
>> any other contributions?
>> and then does d.a.a.
provide funding?
>> just my time and energy.
>> okay.
so if we -- let's say that the program is funded, what would be the implementation date?
>> October 1st.
we have actually been working with our partners and with the purchasing department and we have come up with a finalized interlocal that we would scoot beginning October 1st if it is funded.
we have something ready to go.
>> roger, can you talk about the expected -- the expected performance measured because we have for some time been frustrated in our efforts because we bring folks into this wonderful program but only 40 to 50% does it stick on.
and that's for understandable reasons.
this is a very, very difficult population that has years of issues that built up that we are attempting to unravel.
so I don't in any way say that the effort is wasted.
I'm trying to figure out how to make the effort more productive because I feel based on the statistics that we're seeing that some folks are not likely to succeed in this program and we might be able to do -- and from what I understand the way it's being retooled, we will do a better job of identifying those who would be most able to grab that brass ring and get hauled out of the ditch.
>> there's two things.
obviously a program like this you want to see a reduction in recidivism and for this group that includes not coming back to jail, these are frequent users of the jail, or at least lengthing the time before they come back because these are the people who come back multiple times in a year.
I think what is going to make this program much stronger and as we learned as a community over the last three, four years, we need to instead of targeting based on charge, that's not the right way, target using an evidence based assessment tool that identifies the people that have co-occurring mental health issues and substance abuse issues who would most benefit from the residential treatment.
this is the only residential treatment option that we have in Travis County for the mentally ill, substance abusers who are frequent residents of the jail.
and the other thing that is we think going to have a huge impact is the availability of housing.
like you said, Commissioner, these folks are essentially homeless, and so when they get out of the residential piece of the program, they are lost in the ether.
we'll have an opportunity to provide if they need it transitional, emergency transitional housing, or, and this is even better, permanent supportive housing which is a permanent place to live with the associated supports like treatment, case management and other things.
so we anticipate getting better outcomes based on recidivism based on enhanced components.
>> what we're looking for and I can't stress this enough and I know I'm preaching to the choir, it's more about folks watching us tangle with this issue is that what we're shooting for is a higher number of participants successfully completing and a resituated victim rate that is further reduced because right now we're cutting it in half rather than being arrested four, five, six times a year.
>> but you are right, the goal would be not only to length then time but for some of those folks to provide them a stability that would keep them off the street and out of the jail permanently, hopefully.
>> what's the new name?
>> new improved
>> [indiscernible].
>> I think it needs another name because it was on the work sheet and project recovery and to be honest we heard so much neglect I have about it over the last year until -- it's hard to check it.
>> we've actually spoke about that notion and we will -- they are still naming the building over there so we'll see how that shakes out.
I wanted to say that it's not just the housing, it's the type of housing.
and we have been housing people, but unfortunately there haven't been supports linked to the housing.
and maybe if we are successful with this urban institute application we'll be able to utilize those supports that people need.
so it really ties in well with our overall goal in criminal justice.
>> we have an allocated reserve one-time money plus ongoing?
>> that's correct.
the current allocated reserve is 8,953,199, which of 3.8 million of that is ongoing.
I would just say that on this project, as other projects, as you kind of revamp those, we normally recommend that you fund with one-time funding and we reevaluate through f.y.
12 if you decide to go ahead and appropriate funds.
>> I second the motion to do just that.
Commissioner Gomez's motion.
$150,000 one-time money, allocated reserve, to fund project recovery, put in parenthesis new name, and in my view any time is better than project recovery.
Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, thank you, judge.
I really want to be very, very careful and cautious of what we're doing and I think all of us are, I'm no different than anybody else sitting on this dais, that we get the bang for the buck.
and really, you know, there is a lot of different programs where we deal with the mentally challenged persons in the community.
and, of course, we know that even the jail appears to even be a situation where we have mentally -- persons that are there.
so, of course, if they are out and dealing with other type situations, of course, it would be a cost savings all across the board.
I'm interested more than anything else on the cost savings, and I'm going to hit on performance because if we're spending dollars again and we have different components of dealing with the mentally challenged population in Travis County, I want to make sure that what we do there is an outstanding performance report to show that we are making a difference in what we're doing.
and it's -- the judge even stated earlier, the recovery kind of had a negative connotation somewhere along the line and, of course, if we're going to do some things as far as investing -- investing taxpayers' dollars, I want to make sure we get the bang out of the buck.
so I'm very -- I don't know when you report, I understand that October is the deadline for a lot of these things and I applaud you for what you do and what we're doing to try to fund that, but I'm very, very -- I want to be very, very up front with you on this is that I would like to really see performance reports on the evidence of what we're doing across the board as far as assisting these mountainly challenged persons that we're dealing with.
and it means a lot to me and I'm just -- I'm speaking for Ron Davis but I'm quite sure the court has a similar sentiment when it comes to spending taxpayers' dollars.
so I want you to understand where I'm coming from.
>> well, I definitely do.
unfortunately it's -- when you look at this marriage of mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, there's not a lot of information out there about how much of an impact on recidivism there can be.
there is a lot of information about substance abuse alone and then there's some about mental health.
but reducing recidivism in a criminal justice population, my concern is that people sometimes expect that to be an a when it's just not the right way to evaluate these programs. My hope is that we can always improve any program that we have.
and I've been working on improve ing this program for two years.
but I will tell knew all honesty, even the best programs in this country, the drop in recidivism is not going to be 50, 60%.
it just doesn't happen that way.
>> what do you expect then?
>> huh?
>> what can the court expect?
>> I can only tell you that we will do our best to prevent recidivism, I do it every day, I just don't want the court to have unrealistic expectations.
I think probably the best thing we can do is give you information and have an evaluation done at project recovery by someone who is not an epidemiologist but rather a person that evaluates criminal justice programs. Because the city evaluation, and they did as good a job as they could, but it was not by someone who is accustomed to evaluating these kinds of programs.
>> Commissioner Davis, we have the capacity now in criminal justice planning and we could take that on and evaluate the program and come back to you before we request any additional funding for f.y.
13.
>> I would really appreciate that because, again, I don't want to be redundant on what I'm saying, repetitive, but at the end of the day we're going to have to get some type of measuring device to see if the tax dollars we're proposing to be spent is really hitting the bullseye.
and the only way we can do it is measure.
that's the only way I know how to deal is to measure.
>> we could do that for you.
>> okay, I appreciate that.
>> I second your concern, Commissioner.
we only have limited dollars and so we have to assure the public that the limited dollars we are using are truly working.
and because a little bit less than half of the participants are actually completing, I'm less -- although I am concerned about the recidivism rate, I'm less concerned about that than the lack of -- than our selection process that could be squandering as much as half on people who are not equipped to absorb the benefits of the program.
>> right.
>> but I would very much like planning and -- I'm sorry, justice planning to take a look at the program over the next year and -- I'm sorry, I know you are ready to vote, but I would like to finish the sentence.
>> I don't know that we're making any progress.
>> they've already agreed to do evaluation for us.
>> I'm hoping this sentence will be useful.
>> what is it?
>> I will tell you what that loose sentence is.
>> please do.
>> we are attempting to have a integrated approach to those folks so perhaps a stand alone project like project recovery for a specific offense as you claim, as you asserted is not appropriate.
it may be that we absorb this program into other streams that justice planning is looking at as well.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> appreciate it very much.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> yes, I had submitted a request relative to staffing and operating costs for my office.
I know that everybody on this dais takes seriously their responsibilities for representing their constituents.
I'm -- I'm -- my office has moved into what I consider an extreme drought as it relates to representation.
I think we need dialogue about our representation, our staffing and our operating costs universally amongst us.
they have not changed since the early 1990s.
each Commissioner gets three staff and has an operating budget of $5,000.
we've doubled in population in Travis County since that was put in place.
and in the redistricting in 2000, precinct 3 ended up with 48, it was significantly increased in size and ended up with 48% of the county.
the recent redistricting only reduced that 3%.
it's still 45% of the county and has not significantly or did not at all really reduce the length and the breadth of that district precinct.
but the killer that happened in redistricting was adding the two downtown precincts.
from i-35 to lamar, from the river to mlk brings a whole new workload to precinct 3.
I'd like to highlight a little bit of the challenges, they are in your backup, that we face in precinct 3, and this is not something new.
when we circulated budget cuts -- as a new Commissioner, it takes a year or so to get your arms around what the work loads and responsibilities are and how they level out.
but as in April I sent a memo to the p.b.o.
when they were requesting budget cuts saying I can't request -- I can't do a budget cut on my $5,000.
I'm not even beginning to cover my mileage costs for my staff in this huge precinct.
we eat it in our office.
personally.
but the redistricting just by way of comparison, our population is still the largest of all precincts at 266,927.
there may with be the subtle changes a 100 person change in some of these but this is the latest I had to work on.
at 266,927, that population is 12,774 people more than precinct 1.
it is 6,314 people more than precinct 2.
and it is 21,354 people more than precinct 4.
and it is one of the fastest growing precincts.
so we're looking at another ten years of fast growth and population growth there.
the precinct -- some comparisons that relate to job load in the office, in addition to just the square mileage that needs to be covered, precinct 3 has 38 to 39.
we share an appointment.
precinct 2 as five and a shared other.
precinct 4 as five.
incorporated municipal naltsdz precinct 3 are 14.
in precinct 1 they are four.
in precinct 2 they are now zero.
and that does not include the city of Austin, by the way.
in precinct 4 is 2.
14 municipalities, 14 sets of elected officials for this Commissioner to work with.
we have four chambers of commerce equivalents.
this does not include the greater Austin chamber of commerce.
two in precinct 1, one in precinct 2, zero in precinct 4.
that I'm aware of.
school districts.
which require a significant amount of attention particularly as it relates to transportation.
precinct -- this does not include aisd.
precinct 4 -- precinct 3 has six school districts.
precinct 1 has four.
precinct 2 has four.
precinct 4 as one.
boards and commissions that I serve on in representing my constituents.
it's a little hard to get everybody's but based upon the agenda backup that we had when we last reviewed our appointments at the court, I have 18 boards and commissions that I serve on.
precinct 1 has ten.
precinct 2 has three.
and precinct 4 has 13.
this does not include the road districts or the corporations of the court.
and there are also subcommittees that are very active on some of those boards and commissions.
the downtown workload I would like to say -- and I'm happy to have the downtown.
it's very important part of our community.
but we need to be sure that we are adequately represented when we're working with the people in our precinct.
the downtown workload adds these kinds of categories of work that have not been significant to precinct 3 before now.
the downtown transportation issues, working with cap metro.
right now cap metro does not have -- before redistricting cap metro did not have a huge presence in precinct 3.
it's huge with the mobility issues.
the urban bail, the bike and pedestrian issues downtown, parking issues downtown, other interest groups and significant issues of importance.
historic preservation, economic development, the parks and rec on town lake issues.
it's huge.
and I really feel like in order for us to adequately represent precinct 3, I'm requesting an additional staffing person at the administrative level.
right now we don't even have a full-time committed administrative staff person.
we share those needs amongst my three staff persons and myself.
because we are always out in the field doing things.
also I am requesting an additional mileage budget increase to cover -- and I have to say thank you jim derrbberry for catching my math error.
I have distributed the revised memo.
I multiplied way to -- my two requests are, and I had asked p.b.o.
what possible source of funds might be available for the staffing and he said throw it out there.
if the court feels it's worth pursuing, we'll find the funds for it.
so I'm requesting an annual f.t.e.
administrative level person, the total costs including salary benefits at 49,291.
and I'm requesting an additional $8,000 for mileage.
which is very much on the low end.
and I would like to say that one of my staff does use public transportation when she can.
there is very little public transportation out into my area so we must use a vehicle to get out there.
when we can, we check out a county vehicle.
county vehicles aren't available at night and much of our efforts with homeowners associations and local meetings are in the evening.
when laurie does bring her car, then we have to deal with parking issues because we haven't -- don't have a permanent arrangement for that.
so I just feel very -- I'm very concerned for precinct 3 and the ability to -- to have the staff to appropriately cover it.
it is significantly larger on many fronts from a representation standpoint.
so I throw that out there and I would move that when -- is it appropriate for a motion?
>> no, ma'am.
we'll recognize you in a minute though.
any response from p.b.o.?
you may want to stay out of this fray, mr. Nellis.
I see you frowning there.
I guess I'm opposed to the request for the additional f.t.e.
but I'm not opposed to us having some sort of survey done of the needs of the four Commissioners at Travis County.
if we use the rationale that I've heard today, instead of having one more person than the rest of the Commissioners, the county judge would have four or five more.
I think there is workload datethat that we try to collect that justifies the staffing that we have.
and I don't think it's good that our staff has been the same for the 21 years we've been on Commissioners court but it's a fact there is.
so if the time has come to increase staff, I think we look at all of the needs of all of the members of the Commissioners court.
in my view, the mileage reimbursement policy that covers the 4600 county employees would also cover ours.
and so if our line item is exhausted, then we take money from allocated reserve and we basically reimburse employees the mileage that they use while conducting county business.
and it's always been that way.
I guess I'm not opposed to if we track this for the year and we come up short, then it seems to me that that request should go to planning and budget next year, but the coverage now is in allocated reserve.
so whether that amount is $100 or 100,000, you are out there conducting county business and using your vehicle, you submit a mileage reimbursement request, then we ought to honor it and as far as I know we do that.
they are out there doing duties and responsibilities for the county and so we reimburse them.
and when I looked at the workload data that we have collected, I don't think the case is made.
and I asked p.b.o.
to do that for me.
I didn't know what would show up, to share that with other members of the Commissioners court.
but we do -- we conduct our offices differently and we are elected officials and we have a right to do that.
some of us get a whole lot more phone calls, some of us get a whole lot more visits.
when I was Commissioner, I spent a whole lot of time at meetings in the precinct.
I don't think I ever submitted a request for reimbursement for travel in Travis County.
every time I left the county, once or twice a year, I submitted a mileage reimbursement form, but if I would have done that it would have been justified under our policy and I don't think there would have been anything wrong with me doing that.
that's my position on that.
any other comments before we get Commissioner Huber's motion?
>> I would like to make it clear I have not submitted any mileage requests.
it's my staff primarily that -- that I don't think it's fair for them to be paying mileage out of their pockets.
>> I agree.
but now your geography is a lot greater.
so if you are traveling inordinately, our policy covers you.
and I never had any problem with that.
and if there's not enough money in the department's line item, we cover with allocated reserve.
we ought to keep doing that.
>> I think the Commissioner's point has been that since she didn't have the appropriate amount in her mileage reimbursement account, she was hesitant to have her employees claiming that amount.
and what I hear you saying, judge, is that the -- all of the members of the court, if in fact their staff are traveling on official Travis County business, they ought to be turning in those mileage reimbursements and we can look at it on a monthly basis.
they don't have the fund in any of their accounts, then we'll bring it to court to get some allocated reserve allocated to reimburse those employees.
is that what I'm hearing?
>> that's the policy.
I think this shouldn't be new.
that cheryl burnett just a restatement of our policy -- that should be a restatement of our policy.
we can't pay them if they are not submitted.
and if the employees have misunderstood the policy and not submitted mileage reimbursement requests, then we ought to make that clear.
I don't, but that doesn't mean my staff should no.
and typically I know when they are out conducting county business at my request.
and if they do that routinely, then I would expect them, you know, not daily but certainly biweekly or monthly to submit a request for reimbursement.
>> I think I'm where judge Biscoe is, and I guess what we could start doing then is having my staff, if they do county business submit their travel.
so far it's all been done and they say it's for public service.
and so -- but if we need to do that, I mean we'll do that.
>> that does not include going down to the restaurant for lunch though.
>> no, no, it doesn't.
>> that is leaving the office goings out to someplace in the precinct or the county or another county for that matter but on county business.
I think -- I think the public would expect us to reimburse employees for that expense.
I don't have any problem with it.
>> any other comments before we -- Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> think it would do us some good to take a look at our relative staffing levels and the extent to which we have the possibility of shared workload.
for instance, there -- we have often discussed the possibility of the public information officers, which in my opinion would greatly alleviate some of the load on our individual staff to get information that is noncontroversial but exceedingly important information out to the public.
so rather than duplicating effort in five separate offices, we could have shared personnel that was doing that.
when we move into 700 lavaca, also because of the physical plant, I anticipate that there will be a shared receptionist, which will also alleviate some of the burdens on our offices.
I think it would do us some good to take a look at that possibility, but also to take a look at the overall numbers of staff in each one of our offices and what's driving that staff activity.
because I -- I am sympathetic to Commissioner Huber's concerns, the workload in her office with 17% more population than the other precincts until we did redistricting, certainly there's reason to believe there was a great deal more traffic.
similarly, in precinct 4 with -- before redistricting with the reduced population could explain why one of the f.t.e.
slots in precinct 4 has been vacant since 2006.
>> I've utilized it for intern.
>> but nevertheless --
>> so we wouldn't have to ask for new money.
>> there's been a f.t.e.
slot among Commissioners court that's been vacant for five years.
so we might want to look at a redistribution of our collective personnel.
because there are some shared activities that are noncontroversial but are extremely important to the county's functioning and because we have become a much denser populated county with some much more complicated issues, I believe that we have the opportunity to have some shared resources among the Commissioners court and alleviate some of the duplicated efforts.
I think it's worthy of looking at, taking a deeper look at it for the next budget year.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> when I came on board with the county, I didn't know exactly how things were going to work out.
just staffing and things of that nature.
and, of course, being a rookie at that time I had the persons that were in there before as far as the budget was concerned, I had some salary savings in my office because I brought in staff much lower than the previous staff were being paid.
so I had salary savings.
and, of course, during that time, during the next budget cycle, since I had salary savings, I returned those salary savings to the general fund.
and since that time we came -- the court entertained a situation to look at, I think, $5,000 per Commissioner as far as a cap the concerned, per Commissioner on this court, and judge, I was trying to remember, you had more employees so your cap was a little higher.
>> are you sure about that, Commissioner?
>> yes, sir, I think it was six or seven.
I think it was $6,000 back then.
I can't remember.
but that's what we had to deal with as far as our operating budget for those offices.
and, of course, it's been at $5,000 since then, what we've ended up doing was try to work around a lot of situations to deal with just that.
now, it may be that -- and I know the workload has increased.
I know that.
a lot of growth has taken place.
however, we've tried to adjust the best we can with the workload that comes forth.
so, you know, a request is a request is a request and each particular office is operated differently, but we try to stay within what -- and if the court wants to establish a new policy, that's up to the court, but we did establish a cap on the operating costs per each member of the Commissioners court.
and, of course, the judge was also involved with that cap.
so maybe that needs to be revisited, I don't know.
but I do know there has been a significant increase in workload for all of us and that's because of the fact that growth has taken place and there's a lot of things going on and, of course, even in the redistricting effort a lot of things going on.
one part of the city all went to the wilson county line is significant.
but again we're going to try to make the adjustments the best we can with what we have to deal with and that's the way we normally have tried to do is make the adjustments.
I just wanted to throw that in, not trying to put anybody done, but just a statement of fact.
so I just wanted to lay that out as is.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I would just like to say before I make a motion that the information that was submitted for each precinct's backup, which was part of the budget process and recap, is really kind of apples and oranges.
and if we're going forward with this dialogue, which I think is important because it's have appropriate staffing to represent our constituents, and I think part of that would be stabbing at least some common criteria amongst offices for purposes of tracking and making evaluation.
secondly, I want to say, you know, we can agree to disagree and I'm going to make this motion almost symbolically because I'm sure it's going to fail because of last of a second, but I want my people of precinct 3 to know I'm trying to get the resource to serve you well.
so I move that we -- that we have -- that we allocate a new administrative position for the precinct 3 offices, the f.t.e.
costs would be $49,291.
>> is there a second?
that motion dies for lack of a second.
let's give the court a one paragraph summary of our policy on mileage reimbursement after working with hrmd and our budget.
so if I am mistaken we can correct that.
okay?
judge williams, do you feel like joining the fray?
>> may I ask what is the budget rule on vacant spots?
are they swept after a period of time they've been vacant?
>> the vacant slots currently remain in the target budget and as Commissioner Gomez, she utilizes those vacancy savings to hire interns I think from st.
edwards or acc?
>> in precinct 4.
>> because we have had issues in other departments with slots that have remained vacant for years which causes me some concern.
>> we have -- we have furnished in the past we have furnished the court with a summary of those positions that have been vacant for the length of times that they've been vacant, and we may want to -- if in fact the majority of the court wants to look into that, we may want to integrate that into the f.y.
13 guidelines that you give us for the next budget.
>> we might want to highlight it further, but we do currently ask departments to report and we write that up in our budget documents and in the black book documents what the report is on the vacancies and why those positions have been vacant.
I believe -- I'm not sure, is it three months?
180 days.
>> there should be a writeup in the black book for any lot that's been vacant for more than 180 days.
>> again, I don't want to be punished for not going over my budget.
I have a lot, yeah, and I could hire someone full time, but I'm going to wait until I feel like we have the workload that will -- that will deal with that because I certainly don't want people to believe too that you come to Travis County to work and you don't have to do anything but sit.
twiddle thumbs.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> come on, you know, let me finish here.
I want to make sure that we have something for people to do.
now, I was saving money and I've always turned money back into the county.
I don't overspend my budget or spend more than what I have budgeted.
and I think that I'm being creative.
instead of utility liesing liesingthat -- utilizing that fa permanent position, we bring in interns from st.
edwards to try to learn more about county government as well as high school students in precinct 4.
and one of these days, you know, if I need to, I'll fill that position.
but I think that I have utilized the money wisely and efficiently and I do not want to be punished for performing well and taking care of the people's money.
>> and I'm not suggest that.
>> that's what happened.
>> but we do have temporary employee line items as well as an intern line item.
>> speaking of temporary salary savings, judge williams made reference to $30,000 that she had generated.
what's the nature of that and where is that 30,000 today?
that question is not to me, is it?
>> you are
>> [indiscernible].
>> the $30,000 is right now in judge williams' line item for permanent salaries.
and it's vacancy savings.
basically when she took over in this position, judge scott had left several vacancies open to allow here to hire the folks she wanted and so during the times those positions were vacant, those funds have stayed in the budget till the end of the fiscal year.
what happens at the end of the fiscal year is any temporary funds just go to ending fund balance and then go in the mix to -- into the beginning fund balance for next fiscal year.
>> okay, so that $30,000 is in her budget today, but it's targeted for --
>> [indiscernible].
>> yes, sir.
>> so if by action today we vote to leave that 30,000 in your budget, that will help you meet some of your needs, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and if we were to authorize that, how would you use the 30,000?
>> what I would do is I would give the -- I would make sure that I had my executive position would be funded --
>> what position?
>> the senior planner position.
I have the need for some programming -- when I say programming, I want to bring on board a position, and I have an opening, but my opening is funded at 32 to 34,000.
and I want to bring on board someone who can actually do docketing and will be able to work well within the train that we have coming in.
the people that are out there already making 38 and $40,000, in other words, I can't compete, I've tried, I can't compete for that type of position and I need for that position to be funded higher than the entry level which all my entry level clerk 1s are actually $32,000.
I can't find anybody with that kind of experience that's already ongoing that I could get at that rate.
so I need to be able to put that rate higher.
>> okay.
we have authorized the use of salary savings midyear by various departments as long as they didn't exceed whatever their budget was.
>> what has happened is same discussion about vacancies where a department has a vacancy, they can utilize those temporary salary savings to backfill for that vacancy.
I think what the judge is asking for is a permanent allocation of 30,000 so that she can augment her senior planner position to a salary level she can hire at and then I'm not sure what the other details are.
>> and then I need someone who actually knows what to do when it comes to actually putting together the docketing.
I need a docketing clerk who can also schedule and docket at the same time.
to get better control of my docketing.
you know that we're about to be, I guess the word is forced, to take on these -- the toll cases, and in order to do all of these things efficiently, I need to have better docketing.
when I look at docketing, and I've been with a docketing setting for years and years from my experience with the state, and those people make much more than $32,000.
I need to be able to augment and bring those people in.
it would still be under 40.
it wouldn't just be outrageous.
I think it would fit within the county programming.
>> so you are looking to augment the salaries of two slots?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and one is the senior planner for which you had come earlier in the year for --
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and the other jps were against that because they were concerned that they would not have a similar slot in their precinct.
>> no, they were against it because I was asking for money out of juvenile case maker fund and we've been instructed and p.b.o.
has -- I've made this request of p.b.o.
and they rejected because they said not unless all five jps are in accordance with how the juvenile case manager's plan would be used that we can't approve that and it was only tore that reason.
I can't access that fund.
>> my understanding was, though, there is not a similarly situated senior planner at that pay scale in the other jps.
>> so true.
they also don't have a program that's been proven so far from a purview or any other universities that I have going on when it comes to truancy.
I've taken truancy head on.
I'm doing truancy work that nobody has done before and I'm not trying to ring my bell, what I'm doing is not actually rocket science.
I'm just plunging in and doing it and you can't do that without the kind of networking that this person would bring on board, without the kind of decision-making at the executive level that this position would bring on board.
>> piloting with the other j ps so if it shows real dividends it could be repeated in the other jps.
>> not only that --
>> but the question is have you?
>> oh, yes, I've brought it you up.
but again we come back to everybody is an elected official, if they don't have to do it, we've discussed that.
but we get into the proprietary whose ground is this and whose ground is that.
so I've backed off that, but when I first made the initial recommendation, I said we could even make precinct 1 kind of a hub and then start to
>> [indiscernible] out.
I'll tell you just as a matter of fact we have neighborhood folks who are coming through and who are looking at what we are doing over there and they are running around over there to the other jps saying when are you going to do this too.
>> we have deficiencies she has position-wise in her capacity to make sure they are made whole.
and I guess the $30,000 would make them whole if they were able to use it and not be swept to beginning fund balance.
>> yes, sir.
>> for next fiscal year 13.
so you are asking us -- your request is asking us to retain the $30,000 in permanent salary for you to use at your discretion to deal with your shortcomings.
>> yes.
>> is that correct?
>> yes, sir.
but my staff else tells me when we have folks who go over the 60 hours that automatically their pay must come out of this too.
so it's not just that.
there's another item that's out there too where people who are over 60 --
>> but the 30,000 augment -- but the $30,000 to augment whatever those things are.
>> all of those.
>> right.
and it's your discretion where you want to plug that money.
>> yes, sir.
>> I have no problem with that.
I'd move approval.
>> I'll second that.
seems to me, judge williams inherited a budget and we ought to give her an opportunity to use the full budget.
I don't know how much you can get done with the $30,000, but as an elected official I think we ought to leave that intact.
and what it means I think is I don't know how much of the plan you can implement with it, but compared to zero it's a significant amount is why I second it.
I -- I hope that I would feel the same way if it were any other elected official whether justice of the peace or any other elected official of Travis County.
>> could I clarify or -- are you suggesting that the permanent salary savings be to her --
>> my second is to leave the $30,000 in her budget in there are for f.y.
2012.
so not rolled into the year end balance but to leave it there.
if it's one-time money, it's one-time money.
>> that will create a structural imbalance for f.y.
12.
if she is increasing salary in permanent employees.
>> we'll deal with that next budget cycle.
>> judge, may i?
>> that's what we did when there is a structural problem.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I am concerned about the structural imbalance because with the addition of with even a one-time conversion of this temporary salary savings to ongoing, that's a $30,000 increase in what I'm assuming is the civil personnel portion of her budget.
is that correct?
this is the civil personnel portion?
>> I don't know which --
>> actually it's a combination.
>> because just from looking at the preliminary budget, that would -- and this is a ratcheting effect that I've been concerned about with the constables on the criminal side, we see all kind of lurch iness on the criminal side with criminal personnel.
it goes from a low of 469,000 in precinct 3 -- I'm sorry, 491,000 in precinct 1 to a high of 1,207,000 in precinct 2.
so clearly there's some pretty significant differences in criminal personnel among the -- the -- among the jps.
but in civil personnel it's been pretty stable and the 380 to 390 mark.
an addition of another 30,000 on top of civil personnel will create, I believe, a ratcheting effect of all the constables -- all of the jp's wanting a higher salary level in their personnel.
>> Commissioner, we divide them up and divvy them up and that's also noted in this revenue reduction on another issue, but a lot of this is criminal.
it's coming for use in my juvenile dockets.
it's also going to be used in just my general tickets and trial dockets.
in other words, when we talk about docketing, that's where most of the docketing is.
there is a lot of docketing on the civil side too, evictions, I have two straight days, but there is a lot of criminal docketing that goes on and this person, these personnel would be used there.
>> I'm concerned that we will have a ratcheting effect with the other jps that I would prefer to have a more unified approach.
>> but the jps budgets do vary greatly and we have not during the budget process looked at individual felts of ftes ofthe overall budget, just looked at requests.
if another jp would have come in and made a similar request, my position would be the same, grant it.
it gives $30,000 of flexibility to a elect official with a fairly small budget.
>> but my understanding is that your second to the motion would be to establish temporary funds in jp 1s budget for f.y.
12.
that would not allow her to do a salary augmentation to those two positions because you can't do salary augmentations with temporary funds.
so I don't think it addresses what the judge is asking.
>> well, she would have to come back to court probably, unless it's routine, shelled have do come back and get our approval on whatever the specifics are and at that point we deal with them if we approve this.
>> right.
>> but if a elect official comes up with a rather modest request and wants to use the funds more creatively than they've been used in the past and has been in office less than a year, it seems to me we ought to try to accommodate the elected official.
but either we'll approve it or we won't.
any more discussion of the motion?
>> I'm going to support this because I'm in favor of creativity and I don't want to punish departments, especially small departments, I don't want people punished for people with small constituents.
I understand this is a little out of the norm for the way we handle rules, I'm for the rules, I'm not for pitching them out, but I'm also for creativity and we'll deal with it later.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioner Gomez, yours truly and Commissioner Davis voting in favor, against Commissioner Eckhardt and Commissioner Huber.
let me ask a question.
if I had $15,000 in salary savings would you have discretion or authority to use that or would I come to the court?
>> if you have a vacant position, any department has a vacant position and they are backfilling that vacancy with either interns or temporary employees, we authorize -- the budget rules authorize us to do a transfer to temporary salarys.
and my understanding on the emotion that you just approved was that jp 1 will have $30,000 worth of temporary salaries in her budget $30,000 as a result of this motion.
she will bring back specific recommendations for any salary increases to permanent employees on a Tuesday in f.y.
12 to get the court to approve because that's the only way you can get a permanent salary increase.
>> unless hrmd finds that to be routine.
now, I circulated yesterday, judge, that's the best we can do, I think.
>> my temporary, I have two temps that have been designated to go and we need them.
this doesn't address that.
>> those are the ones on the fax?
>> yes, ma'am.
that was never dealt -- you give me the two tense.
temps.
>> how do we show they generate dollars?
>> we have it here.
there's an attached program, what they've been doing with all of the casework divvied up.
they've put that all down right now we have them contributing and we calculated the 2012 revenue projection that is eight ftes by the two and what they did is when we came out with it, we ended up with 235 is what they were actually generating compared to the rest of the office.
in other words, what he did was he took the projections that the office is generating from each person because we use these people, we use all of them and they are also be used for the criminal cases.
and we looked at what they were getting out of it and we ended up with $235,000 that they are actually generating.
now, there's other things that they are supposed to be doing and that they are doing that's ongoing clean up that has to be done that if they are not there, my supervisor's staff has to do it and that's why we have people going over 60 hours when it comes to comp time because these people are spending all this time doing it.
we need --
>> p.b.o., any response?
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> the revenue for jp 1 is very similar in the fourth revenue estimate to the current revenue under fy '11.
so it's likely less.
>> so as to revenue are we saying no, this is not true or are we saying we don't know?
>> we're saying that the county auditor has not reduced jp 1's projected revenue for fy '12 based upon these two facts, cleanup clerks.
and I assume that what's happening is that the judges' workload has increased and that internally they adjusted those positions to doing other things, you know -- the budget manual clearly presents that if, in fact, there's revenue-related fte request, that they turn in that information to the auditor's office during the budget cycle and that if, in fact, it were revenue neutral -- I mean, if the auditor were to certify $200,000 for two clerks, it would be revenue neutral and we would have gone forward with it.
however, that did not happen during the budget cycle.
>> so this request was not given to the auditor's office?
>> not to the auditor's office.
>> that's where the revenue -- the auditor certifies revenue and we --
>> is it too late to do that between now and next week, susan?
what if we have a chat with the auditor, then?
I mean seems to me that if -- this is a fact it makes a big difference.
>>
>> [inaudible] judge.
>> yeah, why don't we do that and delay consideration of this.
that would be a big deal, I would think.
>> okay.
>> now, there is a -- there is an air quality issue of $12,500 that I want to discuss this afternoon.
we probably ought to get ms. Noel present, mr. Manila.
it kind of results from state cuts but it's a big deal for the region.
with that I move that we recess till 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
this morning we were discussing item number 20 before we got the lunch motion and I did want to raise for our consideration a request from the transportation and national resources department, and ms. Noel, I don't know if you got the emails one from mr. Mccoy saying we had been under 75 parts per billion, looks like we are at 75 now, but the email I got this morning at 10:00 from miss mccoy of campo says that, and andrew at capcog said pretty much the same information.
the issue is tceq's funding to the different cogs for air quality was cut and we are part of that and these monitors are very important and we need funding for three or four, right?
>> that is correct.
>> and basically at the meeting of the clean air coalition, we talked about us partnering and trying to come up with these monitors and the costs for one for Travis County would be $12,500?
>> that is correct.
>> and so my request would be that we basically put an earmark against allocated reserve for that amount of money until the other partners kind of come up with their contribution.
can you just explain to us the importance of these monitors?
>> yes, I can, especially this particular monitor.
this one is located in a state park of mckinney falls, and it monitors or registers ozone transport from other areas outside of the -- outside of Travis County.
and if we do not fund this monitor in 2012, if we don't collect the data for it, it's gone, it's lost forever.
you cannot go back and re-create the monitoring data.
with Travis County being on the edge of nonattainment we need this data to help develop effective control strategies for this area.
>> how long have we been working on this air quality, pollution issue?
since I believe 1998.
>> okay.
>> it has been threatened to this area.
it's important to remember that ten years ago we were at 85 parts per billion.
we are making headway but we just need to make more.
>> how many monitors do we have?
>> we have two monitors that are what I call are e.p.a.
monitors, that those are the ones they actually use for designating an area for nonattainment.
the our information monitors are capcog monitors that are used to develop control strategies for this area.
>> so two regulatory monitors.
>> yes.
>> and the importance of them is when you argue like our argument is that we generate some of this pollution in Travis County, but a whole lot of it comes from outside Travis County and it's beyond our control.
where the monitors can really help you stab that fact.
>> correct.
-- establish that fact.
>> correct.
>> part of our defense is you've got to give us time.
the lower you set that standard, really the more time we need to work down to it because we've been doing all we could to stay at 75 or below, but pollution is coming from down south, coming from southeast, coming from north on occasion, who knows where else.
where these monitors help you document it and the importance of andrew's deal here is that it does kind of show you the specific information.
but at the clean air coalition meeting what we discussed was if in fact we don't get the funding restored, then we need to do partner and get the money necessary to get the monitors that we need.
>> and tceq has cut the funding by over $200,000 for this coming year.
>> is that for our region?
>> or for the whole state?
>> I second the judge's motion.
>> I just wanted to ditto how important the transport air monitoring is.
the white stallion resolution we passed if that were to go forward would really contribute to our ozone quality problem and being able to continuously monitor this is critical.
>> how do we determine based on having -- the other monitors is on the i-35 corridor, correct?
how do we -- do we use deductive reasoning to figure out the likely local point source contribution as compared to the overall ambient?
>> well, the requirements for the e.p.a.
monitors are established by e.p.a.
there's a long set of rules and requirements.
I can send that to you if you like.
>> I have read in stuff and I'm wondering if it's coming off these two monitors that about 30% of our -- 30% of our particulate -- or I guess it's particulate or co 2 and nox is home grown and the remainder is coming in from elsewhere.
>> that's the benefit of the monitors, registering of transport.
it shows what's coming in.
>> well, you don't get a good feel for the level of the problem until you start looking at the data and seeing it come in especially during ozone season.
>> based upon these monitors, it's showing that approximately 60% of the bad air emissions that come into our area are transports.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> we have couple little cleanups, contribution is 15,130, so we would correct that.
the motion was made for 150,000 and the request is actually 150,527.
so I'd ask you all to -- if the intent was to fund the request, which I think it was.
the other thing is that one of the things we talked about in markup was the -- for the court to make a motion to authorize the departments that have new positions approved during markup procedure, to go ahead and post those positions especially where we're trying to cut down on overtime and things to get the recruitment process started.
so if the court is gradually the authorizing -- by the time they get it posted it will be October 1, but they need to get started on all the positions you all have approved.
>> move approval of recommendation to authorize immediate posting.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
what's the difference for project recovery?
the difference?
>> that --
>> $527.
>> move that we add $527 to the amount approved this morning for project recovery and the new name.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
source of funding for that allocated reserve?
>> that's correct.
and we just received a note from the county attorney that the total amount from capso will be $30,000 including the 18,351 for the underaged drinking and 11,649 for the county contribution.
>> 30,000 --
>> is the total amount.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, we have 18,351 in the fourth revenue estimate so we'll put an additional 11,649 in.
>> all you have to do is ask mr. Hilly if you want that money increased.
>> is that in addition to the 15,000?
>> the 11,649 is in addition to the 18,351.
that's the county attorney's.
and the district attorney was 15,130.
>> anything else on item number 20?
should we have it same language next week?
>> we do need the same language next week.
>> okay.
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.
