Backup_ATCFPB_2a. Travis County Budget Present_ation_07.12.21 — original pdf

Backup

Travis County Budget Process September Budget Markup and Budget Adoption August Select Budget Hearings July Prelimina ry Budget Published February Budget Guide- lines Budget Cycle (Feb – Sept) Budget Meetings with Depts. June March Budget Kickoff Dpts. Budget Submiss- ions Due April PBO review Budget Submissi ons May Travis County Budget Cycle 2 Budget Guidelines       Economic & Legislative Outlook Budget Considerations Five-Year Financial Forecast Strategies to Help Mitigate SB2 Budget Preparation Guidance Budget Calendar 3 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS Budget drivers represent projected expenditures that, unless other direction by Commissioners Court is provided, will require additional funds to be made available either through significant reallocations of existing County resources or by the addition of new ongoing resources. These include: • Workforce Investments • Interlocal Agreements • Facility/Technology Investments • Operating costs related to voter approved projects • Statutory requirements 4 Key Dates for FY 2022 Budget Calendar Date Event March 31 April 2 April 12 April 12 April 26 May 27 April – June June Week of July 26 August 18-23 September 2 and 3 September 21 September 28 Budget Kickoff Meeting at 10:00 A.M. FMD Submissions Due All Other Administrative Support Department Requests External Requests due to Submitting Department Budgets Due to PBO by 5:00 P.M. Employee Public Hearing (time TBD) PBO review of County Budget Submissions Departmental Meetings with PBO Preliminary Budget Published Potential Select Budget Hearings (If Requested by Commissioners Court) Budget Mark-Up FY 2022 Tax Rate Adopted FY 2022 Budget Adopted 5 Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (LFRF) Allocation under American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)  Travis County’s allocation is $247,450,630.  Allowable Uses:  Expenses eligible for use by the LFRF are either:  explicitly eligible;  implicitly eligible.  Implicitly eligible expenses must:  explicitly eligible if the expense occurs in or supports residents of a qualified census tract; or  Identify a need or negative impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency; AND  Identify how the program, service, or other intervention addresses the identified need or impact.  “Eligible use under this category must be in response to the disease itself or the harmful consequences of the economic disruptions resulting from or exacerbated by the COVID-19 public health emergency” – Interim Final Rule  LFRF funds are all one-time funds. Any potential ongoing needs will need to be planned for over time. County staff in consultation with the County’s consultant, Guidehouse, are reviewing all potential uses for LFRF for eligibility determination. 6 Allocation Framework w/Community Engagement FY 2021 $123.5MM y a M 1 2 0 2 $123.5MM FY 2022 FY 2023 y a M 2 2 0 2 FY 2024 FY 2025 c e D 4 2 0 2 Collaborative Community Engagement Planning and Implementation TRACK 1 Programs started with CRF Funds • Moves forward immediately (June 2021-September 2022) • Second year of funding depending upon community feedback Food distribution/food insecurity Workforce development TCTX Serve – Nonprofit assistance (incl childcare) TCTX Thrive – Small business assistance TRACK 2 Prioritization of New Programs • Major new programs are begun after the community engagement process is complete, approximately January 2022 • Commissioners Court may allocate pre-planning resources prior to completion of community engagement (e.g., community resource navigation) • ARPA funded programs will be evaluated on performance and ability to address community needs. Community resource navigation Water infrastructure Broadband infrastructure Homelessness/housing/ mental health/ Substance use Climate related Marshall Plan Other infrastructure Client centers Other new programs to be identified TRACK 3 County Departments & Offices FY22 Budget Requests • All budget requests with COVID-19 related components will be reviewed for eligibility for ARPA funding 7 Summary of Track 1 Recommendations Program Recommended Amount Recommended County Support Staff Workforce Development COVID Outreach Food Assistance Childcare Assistance Targeted Behavioral Health Support for Homelessness TCTX Serve - Nonprofit Assistance TCTX Thrive – Small Business Assistance Rental Assistance Other Support Staff Total $6,748,968 $600,000 $7,599,006 $2,489,583 $325,000 $5,184,412 $8,000,000 $5,490,065 $1,938,006 $38,375,0401 - - - - - 3 SPWs2 3 SPWs2 19 SPWs2 8 SPWs2 33 SPWs2 1Includes reimbursement of $4,746,656 for eligible FY 2021 General Fund Expenses. This will free up resources within the Central COVID-19 Budget for other needed purposes. 2Recommended term for SPWs and Contracted Temps is for 27 months (July 2021 – September 2023). 8 Summary of Track 2 Recommendations Program Recommended Amount Water Infrastructure Broadband Infrastructure Behavioral Health/Mental Health/Substance Use/Homelessness Community Resource Navigation Total Recommended allocations for these four issue areas are expected to firm up after more due diligence is conducted by county staff and after community engagement is initiated. - $250,000 $250,000 $- $500,000 9 County Direct and Joint Response • Spent $24,379,880 from the CRF on Direct Response expenses including personnel, technology for telework, and PPE. • Spent $7,425,242 from the CRF on Joint Response with the City of Austin from March 2020 to December 2021. • Combined total of $35,564,158 from the CRF. • In addition, County departments have submitted 31 requests totaling $47,096,683 (unverified). It is likely that not all these expenses will be LFRF eligible or recommended by the Planning and Budget Office. Some of these requests may be recommended for funding in the FY 2022 Budget as appropriate. • County will continue to identify applicable sources of funding within ARPA and other funding sources to cover identified or new initiatives. Initial LFRF Programming Program Recommended Amount County Direct/Joint Response FY 2021/2022 Expenses Total $35,000,000 $35,000,000 10 Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Allocation Total Allocation Program Area Track 1 Programs Track 2 Pre-Planning (Initial Recommendations) Track 2 Programs $247,450,630 $38,375,040 $500,000 Amount Percent of Total Awaiting Direction from CC Awaiting Direction from CC Track 3 Programs Year-to-Date Allocations $35,000,000 $73,875,040 Funds Remaining for Court Allocation $173,575,590 100% 15.5% 0.2% 14.1% 29.9% 70.1% 11 Engaging Travis County: Beyond the Budget  Community members and community groups can engage County departments, staff, and elected officials around their needs/issues  Consider engagement outside of specific asks during budget season  To educate/update us on critical and emerging needs, community and population conditions, changes to the local landscape, etc.  To learn about the County’s goals and work  This interchange can help inform County priorities, and better enhance/tailor your recommendations  Shared understanding helps to contextualize your recommendations and requests in future Engaging Departments/Staff in Food Planning  Planning and programs related to food systems and services may span multiple Travis County departments, for example:  Health and Human Services: Family Support Services, Research & Planning  Planning and Budget Office: Economic Development & Strategic Initiatives  Agrilife Extension  Emergency Services  Transportation and Natural Resources  Various parties in justice/public safety systems  Which department(s) to engage will depend on the nature of the issue at hand Engaging Departments/Staff in Food Planning  County departments serve in multiple roles  Funder of purchased community services  Provider of direct services  Institutional purchaser  Set policy and strategic direction  Research, planning, and technical expertise  Community partner/participant in community groups and collaborative tables  County and its Departments may have some shared interests with City of Austin, but will also have their own unique niche, priorities, abilities and limitations  Understanding these overlaps and distinctions leads to better planning and recommendations Engaging and Informing TCCC Travis County Commissioners Court (TCCC) members represent and are accessible to all Travis County residents. As a Board with Court appointees, you have a range of options available for engagement. Written communication, memos, Letters of Support • Communicate one consistent message to all Court members • Many parties can sign on to demonstrate unified voice Public comment at Court sessions • Relatively easy to access by anyone who wants to address the Court; fairly predictable timing • Time limited (3 minutes); one-way communication, no dialogue or questions Constituent calls to Court members • Often speak to staff; might get a return call from the Court member • Can dialogue to communicate interests, learn about Court member priorities and positions Request a meeting with individual Court members Limited to 1-2 Court members (more than 2 = quorum, public) • • Requires more logistical work; calendars/workloads may not always permit • Allows more in-depth, individualized, candid interchange and focus • Best for a focused conversation with clearly designed goals, outcomes, messaging Agenda item to provide update to Commissioners Court • Must be sponsored by a Department or Court member; work w/sponsor to create/vet content • Allows full Court to ask questions, respond, dialogue with one another • Requires more availability/flexibility (items often run late, called out of order, can be postponed) General recommendation: Establish some method(s) for regular updates • No set institutional process (a la city Boards & Commissions); room for flexibility, can shape methods based on preference of Appointees and the Court members who appointed them • Consider other examples: CPS Board, Early Childhood Council • Appointees can consult with Court members: seek their guidance and explore their preferences for how best to keep them and their peers regularly informed