Monday, September 10, 2007

New Issues

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe,

Can you comment on the allocation of funds for SH 121 by the regional transportation authority? It sure looks like Collin County is getting a very bad deal (making Collin County pay for its portion of 121 from the allocation where Denton County paid its part with gas taxes).

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:38:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

Actually Collin County is getting a very good deal from SH 121. Our SH 121 main lanes were not funded. This package builds our SH 121 main lanes and provides another $900 million in projects for other county transportation projects. The money for the SH 121 main lanes also includes a $100 million interchange at US 75 and the completion of the DNT interchange as well.

Denton did already build their portion of SH 121 with gas tax money due to DFW Airport being close by. They then had to turn their “free” lanes into a toll road and were credited for that which they should be. Collin County was credited with our portion of “free” lanes that we opened up as well. Also, some of the money that Denton County received from their portion of 121 will fund some projects in Collin County.

Overall, I think this was an excellent deal for Collin County. Would we have preferred more? Sure. But, out of $3.3 billion being discussed between the 4 counties, Collin recieved almost 50 percent.

Also, the building of the SH 121 main lanes will be the greatest economic development tool that this county has ever seen. The taxes from the commercial development along SH 121 will ease the tax burden for our residents at the county, city, college and school level.

Not to mention if you do not want to pay tolls you still have six lanes of service roads which will be less congested then they are now.

Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any word on the lawsuit from your favorite Constable Jerry Kunkle? Has the county settled it?

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that lawsuit still active? Im sure it will be settled and then all elected officials will get there check for that year. I know you cant comment on the details but let us know if its still active.

Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

As far as I know it still is. I actually have not heard anything about it lately.

Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Liz Gray said...

Do you suppose this new $91k/yr PeopleSoft specialist in HR might be able to figure out how to make the PeopleSoft program work in order to allow employees to defer longevity pay into their 457 plan (as we could with HTE)? Please make that one of their PFP goals!

Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Car Allowances' Let's get rid of them. No one should get paid to drive to work. There is a car lot full of cars at the service center if someones needs to use one. Most people that get a car allowance just drive to an office and stay there all day.

Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why does a public works employee or a human resources employee need a car allowance??

Monday, December 10, 2007 7:30:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

No HR employees get a car allowance.

The PW Superintendents' car allowance was grandfathered because rolling it into their salary would put them over the range. DA investigators and a few others still receive a car allowance for the same reason. It will go away when they leave the position.

Monday, December 10, 2007 10:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so "car allowances" are just figured into salary now? kinda snuck em to salary.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:20:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

Actually had two public hearings on the issue when we went through budget two years ago.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about car allowances for other department heads that dont use there cars except for work, and get a rent car for out of town business? Also why aren't Dept. Heads require to live in Collin County like Dallas County?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:33:00 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

Again, we don't have car allowances. Only two department heads live outside Collin County.

Also, I would not be using Dallas County as an example of what Collin County policies should be.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I checked the county web site on civil lawsuits, and saw that there has not been any action on the Jerry Kunkle law suit since 02/28/2008. Can you update us on this law suit and maybe let us know what has happened thus far. There has been alot of court entries but the normal person cant understand all those court entries.

Monday, March 24, 2008 7:42:00 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

The county was granted summary judgment in Judge Oldner's court on Feb 19th.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is summary judgement?

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:09:00 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

It means that the Court felt that there were not enough factual and/or legal issues for the case to proceed to trial.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe, What is your take on the EEO plan? Why is Judge Self so against the plan? I have also heard that Judge Self would like to reduce the number of county employee's by 10%. Why, with the growth in the county population,would the county reduce the number of employee's who service the residents? It seems that the number of employee's would need to increase in the Sheeriff's Office, Constable's offices and other area's. Thanks for your time Joe.

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

An EEOC plan was not on the agenda. What was on the agenda was adopting a policy to measure if our employee population has the same demographics as our county population. It is a study that the federal government requires in order to be eligible for federal grants. The papers and blogs had it down wrong and many people thought we were changing our hiring policy.

I can only speak for myself on this issue.

Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe,

I would like you for you to please explain to me why HR is indicating that I must take a 5% pay cut for transferring to another position? I am currently about $200 above the current top out pay for the new position. Why not just top me out? This indicates to that I am being punished for transferring to this new position and I am exploring my legal options. This kind of behavior from HR needs to cease.

Monday, April 28, 2008 2:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home