Travis County Commssioners Court
September 30, 2003
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.
Item 33
33, consider and take appropriate action on staff recommendations for purchase of social services from community-based organizations.
>> it has been our desire to actually engage to purchase services, health and human services through this social services contracting process by putting out anr.s.s. Because we haven't done that in about four years. We were on track to doing that. A couple weeks ago, as you know, we entered into these social services contracts in partnership with the city of Austin where for the most part, in most of the consider, they provide 60% of the funds and we provide 40% of the funds. Both staffs were working diligently to engage in that r.f.s. Process, but during the city of Austin's budget process, the city council made a policy decision to reduce the social services contracts by 5%. They also gave a policy direction for the city staff to engage in negotiation with the front contractors. After assessing the impact and the workload associated with our going out on a separate r.f.s. Process, not looking at the city's dollars, we are recommending that we engage in the same process as the city of Austin. And my recommendation is to exempt the current contracts from the competitive procurement process and proceed with contract negotiations. But I would also like to have your permission to negotiate changes with the providers to support policy and programmatic changes that are described in your attachment. A number of these policy and programmatic changes are very much consistent with discussions that we had earlier this year regarding some of the programmatic directions that when health and human services believe we should go in. I have in your packet provided a matrix and a summary of the programmatic recommendations that would impact the fee in effect in each one of these areas.
>> I got a long list of questions, but I will wait until you are finished with your presentation.
>> i'll stop there and just go into questions.
>> are you ready?
>> yes.
>> I'm extraordinarily confused in the letter from david louri. It seems to be reka peult you late in your September 22 memo. I have a real hard time understanding why the budget decisions of the Austin city council somehow will absolutely turn over and disrupt independent decisions we may choose to make at Travis County in terms of how we would like to proceed. I was under the impression that although we are partners in many of these things, that we're still separate entities and it ought not be that because they cut by 5% that all of a sudden we don't have any options. And our options are limited or -- I can't tell what their cuts might do related to viability of some of these joint -- jointly funded contracts. I'm not seeing. Mr. Lourie talks about moving towards an investment strategy. I don't remember an investment strategy being presented to this Commissioners court. It may have been presented to the community action network, although I'm having a fuzzy remembrance of what that is, but I'm seeing words and strategies and things used that I don't think we as a body have been able to discuss vigorously and talk about. I just -- I see a lot of work here that I don't feel like i've had any input in or feedback in, and it seems like I want to be able to say time out here for a second in terms of before we move forward quickly on some of this because I don't want to make any missteps. And, for example, the idea of viability. Did the council make some cuts that call into question the viability of our investment in an agency?
>> my answer to that would be no.
>> okay. How does anyone who is not in the current cycle of funding get in if we're basically talking about renewing everybody?
>> I think that's one of the weaknesses of the decision.
>> thank you. How are we going to -- because we had talked about not using any new source of funds from the general fund, judge Biscoe brought forward the after-school program and we're trying to figure out ways to find 300 and some odd thousand dollars to reinvest in that strategy, how does blessing that impact that?
>> go to other sources for the 330.
>> what does that mean in english? I don't understand what that means.
>> that means all the social services dollars would be used in this contracting process within the negotiations. Unless you gave me a direction to reduce the total amount of the pool by $330,000.
>> I'm not sure what I want to do. I'm interested in knowing what will be the implications if we just redo. I know some of us have raised questions about is that question really accomplishing what we had hoped that they would accomplish. We're not really getting into it in terms of should some of these dollars be diverted towards the after-school thing or not and what are the implications of some of our moves. And I'm thoroughly disappointed that once again we're talking about we need one more year before we get back to the city council and the Commissioners court with meaningful performance measures. I mean that's just -- it's kind of like where Margaret is related to one-stop shopping. It's like I can't believe it's going to take yet another year before we get into meaningful performance measures.
>> I don't think that's what we're saying.
>> that's how I read it. And if I'm reading it that way, I think other agencies will as well. It's just one more same old same old, not questioning how we spend our investment, not questioning what are we getting in return, not questioning impact of this.
>> I think if you looked at the recommendations and there's not a one size fit all because of the broad scope of services that we actually purchase from a variety of agencies. But if you look at the individual recommendations as they relate to the categories, I think it will begin to make sense. In that you will see that what we're really trying to do is have a more systematic approach to purchasing services in that particular category.
>> if we decide to renew all of these things at the same levels, then where are we going to find the money for the after-school initiative, because one of things we mentioned are there reprogrammed c.a.n. Contract dollars that would be better utilized toward that effort. And I'm still hoping our friends on the housing corporation get a proposal that will also assist there. But I think we said we're going to be looking at things, and I see this as we're not looking at anything.
>> well, I see this as an opportunity for you to give me direction as to how you want us to proceed in this contract.
>> next year.
>> because the contracts expire December 31st. And I can go down each service category. I just wanted to try to make it short. And we can discuss all of the different services or the types of services that we are buying in the category and if there is a desire on the court's behalf not to spend as much money in those categories. We could do a r.f.s. With the reduced amount of funds eye think the thing is for me I haven't landed anywhere. I don't know if I want to do that or not because it was a rather paeufpl process when we were going through ha last year in terms of gee, if we really did have to make some cuts here, where would it be. And you presented your best efforts and I'm going I don't like those. I want to reserve the right to say oh, that sounded good at the moment I said it, but I would like to revisit because I'm seeing the impact. Final question i've got is that it is tied into the question I asked when we were bringing up the h.i.v. Contract. Are you moving towards a proposal that will change how we pay these agencies?
>> initially thought about it, but after getting some feedback, we're rethinking it, and that's not a part of my proposal right now.
>> I'm just making sure. I have a great deal of sensitivity toward, this but especially right now Travis County sends a check. And these agencies see, a, it -- if time allows, the auditor's office to validate everything that's coming through that we say yes, indeed, we sign ofrbgs it matches the contract, and I don't want to lose that in terms of having to go through a third party. Also I'm very sensitive to the fact that the city of Austin cut and if all of a sudden they cut, but they get to lump in our moneys and they get to issue a huge check with their seal, we're going to get lost in this. And we've already found at least one instance, and I suspect there are quite a few more more of social services agencies who do not even acknowledge Travis County's investment in them on their website and in their printed materials. And to me that is just insulting, to get on and find out that everybody in the world is being acknowledged and say a $90,000 a year investment, we don't even get a mention that we are a [indiscernible]. I think -- funder. I think going to one check is only going to make it that much easier for people to forget that not only did we not cut our investment, but we're there every single month and we've got that check with the auditor's office that the invoices are appropriate and match what we want to do, and there's nothing untoward in terms of an expenditure that's being claimed that is absolutely out of the boundaries of our contract. That's it. I'm finished.
>> I just a comment. I would go back and look at that tape of that meeting when we approved the after-school program. I believe it said there, the judge said out loud what percentage of the money would come from, you know, south -- I mean the social service contracts. And I think that's where the direction -- I would look to that for direction. Of action we took. I remember that.
>> let's bring this one back next week.
>> one week, judge or two?
>> do I need -- one more concern I need to ask. [multiple voices]
>> get around to talk to everybody. Two weeks?
>> one concern before we leave this item.
>> okay and that is the significance of the 5% cut that the city of Austin is proposing for some social service contracts. What I do not want to see happen as much as possible, and I know it's a tough arena out there and it's a scramble for dollars to provide service, but I do not want to see folks out there left out of the process where we are not getting them the necessary attention that they need to our social service contracts. And that's my ultimate concern, the basic needs, the basic services of the citizens of Travis County deserve and should look upon as we go through these economic hard times -frblg, I think we should still [indiscernible]. I don't know what our amount of money is going to impact the interlocal relationship between the city and Travis County, I don't know where we are on that right now with some of these particular contracts, but I want to make sure we are still able to provide the necessary services to the community. Basic needs and things like that.
>> okay.
>> I'm really looking -- that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
>> okay.
>> two weeks will be October 14th.
>> okay.
Last Modified: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:52 PM