Travis County Commissioners Court
July 25, 2006
Item 7
There's a small item, number 7, with a question. Approve contract number ps 060302 re, out youth incorporated for education, counseling and support services. I saw you may have some issues with it. Do you have a question?
>> all I have as a question is why are we doing half a year versus the whole year and I guess sherri can give us her opinion on that since we're doing it for a six-month contract.
>> we don't blame you for causing all this fuss. [ laughter ]
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. Sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. There is a precedent in both directions for prorating contracts as well as funding the full amount. In this case staff has been satisfied with the work statements submitted by the agency. This agency provides unique supportive services for the population of youth that they serve, and these contracts as you all are well aware are reimbursement contracts, so therefore the services must be provided prior to our reimbursing the agency. So staff felt comfortable with the proposed work statement and the reimbursement nature of this contract to propose that the budgeted amount be included as a knot to exceed amount for this contract even though it is for six months.
>> based on the number of kids, even though that they've only got six months to utilize these dollars that they could get more kids on involved, but knowing that once they hit into a new fiscal year they will still be bond by the constraints of a fiscal year, a full fiscal year. But we've done this before.
>> that would be correct.
>> I think we did it on the after school network.
>> that's exactly what I'm afraid of. A year's contract is $12,000.
>> that's correct.
>> this is for -- wait it reads, it's for a six months' contract.
>> that is correct.
>> so I just think that it's for a six months' contract we shouldn't have a 12-month price in there because quite frankly I might have some issues. The fact that you said well, we've got $12,000, we've got a six-month contract, let's double up. If the court wants to double up that, which would mean that you could have in a 12-month period, you could have 24, you could have somewhere that exceeded 12. If they came back and said, well, you gave us $12,000 and we utilized that in six months. We're coming back for the next year's contract and you know that we can use more than that. I just think that it reads cleaner if you say it's a six-month, then what's six months of the 12,000, and that's 6,000. So that's the reason that I'm more comfortable with having it written that way.
>> to me I'm going to go ahead and articulate for doing it as it has been presented in large part because this is a very unique service and they have been left out there, no pun intended, in terms of no place to go. And I think there may be a little bit of incentive demand, they need to get going, need to get reorganized. But by approving this, by no means in terms of my vote means that we have doubled the analyzed cost of this. This allows them to get back on their feet, get back to where they need to be and then they go back to the normal amount of dollars over a 12-month period, so it's one of those things where I think it gives them the flexibility to get back in business. And I have a feeling there may be a few more kids simply because this has been out of business for a little bit.
>> was one of the reasons, though, that -- why do I think that I read that the organization had some issues? I mean, didn't I read that?
>> they have some funding challenges in terms of some other things that were used to support private funders, etcetera, which quite frankly is no different than about half of our social service agencies. They hit -- they hit a tough place, but they have worked very hard with their private funders to get back together. They did not go out of business. They're talking to other folks about being part of an umbrella to help cut their services. I've personally visited their other place. It is unbelievably modest and if these folks go out of business, there isn't anything out there.
>> six months ought to reflect $6,100 versus 12,000. But somebody can neighboring make a motion and I can vote for it or against it.
>> I move approval as worded.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:34 AM