Travis County Commissioners Court
June 26, 2007
Item 27
Number 27 is to consider and take appropriate action to authorize facilities management to explore lease space locations and options for Travis County adult probation and Austin-Travis County mental health-mental retardation integrated services. This item ought to be as much fun as the last one.
>> I think we'll be pretty brief. Good afternoon, judge and Commissioners. As you remember, a few weeks ago we provided some information during a work session and we talked about a number of different items. Today we would like to focus only upon our integrated services for our mental health clients at mhmr and those that are serve bed by our adult probation caseloads. And our request is that you give approval for facilities to locate space for us and to enter or to negotiate lease costs for us. I did want to give you some information that we've been gathering over the past couple of week that is in your packet. That does show you the importance of this initiative. We had talked about the importance of integrated services in impacting the jail, but at that particular point in time during the work session, didn't have some real specific information as to that impact. In the course of the past couple of weeks, we have been able to coordinate with the jail to get that information, so the second page of your packet after the title sheet shows you the number of probationers that were in our mental health caseload from September 5th through '05 to August '06. And during the course of that time 863 people were placed on the caseloads. Then what we did is looked to see how many of those spent any time in jail at all during the course of time between September '05 and November '06. And we found that about one-third of them, or 310 did spend time in our taikt jail. We then looked to see the average number of days ta people spent in the Travis County jail that were in our mental health caseloads and we found that to be an average of 62 days. After boulder implemented it, for it to be 3.4 days. So boulder was able to avoid 52.6 days by implementing this program, so we're thinking that we're similar. We're about 62 days on the average. Using the most conservative estimate of jail cost, which we know is substantially greater for mental health clients, particularly as they age, using the 24-dollar a day for bed costs, the total cost during that time for having individuals that are priority population, mental health, probationners, in jail, was 461,280. So we can't say at this particular time that that would be the savings, but we know that there would be substantial benefits by having both the mhmr and the probation staff together in the same area. One of the things that we know occurs is that people get off their medication, our officers identify that and then they need to travel up second street to get services by mhmr an to talk about their medication and so forth. So we see greater coordination of services between the two entities if you would allow that. One of the thing that I didn't do as I started is introduce the other individuals that are here with me today. There's lela from our office who is the districter of -- director of social services. Abraham from mhmr and of course we have roger and I'm not sure I can pronounce roger's last name from facilities.
>> smith
>> [ laughter ]
>> before you make your decision on this and to ask questions is to also show you where our probationners live that are on probation in Travis County that are diagnosed as priority population. So the next page on your handout is a map with push pins that show where they live. And those 863 people across -- are spread throughout Travis County, but mostly in the central part of Travis County. And our location that's in red is our current mckinney falls location where they report now. One of the things that's important to keep in mind is that you have to report to your probation officer and also receive field advise fritz the probation officer, but you have to report back to the office about four times a month. It is not unusual for somebody to take hour hours to get to our office. So you can see if somebody lich far up north around Round Rock it's going to be quite a bus trip to get there. One of the locations that we are looking at, which is the former ces location, i-35 and around 51st street, that's the blue area. And you can see that's a much more centralized location. The other thing to keep in mind, and abraham can elaborate on this, but if these individuals are in need of intensive mental health services, they may be reporting to east second street four times a month as well. So that's eight times a month that they are needing to get somewhere. If we can put them together, put the staff together in one location, then they'll be reporting to that one location. Some of the parameters that are important to us as we decide on location, is it centralized, so we would like to look at options or buildings in this area that's central. Does it have adequate parking? And most importantly, is it accessible for the probationners through bus line and public transportation? Finally I have a couple more charts. They just give you the totals. If you look at the mental health caseload, the third chart shows that 247 of those currently on our caseloads right now live north of the river. The -- and the various zip codes are shown there. And then the next page shows that 180 of our current individuals in our mental health caseloads live south of the river. So we're open for questions. We wanted to provide you with a critical data. And ask that you approve that we be able to move forward in looking at locations and looking at negotiating leases.
>> I had one question to you. That is, if you get a chance to, it's just a proposal. I think roger was at a meeting a little earlier, roger el khoury, and the ridgetop neighborhood association combined with many others, be and there really have been no looking. (indiscernible). I'm just wonder fg you guys have a chance to make the presentation to those neighborhood groups over there?
>> no, Commissioners, we really haven't. We have had some initial conversations with legal aid who owns the building, and they serve a lot of the clients that we're talking about serving. And we would be more than happy to talk with various neighborhood associations if you think that would be be helpful.
>> I think it would be be appropriate. Roger and I attended some meetings over there with my staff and there were a lot of things that they were trying to iron out. So if you would do that.
>> we'll get in touch with the neighborhood about the program.
>> we think all of these probationners now go to the burleson road office?
>> mckinney falls.
>> yeah. All of our specialized caseloads are at the mckinney falls location. There isn't room in the north location for them to be there.
>> okay. So if you come up with this additional space, though, you would still need all of the space at mckinney falls?
>> yeah. We're growing there at mckinney falls. We're just about at capacity now, and also as we have growth and eob, we're moving people from the eob to mckinney falls, so I would say yes. I would need to do a more specific study for you, but I know that we're really close to capacity there.
>> the goal would be for the probationners listed here that are south of the river to go to that one. North of the river would go to the north location?
>> no. They would all report to the location on 51st and i-35.
>> then why wouldn't that be just the reverse of what we have now. The ones north going way south as well as the ones --
>> so we'll have some south now going a little bit further north, but the greater proportion of ours are going from the north to the south, but far south at this point in time. So now you will have some people travelling further than they did before, but others won't be travelling quite the distance as they were before. But the major part of this is that we have both mhmr and the cscd together in the same building so that we can coordinate appointments, etcetera, and then also communicate more effectively together approximate to provide services.
>> so we're not putting those who live south in the same four-hour transportation problem?
>> no.
>> this chart that shows, I guess, possible savings on page 2, so do we have any idea what appropriate space would cost us? If I ask what amount of money are you requesting, what's the ballpark figure?
>> the original figure that was quoted to us by kennedy wilson, and that's the real estate firm that legal aid is working with, was around 18,000 a month, which is less than the county was paying when ces was there. They were paying 26,000 a month. But because we don't have the ability to negotiate directly with anybody, that's why we're coming to you to see -- if you direct facilities management to enter into negotiation so we can get a true estimate of what the lease would be. We don't have that yet. They gave aws ballpark estimate that we could bring to you just for discussion purposes.
>> and we've looked at space and it is adequate.
>> yes.
>> and let me make sure what services would be provided. Probation services by probation officers. And mhmr would do exactly what?
>> we would be moving an existing program in and they would be providing psychiatric services, so that's doctor services, medication, case management services. So everything that's currently occurring at the new unit would be provided at that location.
>> okay. So if we provide the space, others really pick up staffing costs?
>> the personnel are already in existence, but in these two locations. Are got furniture, etcetera?
>> yes.
>> you're just looking for space and that cost to be picked up.
>> I should mention that there is a request of the csc proposal related to this program of about $36,000 for furniture, computers and stuff library this, a one-time expenditure for fy '08.
>> because the furniture that is in south will be needed for the individuals going to those offices, so there is a small one time cost to this.
>> let me ask you a country boy question. If we're transferring part of the staff from one location to another, why wouldn't they take their furniture and equipment, etcetera, with them.
>> I suppose they would be doing that. What we'd be doing in the long run is asking for furniture again as we put people in those offices.
>> who would pay for those people?
>> the furniture?
>> part of what you're asking us for is not staff. I'm just trying to get it. You're not asking for staff.
>> right.
>> you're asking for space. And the reason I brought the other stuff up here is every time -- if they were county employees and we were talking about space, we know to ask about staffing, equipment, furniture, phones, a lot of other stuff.
>> yes. We do have a request in our budget for furniture and supportive equipment for the person in this unit.
>> but I'm hearing close to not a guarantee, but an assurance that the two offices working together will be able to operate a whole lot more efficiently and in the end probably redirect some of these lives.
>> most definitely.
>> and long-term save some amount in jail bed dollars.
>> yes.
>> although the last one is difficult to quantify.
>> yes.
>> that's what I'm hearing.
>> but we know from other similar counties that have implemented what we want to do, they have had an impact on the jail. So we're using a model that has shown some success in other locations. With it's measured by jail days.
>> well, be move that we authorize roger el khoury to investigate the suitable space, come back with a price tag, let us know what you find and why it will work or will not. I guess in addition to the one we know about, look for other comparable space.
>> also, judge, I would like to make sure that the neighborhood is involved in this process. Roger, we've got a good relationship with those folks over there and of course that was one of the thing that I don't think they envisioned. However, I think you need to make that same presentation as I stated earlier, to the neighborhood association.
>> I will talk to ms. Ward.
>> and I think you need to make that same presentation you made before the Commissioners court to those folks because they've really been working hard in that area. But anyway, --
>> that's friendly to me.
>> and come back to the court and let us know what's going on.
>> was there a second? Discussion of the motion?
>> I'm going to wait for the decision.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis abstaining. Thank y'all very much.
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, June 27, 2007 8:59 PM