Travis County Commissioners Court
May 26, 2009,
Item 15
Now, we previously announced that 15-e had been requested for delay -- actually, it was 23.
and I thought both of them had been requested.
e, though, we need to call up anyway because it does have a special issue.
d is to review allow counties to continue.
e, contract with the Texas department of community and housing affairs for the health and human services department to provide household heating and cooling energy assistance to help low income families or individuals become energy self-sufficient under the comprehensive energy assistance program.
>> judge, Commissioner, before you is the 2009 comprehensive energy assistance program grant as you mentioned.
to my right is sherri fleming from health and human services and to my left are deedee bill and diana warner.
there's been some ongoing discussions regarding some contract language.
some of that language issues have been resolved, but there's still some pending issues regarding some wording in subsection 14-d of the contract.
and with that introduction, I'll turn it over to sherri and the auditor's office.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
this contract as you are aware is an ongoing program that we participate in.
these funds come from the federal government through the state, the Texas department of community -- of housing and community affairs.
this is funding that we use to provide utility assistance to residents of Travis County through our seven community centers around the county.
our allocation this year is a little over three million dollars.
that is $2.3 million more than we have ever received previously for this grant.
it has taken a considerable amount of time to get this contract from the state.
so the department is certainly aware and understands the issues that the auditor has raised and particularly the issue is to section 14-d of the contract.
and if I state the wrong one, let me know, but I think it's 14-d.
which has to do with the availability of our records and whether or not they are available on the premises or off the premises, meaning whether they're available on county -- at a county site versus off site at some location that might be designated by the Texas department of housing and community affairs.
we are monitored on this program annually.
and the most that we move files is between county sites.
we have never been asked to move our files off of county property for the purposes of evaluation.
it has not happened.
as you well know, I have been with this department since 2001 and directly involved with this program since 2001 and I can assure you that from that point to now, all of our files have been monitored on county property.
i can also add that this is a boiler plate that the state uses for all of the recipients of this funding.
so certainly I understand that this may be an issue for someone else.
it has not been an issue for us.
and so we are very concerned about this grant because it has been so long.
we're already almost six months into the contract year and we're just now having an execute the agreement.
you may recall that you have approved two permissions to continue on this funding, which means that we are imak filing this grant from health and human services budget until such time that these funds can be certified.
so we ask that the court approve this document today.
>> we by law cannot let these go outside the county.
so for that don't mind making copies as long as it's reasonable.
they wanted to take them off premises and we wouldn't allow that.
>> and the probability of this ever occurring is?
>> well, I think there's something in the contract '.
>> I guess I would need to defer to sheart for the probability of -- defer to sherri for the probability of that ever occurring.
>> since 2001 I have worked with this grant program and it has never been asked of us.
so I can speak from 2001 to 2009, I can speak with some authority.
i believe if there were an issue raised that would even require discussion of this issue, that we could certainly negotiate through this point.
we have not found the state during its monitoring process to be so unreasonable that there would be an issue such as this that we would have to dig our heels in and say we can't do it.
>> of course, it's by state law that we cannot allow the documents to be taken elsewhere.
this would be the state asking us to violate state law to take it elsewhere.
it sounds highly improbable.
>> why don't we have our cake and eat it too?
why don't we sign the contract and then try to work with the state on an acceptable alternative?
in the unlikely event that they need to see documents, either we make copies available or they come to our premises and see the originals as they've done historically.
>> inmarietta has come up with some language.
>> only if you want to provide with this contract in a timely manner.
and this particular state agency is very slow in making changes to their boiler plates, but we have gotten them to do so, but it just takes time because it has to go through so many levels.
so I think prior to next year's contract hopefully we could get the change.
>> point I'm making is we call to their attention this little issue, but we don't hold up the current contract because of it and we try to work with them and work through it.
>> that's fine.
>> there are two alternatives really.
three now.
marietta's language or if they want to see the originals, they come to our premises and we comply with the state and they get what they need.
or we make copies of whatever documents are in question and send copies to them.
so if they want to see if we have the originals to back up the copies, they can do that too.
>> no, that's correct.
it's just that they came in -- if there's nothing changed in the contract and they came in and they said we want you to send those originals, we wouldn't send those.
>> right.
we would point to state law and say you can see them, but you can't see them off our premises.
>> yes.
i doubt if the state would give us their originals if we asked them for something.
>> we did inquire with state if we sent this document back with the requested change.
and because of issues that they're having with their system, which has delayed this contract already for almost half the year, they estimated that it would be two months before we would have the document back.
and I would submit to you as your health and human services director that that would be unacceptable for this program and we need to move forward and make sure that we have this funding available to the community for their use and benefit.
>> who is to say that they won't delay this any farther than where it is now?
do -- we have no guarantees that that won't happen.
i'm hearing what you're saying, but the state has not released the necessary funding for the program.
and of course, we can make these demands, but heck, who is to say that they won't delay it any farther than what it is.
i understand the kind of position it puts us in, and it's no guarantee that they won't.
i'm not hearing that.
>> your approval today will move this through the process.
it will permit the auditor to certify these funds and for us to get this back to the state.
>> well, these are the alternatives we'll have to look at.
>> it's a motion to also try to work with the state to clarify this with the three options that we mentioned.
>> I withdraw my motion and second yours.
>> [ laughter ]
>> your previous motion.
>> that was yours with a friendly added.
is that friendly?
>> that's friendly to me.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all.
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:
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:00 PM