Travis County Commissioners Court
July 21, 2009,
Item 15
Item 15, review and approve requests regarding grant proposals, applications, contracts and permissions to continue grant application to supreme court of Texas.
do you want to call them up together?
>> yes, judge.
>> b, grant application to supreme court of Texas, permanent judicial commission for children, youth and families through fiscal year 2010.
c, grant the contract with the Texas department of housing and community affairs for health and human services and veterans services to continue to provide weatherization repairs for low-income households through the low-income home energy assistance program weatherization program.
15 d, grant contract with the Texas department of housing and community affairs for health and human services and veterans services to continue to provide weatherization refairs for low-income households through the department of energy and weatherization program.
and 15 e, closeout of the granted contract with the office of the governor criminal justice division for the fiscal year 2008 drugs diversion court and deobjectly gate $6,674 of unspent funds.
Commissioner.
>> yes, and the reason I brought up each one of these individually, I just think that at this time I think we need to introduce or bring before the public exactly what we're doing, especially when we are looking at some of the moneys being spent here.
if you don't mind, on each one of these from a through e, I think that we need to explain to the public exactly what we're doing and why we are doing it as we do.
on the -- in a, could we basically go through a and tell the public what we're doing here?
>> we're reapplying to the supreme court of Texas to continue the office of child representation and office of parental representation which represent children and parents involved in c.p.s.
cases.
how we funded these programs was from a reduction in the civil indigent attorneys line items so instead of continue to go pay outside attorneys to represent the children and parents, we have done them in-house.
and I think roger is here if you have any detailed questions on how that office works.
but the item today we're reapplying for the money.
we're going to get the official grant award at the end of August.
>> and my question on this particular level of involvement is that -- the difference between the child and also the parent, the parental representation, and, of course, we're looking at the portion of the grant amount of money, but then we're also looking at what it's going to cost to staff these things.
so we're looking at that also.
as far as what Travis County has to come up with.
and so -- so if we look at this backup, we're talking something over $400,000 that Travis County would have to back up to make sure -- if I'm reading my backup correctly of -- over $400,000, but the granted portion is just 180 some odd thousand dollars.
so we're talking about -- that's about half a million dollars right there as far as money involvement be it be grant money or it be Travis County funded moneys.
and this is just for the child portion of the legal representation thing.
is that correct?
>> in this case of these two grants we have reduced in department 93, the civil indigent attorneys line, I think a little more than $1.3 million to pay for these two offices.
>> there's been a corresponding reduction on the civil indigent attorneys fees side of what we were previously paying out for private attorneys.
now that that's being brought in-house for the child and parent representation.
and then we're going to continue to monitor the program going into 2010 for its effectiveness to make sure that everything is tracking.
>> right.
and I'm concerned about that, especially -- now, let's flip this over and look at the parent side.
on the parent side, we're looking at a similar -- basically a similar -- almost identical as far as money is concerned.
the grant portion being a little more than $180,000, and, of course, the Travis County match portion over $400,000.
so even on the parent side, it appears to be another half a million dollars, per se, which total would be over a million dollars in total for those kind of programs.
my question is describe to me what services the parent would need in -- in -- in -- in comparison with the legal representation for the child.
>> well, it's more of a --
>> [inaudible].
>> who is the person here because this is a real big deal and we haven't done this before and, of course, we're looking at it, we're examining it and I think it needs to be fleshed out.
>> this is stephanie ledesma.
>> good morning.
>> to answer your question about services parents would need, specifically what those parents are going to need is consistent, zealous, legal representation.
and the way that we were doing that before I don't believe that we were able to ensure the consistency, the zealousness or the quality.
by in-housing this program in the Travis County office of representation we can ensure that.
we can ensure the quality of the representation, the zealousness of the representation, the consistency of the representation and if I'm reading the numbers correctly, it's going to be a cost benefit to the county by doing it through these offices as opposed to bringing private attorneys on board.
>> all right.
cost benefit meaning what?
if the public is listening to this right now, how would you explain to a person that would not comprehend exactly what you use said, how would it be a cost benefit to the public?
and, of course, we're spending taxpayers' dollars to represent a parent.
>> yes, sir.
we're spending less taxpayer dollars to do that by doing it this way.
>> all right.
are we spending less?
i guess the question is a person might ask why isn't the parent spending the money instead of the taxpayers?
>> well, the parents -- the taxpayers are still spending the funds, Commissioner, because it's being paid for by the county.
but there's less funds going out because my reading of the budget is our offices and what it's going to cost the county to continue those offices is less than having private attorneys do it.
so it's less to the taxpayer.
>> okay.
but if you can pay for your own lawyer, you continue to do so.
>> that's correct.
>> you all represent the indigent who cannot afford to pay for lawyers.
>> that is correct, your honor.
i did not make that distinction.
>> that needs to be stressed out.
good point, judge.
that needs to be stressed out because right now it appears the appearance of things, but anyway, let me go to my last question that needs to be flushed out.
are why in the backup -- when we look at the staffing on the child side as far as legal services that are provided through this particular effort that we're looking at this morning, why do we have a total of eight staff persons, f.t.e.s, on the child side legal representation side, but then when we get down to the parent side, according to the backup, we have four f.t.e.s.
the parallels and -- there's only four.
in other words, a total 12.
but on the top end we have attorneys, managers and all these other kind of things, but on the back end of this thing here, on the parent side we only have four f.t.e.s.
can someone explain the variance why four f.t.e.s are needed on the parent side and eight on the child side?
in other words --
>> Commissioner --
>> for each office.
>> it is.
there's four attorneys in each office.
>> [multiple voices]
>> it doesn't say that here.
so it's eight and eight?
>> yes, sir.
>> so it's 16.
>> yes.
total on both sides.
>> so they both get the same type of staff structure.
>> yes, sir.
>> see, it doesn't say that here on the b side.
i mean on the child -- on the parent side.
it says four.
but anyway, if you say it's supposed to be eight on both sides that was a variance and I saw that and I said where are the attorneys?
and that was the first thing that came to my attention.
>> we'll go through and make that correction.
>> please make that correction because right now it's not balanced.
so that was my final question for that, and, of course, if you are going to come back in a year and it's going to be performance based and I understand that the grant portion of the money as far as availability of this money will expire when?
>> we've got one more year following this.
>> one more year?
>> and it goes down to $50,000 in the third year.
for each office.
>> okay.
that's fine.
okay, that was my questions on that, judge.
>> a and b.
you started taking cases when?
>> may 29th.
>> of 2009?
>> yes, I'm sorry, of 2009.
of the 26 cases that were available for the month of June -- or the 29 cases for the month of June, those are new cases, our office took 26 of those 29 cases.
>> okay.
i think for taxpayers watching, we worked on this a year and a half to two years before we executed the grant.
this court authorized Commissioner Eckhardt and me to serve on the oversight committee.
>> correct.
>> and we have an agreement with the supreme court of Texas to use for the first year $300,000 that we would match to get this program up and going.
and the goal is consistency, better quality and more cases for same amount of money.
>> yes, sir.
>> and we did say we would evaluate these two programs, though, and make that call at the end of three years, and if worry not achieving those -- we are not achieving those desired goals, we would take appropriate action.
move approval of a and b.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> c.
>> judge, item c and d are long-standing weatherization programs within hhs.
>> I think it's very important that the folks know what's coming on this.
so would the person from h.h.s.
or whoever would like to disclose the amount of money going to these particular programs for the weatherization of persons in this community.
>> I failed to mention Travis County, planning and budget offers.
most of the h.h.s.
are in a weatherization national conference so I'll do my best to provide the information.
item c is the department of energy weatherization assistance program and that will provide $169,371 to provide weatherization and minor home repairs for low-income residents.
item d is the weatherization program for the low-income residents.
these two programs kind of work in conjunction.
i guess the first step is residents will go to h.h.s.
and qualify for the program.
they will send someone out to do testing on their home depending on what they qualify for.
then h.h.s.
housing services will make the recommendations and either do the repairs or contract out to provide.
this could be things such as weatherization like caulking windows, possibly new windows depending on what the program is.
repairs to central heating and air conditioning systems and possible repair or replacement of some appliances.
again, depending on the weatherization program.
>> and the reason we lay that out is because last week when the folks came before us, of course the city of Austin was also I think available for some of these comments.
but the point is we were trying to encourage those folks do not have to suffer if there is money in air conditioning and fans and a whole lot of things available that they would be able to help, telephone number they could call to get excess available -- availability to these particular services and products.
so that was another reason I laid it out because this was an ongoing thing, heat is still with us, it hasn't left.
so it's important folks know we are working on some things to try to make sure they are as comfortable as possible.
>> Commissioner, also to point out, on c and d, the weatherization, the pieces of each of the grants that are eligible under c and d compliment each other so the two work hand in hand with each other.
>> and I have no problem of that.
judge, I would like to move approval of c and d.
>> c and d, I don't see any amount listed under county match.
>> there is no match.
this is money that comes to the county that we --
>> [inaudible].
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you.
>> e, please.
>> item e, item in e is just administrative action for the drug diversion court and the criminal courts.
it's closing the grant out.
>> the question is what happens to that money?
>> as a point of clarification, Commissioner, the funds are obligated.
we have to front the money up front for this particular grant and we -- and we obligate those funds through general fund and then as the deobligation of these funds and the closeout of this grant occurs, that $6,800 researched there will be released and brought back into the general fund and will end up
>> [inaudible].
>> I didn't know the process.
i knew it deobligated the money, but my question was I didn't know where the money would end up since it was deobligated.
you answered the question for me.
>> as it is a reimbursement grant, we have to put the money upfront I understand.
that explains it.
>> moving them back into fund balances.
>> to the general fund.
thank you.
move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you 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:
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:31 PM