Travis County Commissioners Court
January 19, 2010,
Item 18
>> number 18 is to approve interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of Austin for purchases related to weatherization services under the american recovery and reinvestment act.
and if ms.
fleming is here by, this is her opportunity to shine.
if she is not nearby --
>> this is so we can piggyback on their bidding process, correct?
>> pretty much.
i had a couple of questions, but I guess I can get them answered later.
we have been anticipating this, and this makes all the sense in the world, but last time I chatted with her, there were some holes, especially about job training, Davis-bacon applicability.
i can get those answers --
>> here comes purchasing.
>> 18, we're simply piggybacking city of Austin agreement on weatherization?
>> yes, sir.
we've been having meetings with them for several months on a joint procurement.
i believe it's to be issued sometime in the next couple of weeks.
they will take the lead on the procurement and we will issue contracts based on the bids that they get in.
we think it's a great deal for all of us.
we've had to remind them a few times that we're not the stepchild in this arrangement, but it's working out very well.
>> did we give up on the job training component or are we still working on it or what?
>> I'm not sure the answer to that.
i hope sherri is somewhere close and she can address that.
i have not been involved in that part of it, so I'm not sure.
>> this is one of those situations where we are authorized to use this interlocal, we are not required to use it for 100% of it, right?
>> right.
>> so if we can creatively figure out a way to get the job training covered, outside of this contract we're free to do that.
>> yes.
>> it seems to me that --
>> there she is.
>> it seems to me that we would do all we could to try to include a small piece if possible.
i was talking about job training, and whether this contract addresses that or whether they're still working on it or whether we gave up on it.
>> yes and no.
>> [ laughter ] certainly the Davis-bacon requirements are an issue.
and I think that we have to the best that we can discussed with the -- with what we anticipate to be the potential responders to an r.f.p.
about what requirements are, but quite frankly, we end up sort of in a rock and a hard place because we have to set forth the requirements and then those potential responders would be required to demonstrate.
so we have made the information available and there has been a tremendous amount of training that the state has just recently implemented.
so I feel good that those potential responders, be they private entities or nonprofit entities, know what requirements are.
>> have you had your question?
>> I asked my question.
i don't know that I've had it answered.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I'll go try another angle.
i was going to try another angle, all right?
>> go ahead.
>> how will we know -- how can we track to see actually who is employed in doing the particular weather projects?
is there any opportunity to know, identify who these persons are?
>> the --
>> yes, sir, that's part of the Davis-bacon requirement that --
>> all right.
listen, I'm not going to cut you off.
i'm sorry.
go ahead.
>> actually, one of marvin's (indiscernible) to be the labor standards officer for these contracts that will be awarded under these solicitations.
he will be responsible for doing out to the job site, verifying that they're using the right tools, verifying that they're doing the job that they're being paid to do, and we have to have certified payroll.
marvin knows a lot more about Davis-bacon than I do.
that's kind of the quick and dirty version of t.
>> so you're putting it in marvin's lap.
>> [ laughter ]
>> let me say, Commissioner, the best opportunity for persons to be employed around this is going to be with the contractors and subcontractors who respond to the solicitations that go out to do this work.
it is very specific set of specs that is required for us to be in compliance with the work that has to be done.
there are training opportunities that exist through the Austin community college.
there are training opportunities that either are in development or are already in the queue for the workforce development system.
and so the best opportunity for just grassroots employment is for those persons who are seeking that training and maybe who have already completed that training to connect with the contractors and potential subcontractors who will be responding to the r.f.p.
and of course, once those contracts are awarded, that would be public information, and so those persons who maybe want to connect with this specific project could receive information on which companies have been selected.
>> well, it appears to me that for us to really achieve what we are really looking after, and that of course is providing employment, of course, number one, but I think job training is very key as far as giving a person the skills so that they can have future employment doing similar things.
so is there any possibility that the prime contractors, whomever they may be after we send this thing out, will be ameanable to the fact that there may be a possibility of knowing where he can -- they can employ these persons that need employment opportunities and also that they will also be able to offer on the job training?
i think that's a two-edged type situation.
sometimes you've got to get on the job training to get the experience and maybe you're not able to go to an a.c.c.
where this training may be offered.
there are other opportunities I think that we need to explore to make sure that there are some provisions made out there for on the job training because we have some folks out here right now that need jobs right now, as I sit in this chair.
and they need employment opportunities.
so I want to make sure that the -- what the judge brought up earlier as far as making sure that the workforce, whatever mechanism we have, whatever you have available here, and make sure that those primes go out and seek those persons that have -- that are looking for employment have an opportunity to deal with maybe on the job training situation along with those other venues that have trained persons to actually start doing the work.
is that possible?
>> there are opportunities in these contracts for what they call weatherization workers, which are the certified workers that sherri is referring to that have to be trained by maybe a.c.c.
there's also opportunities for laborers that would be more of an on the job training.
>> right.
i'm talking about employment.
whether you talk about labor or those that are weatherization specialists, whichever title, certified persons, I'm just looking at different levels that we can pull to make sure that those opportunities are made available.
>> there's opportunities for both.
and as the city held a meeting last week for contractors, and marvin's buyer went to that meeting, I think he said there were over 150 vendors there or 150 representatives.
so this is a very hot -- people want their share of this money.
>> well, we want to make sure they get it, but we want to make sure that we are doing something to put a dent into the high unemployment rate, folks out there that are begging for work.
and of course, my concern along with everybody else, I'm quite sure on the court, is that how can we track maybe that laborer that wasn't available before, but that particular person that said listen, I want to become employed.
how will we let the person that is in the workforce, the labor person, that's who I'm concerned about -- I'm concerned about the others too, but that person today, as he listen to us today, how would they say I would like to follow this process and I want to be a part of it, I want a job, how will that labor person be intertwined into what we're doing?
>> they can put in the training if possible or we can seek out the construction companies who already have the capability to do this week or the subcontractors, any contractors who have previously done similar work.
it involves being able to apply insulation, it involves being able to do caulking.
it involves being able to do minor repairs in some instances.
there are some health and safety repairs that we're permitted to do.
so a person who has carpentry skills, who has worked in the construction industry or has worked as a carpenter's helper will certainly be positioned, I believe, to seek positions with some of the firms who will most likely receive some of these awards.
what's tough, though, is the structure of this grant does not allow the county to carve out a particular amount of money and say we want to focus in on developing this skill within our community.
so the way -- the best thing that we can do is to ensure that we have a highly competitive, well publicized r.f.p.
process so that potential contractors are very much aware of what skills are required, what the accountability standards are and look for as diverse and rich a pool of potential contractors as we possibly can recruit.
the city has close to five million dollars.
we have close to five million dollars.
that's a lot of homes and a lot of work that is available to this community.
and so seeking out those positions with contractors is the best way to plug in.
now, there will be, you know, probably a small number of positions that even have been already created with the city of Austin.
there may be one or two that we find we need within my department once we get the project rolling, but the purest way to plug into this funding for job opportunities is through those companies that will be in a position to respond to the r.f.p.
>> well, I guess my concern is with those companies that do respond to the r.f.p.
-- and I know you say you can't carve it out, per se, but I think it ought to be common knowledge out there in my opinion, whoever apply for this money, $10 million, I guess, but with the county, per se, it just appears to me that they should be conscious enough to the fact that yes, we're looking for skilled labor to do some of the weatherization program; however, we have another pool of persons out there that do not have the skills, but are willing to work, as the young lady stated there, as maybe common labor type person that we can also embrace and bring on board.
so I just want to make sure that we are conscious of that.
i don't know how we track it, but I want to make sure that they are aware of it.
that's what I'm trying to get across today.
>> I have two quick questions.
>> thank you.
>> has the state released a written description of grant expectations?
>> well, the grant expect additions are in our contract with the Texas department of housing and community affairs.
>> that's what we approve last week or the week before.
>> no, you have not approved that contract just yet.
but we are hoping any day now.
>> I would like to see that.
>> my second question is who has taken the lead on identifying residents in unincorporated areas who should qualify for this weatherization?
>> any person who comes into our community centers who receives utility assistance is referred to this program for evaluation if they are interested.
now, some people are not interested for a variety of reasons, but if they are interested, if they tell a case worker that they would like their home to be evaluated, then those referrals are made.
so even with our traditional program, we have a significant waiting list.
once your contract is approved, then we will continue our outreach efforts in the unincorporated areas.
but already through your existing programs, those folks will be identified.
we've also written into our social services contracts that any person who receives funding from the county can make referrals to us, complete our paperwork and send it over to us.
what they will do is what we call presumptive eligibility, which basically they have the criteria that we need, the documents that we need, and then they send it over to us and we validate that eligibility.
so they have -- they make an initial eligibility determination and we make the final.
so we believe those immediate steps that we already have in place will help us to bring in those folks who are eligible.
>> may I suggest the following?
>> yes, sir.
>> for next week.
that we see a summary of county efforts as well as efforts contained in that grant equipment you just referred to -- the grant agreement you just referred to?
is that the grant agreement with the state or with the city?
because it seems to me -- first we ought to know how many houses we have on the waiting list.
then the question is if we use an average amount of money -- our money is supposed to be used in unincorporated areas, right?
>> no, sir, it can be used anywhere in Travis County.
we anticipate, though, coordination with the city of Austin so they will focus primarily in the areas where they can also, you know, within the city of Austin.
we will focus primarily in the unincorporated.
>> all right.
we need to know the number of houses on that list now and then the question is if we were to apply the average amount per house, how many houses do we think we would be able to do with our four and a half million dollars, assuming that we meet the performance requirements and get all of it?
because we need to know whether we need to get out there and beat the bushes and find residents who qualify.
the other thing is we have a case worker or two, right, in rural areas trying to identify people in need.
i think that person ought to be turned loose on working with this a little bit.
i think directors ought to know let's really get out the effort and try to find homes that can use weatherization.
i guess I would -- I would rather for us to end up with a list that we were not able to get to because we ran out of money than us refunding money because we ran out of homes and we run out of homes because in fact we just didn't identify them.
so I'm -- I guess I'm wondering how we can proactively seek out homes that really ought to qualify.
and so because if the numbers aren't good when we do that little analysis, then it seems to me that we ought to try to get other nonprofits, churches, etcetera on board to help us identify residents in need.
>> yes.
>> I can answer part of that right now.
>> can I wait and get the full answer in writing?
this court slooking for lunch too, ms.
fleming.
i've learned not press them too hard.
I'm trying to get to your other item, by the way.
move approval of the county with the city, although we --
>> that was a bribe, sherri.
>> [ laughter ]
>> any more discussion?
>> no.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
don't y'all think that would be a good exercise for us to do?
see what's on that list.
>> I think so, judge.
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, January 19, 2010 4:03 PM
