Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 10, 2010,
Item 13
>> item no. 13 is to -- 13. Receive update from austin/travis county health and human service department and take appropriate action regarding: 1. Public health and animal services; and 2. House bill 216 - regulating boarding homes. And a is first, i take it.
>> yes.
>> > good morning, judge, commissioner, sherri flemming for health and human services and veterans services. As you well know, we have a nearly 3 million-dollar agreement with the city of austin to satisfy our -- our public health and animal services requirements within the county. So i'm happy today to -- to be here with -- with the director of the austin travis county health and human services david lurie and his staff for this update on the interlocal agreement. With that i will pass it on to david.
>> good morning.
>> we have a whole lot of backup already.
>> should this replace what we have?
>> yes.
>> the presentation was updated. Is that what we handed in?
>> yes.
>>
>> good morning, judge, commissioner, i'm doing well, sir, thank you.
>> how are you?
>> i have a number of staff with me this morning, but i will mention the folks who are at the table here. I know that you all have a particular interest and we're going to provide more detailed information in terms of progress on our animal services program. So i asked bruce mills to join us, the acting assistant director for animal services, and melanie miller, helps us in terms of the overall budget process. As sherri mentioned we're going to review with you -- this is our annual update between city of austin and travis county with regard to animal services public health services and the budget going forward in 2011 and with some emphasis as i mentioned on animal services and also we were asked to provide you an update in terms of the federal stimulus funding that we received and we are currently using within our department and then update an sb 216 which our assistant director for public health and community services, shannon jones is going to provide and that relates to boarding home standards. I just wanted to mention that there is a process underway for formal accreditation for local health departments, there's not been a system in place to do that. This is an initiative being sponsored by the centers for disease control, the association state and at the territorial and national association of county and health officials, i believe there's grant funding involved as well. The intent is to develop a system for reviewing local health departments and state health departments nationwide. And coming one standards by which they can be accredited. We were nominated by 17 for a beta test site for testing some of the tools and mechanisms they are using for accurateization. We just recently had our site visit as a beta test site, we will be going forward hopefully in 2011 i think when the formal process is established because we are a beta test site we will be at the top of the list, first in line in terms of formal accreditization. We had a team of technical experts who came to our community, reviewed what we were doing, actually cited the interlocal with the travis county and city of austin and the relationship that we have with travis county as a best practice. And a model that they will be taking back and sharing with -- with other health departments, other public health entities, will be their formal report in terms of their observations relative to accreditization nationwide. So i think that speaks very highly in terms of the positive relationship that we have, how well the interlocal is working, the way we have financed it in terms of capacity, and the services that are provided. So -- so i just thought it would be important to share that with you.
>> okay, thank you.
>> just going through again the -- the review, the total budget, this is the budget that just relates to what is -- what are shared services between the city and county. We have a number of other services that are solely city funded or operated and likewise county obviously has a number of human service programs that are specifically to the county. So this is the share of our budget that is our health and human services department budget as it relates to the partnership with the county and those services we provide together. It's about 16.4 million. And the county share of that is 2.89 million. As of march, the total year to date expenditures, net revenues is 7.62 million with the county share being 1.29. So we are anticipating that the actual expenses at the end of the fiscal year will be 10.9% below budget much as you know, there's a true-up in the first quarter going into the next fiscal year where we just for that. Again this is i think has turned out to be a very smooth and advantageous element of our interlocal where we true up at the end of the year. Performance measure, we have a lot of performance measures in this interlocal. A total of 82. Of those, 40 were met or exceeded. Many are seasonal in nature, so we won't have the final numbers to the -- toward the end of the fiscal year. And there are a few where we did not meet our performance as -- as indicated and i think there are about 10 of those, primarily in the areas of vital records. We've a lot of neighboring hospitals where deliveries are occurring outside of travis county, we don't have as many of those recorded within travis county. Also, as bruce mills will share with you, some of our activities as it relates to animal control are below our performance goals, but conversely the actual sheltering, the return to owners, adoption of animals for both the city and the county exceed our goals. So the -- so the proposed budget going forward into fiscal year '11, actually this is a number that has been changed i think maybe it's updated in the documents handed to you, the -- the increase in the budget in terms of the county's share is approximately $174,000. And that's over the current agreed upon -- the current agreement. But also i think there's some adjustments in terms of how the -- how the -- how it's budgeted within the county budget and some additional dollars beyond what were in the agreement, so i think the net, the net increase in all of this over your budget is -- i will turn to travis for that number --
>> um the amount needed for fy 2011 is 72,951. The preliminary budget included 61,831. Which was the right number at the time. There's been a few minor adjustments. So actually as of right now, we're $11,120 short for fy '11. The agreement funded primarily out of the general fund about 98%, but there's about 2% funded in a special revenue fund for health permits and there's actually resources in the -- in the third revenue estimate where we could actually fully fund the increase out of that special revenue fund with no additional impact to the general revenue fund.
>> preliminary -- what's in the preliminary budget.
>> $61,831.
>> 61 how?
>> and the actual is --
>> 11,120.
>> okay.
>> it's actually -- so it's 72,951.
>> right.
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> so as i was mentioning, we can actually -- there is some resources within the special revenue fund to cover that difference for fy '11, if it's agreeable to the court, whenever we bring the corrections to the preliminary budget, we can just place it on the court's agenda for approval.
>> for the update.
>> thanks, thanks, travis.
>> as you can see on this slide, these are the elements that impact what the county's share is. For example, slide -- slight increase in population as you will recall, some of these services are applied proportionally based on percentage of population. As i mentioned, there's been some reductions in the vital records program in the revenues associated with that. Some increases in employee benefits. And then -- then the -- partially after set by the decrease in the percentage of field activities and animal shelters. So we have got kind of an offset there.
>> could you -- could you define what you mean by field activities?
>> bruce, do you want to comment on that.
>> well, some of the -- in terms of the -- scope of things, for animal services, one of the things that we want to try to do particularly for the response time is use -- in the county, we just recently done some training with some of our deputy constables in terms of ways to -- to either control animals until our animal services officer actually respond, bulls -- but also look -- looking at better equipment issues, may want to talk to some of the travis county sheriff's deputies, again more training for that. One thing is we have been doing, also, with some phone calls and -- and some letters to constituents to -- to reduce having to actually make a call to the field.
>> so when you define field activities, you are talking about activities of response to -- to animal control.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> issues.
>> yes, ma'am. Right.
>> then in terms of additional requests or increases in the budget, we have a recently approved animal services implementation plan to -- to reduce intake and increase live outcomes for animals in that program that was approved by the austin city council. And there are some -- some budget increases associated with that and again when we get to bruce's presentation here later, we will get into a bit more detail on that. And then, also, there is a request to add additional spay neuter services, that would amount to $50,000. We mid year added 50 now for the spay neuter services, right if.
>> no, sir, it was 22,000 that we transferred within the agreement, yes, sir.
>> so is this 50,000 in the preliminary budget?
>> we are -- as i mentioned, once you add up all of the various increases, decreases, we are about $11,000 short overall, we're going to recommend funding available within a special revenue fund that can cover that difference, we would like to bring, whenever we bring back the correction, we will have that on the agenda for you to approve --
>> the answer is yes, sir, it's in there.
>> on the one hand we have a 10% decrease. On the other hand we are asking for additional sums. So when you put the two together, during the -- during the process of reconciling, what's the net impact? Or is it too early to figure that out.
>> i think you heard mr. Lurie say the requested increases totaled about $174,000. But when you reconcile the decrease and the -- and the expected increases, that's how we got to the 74,000 and some change number. That includes items mr. Lurie referred to that were additions to the budget.
>> so we shouldn't look forward happily to the day of reconciling. We think that's been done already and the net is -- an additional 163,000?
>> the net is an additional $11,000.
>> over the -- over the current proposed budget?
>> right.
>> but --
>> but the total --
>> [multiple voices]
>> 63,000 and think of the 11,000.
>> i can explain the 63,000.
>> is it getting simpler or more complicated.
>> we need $11,120, we have identified the funding.
>> if we get this 10% decrease -- it's been factored in --
>> that refers to -- one is we're talking about the agreement for
>> [indiscernible], also a true up piece that will not come until the first quarter of next year. That adjusts the final amount, this is the beginning point, we will make some adjustments. In the beginning of next year. That will make up the difference.
>> i guess the point, though, is that we need to make sure whatever we ends up doing we look at whatever is in the preliminary budget now, however if there is any additional adjustment, i want to be sure that whatever that is, even if it's a little more than 11,000 to true up to the $72,000 amount, a little more than that, my point is late in the year, oh i want to make sure we have adequate funds to accommodate whatever that is, going into the next fiscal year we will be adequately funded to take care of the project. So that's -- that's my concern and i guess where i'm at right now, when would we actually know exactly where we are in -- especially with the incoming revenue estimates and -- and still needing to come in.
>> well, as far as the beginning number of what the agreement needs to be for next year, we do know that. We are about $11,000 short. We could -- we're going to recommend the funding source to take care of that. Then as a part of the agreement each year, we look at how much you actually spend in this year's agreement and you make an adjustment to that actual payment that we do pay you next year. So that's -- there's a couple of pieces going on. But as far as what we need to start fy '11, we do know that amount right now.
>> okay. All right.
>> there will be a true up in the first quarter of 10%.
>> that's referring to as far as this year's amount.
>> the next couple of slides relate to the federal stimulus funding, the american recovery and reinvestment act. We were awarded 7.47 million over two years for -- for tobacco related issues and prevention associated with that. It includes policy changes, environmental changes and -- and some social marketing. To -- to decrease the use of tobacco products and -- and dr. Wong, our medical director, is the -- is the lead executive on that -- on that grant and again that's a two year -- two year grant. The next one is the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program. We awarded 3.6 million over three years, the strategies include housing stabilization, temporary assistance, financial assistance up to 18 months, vince the assistant director for human services and his team are leading that project. Additional community services, block grant funding, 1.43 million over a year. The strategies there are
>> [reading graphic] a major project underway, this will transition over to the animal services program, you are probably aware in '06 a go bond was passed in the city of austin including a $12 million for a new animal services facility. We're very much underway in terms of the construction of that facility. It's located where -- where airport boulevard and -- and highway 183 intersect. And it's just a map on the next slide that gives you kind of a sense of where that is. Our facility layout, greatly improved state-of-the-art facility with some increased resources and kenneling and so forth that will be located on the health and human services campus at 183 and airport, which is actually on levander loop. The next slide outlines some of the benefits from this, we're going to have a much healthier environment for animals with improved air flow, disease management and so forth. The integrating more of our program spaces, much more capacity for prevention programs. Spay and neuter, microchipping, educational and greatly improved veterinary facilities and capacity and a much safer and more efficient work environment for our staff. The current facility is over 50 years old. And improved areas for customer service, adoptions and so forth. And the kennel design will again greatly improve the -- the atmosphere and environment for the animals from both a medical and health and behavioral perspective. And -- and this is right in line with the plan i mentioned earlier, the implementation plan, the new facility coming online. A lot of very exciting and positive developments related to -- to animal services. The next slide is the health and human services campus itself. It's a 44-acre property. Just wanted to give you a sense of how this property is going to be used the conceptual plan has been developed. The southern end of the property is the animal services facility i was referencing. We already have a number of -- of offices and services provided by health and human services on the west side of the property. Including our human services, our administration, vital records, birth and death records and so forth. There will be a lot of park amenities developed on this property. The longer range plan calls for the potential of a hult tee use neighborhood facility. About six acres in the northeast corner dedicated to affordable housing. So a lot of different things potentially in place at this property and a lot of synergy in terms of what we're doing in -- in health and human services. With that then i believe that i will pass it other to bruce mills who will provide it more specifics in terms of the animal services update.
>> thank you, david, commissioner, judge. Just to kind of recap what commissioner huber asked about a while ago, sort of the activities, kind of field of activities and a couple of things that we have been looking at and what we believe are issues that you share have been issues in the past year. Two in particular.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] either a loose animal or barking dog or usually loose animal issue and make them aware of that. If we don't make contact, we will either send a letter. And we've had good luck with that. Or we will send an officer as a follow-up to let them know there had been complaints, and we believe that's going to reduce the calls, which hopefully gives us a better chance of reducing our response time. Just since this past march or response times have dropped from 90 minutes down to around 77 minutes. Along that same -- with that same initiative we're feeling, and we just advertised for two vacancies that are current, vacancies in the -- as the animal services, the services officer position. So that will give us two more positions to be filled. We also are looking at our deployment, the geographical layout for our deployment response to see which is our best way. Of course we have a priority system that we use for the calls, but looking at whether we send someone from a representation as a pie type response or divided geographical north, south, east and west so we can make a better use of the resources and not drive from north to south or from east to west, so we hopefully reduce our response time in that manner.
>> what's our response time goal?
>> our response time goal in the plan was 40 minutes. And i'm not sure that that's achievable, judge.
>> how are you tracking the calls and the responses? Because law enforcement, travis county sheriff's department, some of the municipal police departments like Lakeway, are ending up having to follow-up on some of the vicious attack calls because they can get there more quickly. Then i have actually heard in my office that the calls end up getting cancelled and there's not a follow-up with the city. So i have some questions about how you're even tracking the calls that come in and the services on them. Which also leads to the whole reporting factor because i can honestly say i feel like i've been immersed in paper without any specific information. And it's very hard to cut to the chase of what kind of service are we getting for the dollars that we're expending.
>> on the -- first of all, our tracking goes through a chameleon software that we're using for animal services and we start that from the time the call is actually dispatched. And the travel time from the time the call is dispatched until officer arrives. That's the actual time, not while the call is in queue or before the call comes in through 911 or 311. One of the problems, and it is a problem, is the distance of travel for the officer. I know that -- i've heard complaints as well where a deputy or a constable, if they're the ones that are dispatched or respond, end up dealing with -- whether it's an aggressive animal or a loose animal. So on that front what -- first what we've done is trained some of the deputy constables in ways to control or contain an animal until we can later response with the proper equipment and trucks to transport. One of the things that we had been discussing is our officers, animal control officers, carry a net, which is a gun net, if you will, to capture or contain an animal until that animal can be better restrained and put in and transported back to the shelter. And we are willing to participate with sheriff hamilton's officers or the con tables to provide that training and possibly then purchase some of that equipment for some deployment to be able to control this. Because i think that is an issue that if you're not there within a few minutes, then an aggressive dog case -- it may be cancelled or a stray dog call may be cancelled if we're not there within a certain period of time. Our follow-up, however, we should be following up on all of those to make sure from a prevention standpoint that we resolve that call so we're not out there for repeat calls. We've had some success in doing that with our follow-up response, and if you've had some specific complaints i'll look into those.
>> i believe some of them have been forwarded to you. But i have had one just in the last several months as an example of a vicious dog across the street where there had been a complaint filed and i believe that it was followed up on. But the -- they came out and -- to interview the person who had made the call, and he had left specific information of, i work, call before you come, leave me a voice mail, and there were three notices posted on his door on successive visits with no advance notice that he was coming out. So it tells me that there are some problems in the way this is programmed. The other thing is we've been talking for over six months now about training programs and the possibility of doing those with the sheriff's officers and other law enforcement. I'm ready to hear some very specific plans out there.
>> we've already done some with the constables.
>> with whom and how many?
>> i will have to get you the numbers. We've done some with the deputy constables. I will find that out.
>> i would like to be kept informed on this. We have a great percentage of my -- i have 48 percent of the geographic area of travis county and the greatest percentage of that is unincorporated. And we have problems out there getting worse and aren't being serviced. One of the problems i have as it relates to animal control program based in the city is can we ever get there in time? Do we need to think outside the box? And i've been asking that for six months and 40 minutes is not adequate. I'm ready for us to move forward more specifically in a quicker way. And i have problems with raising budget money when we know we're declining in this service.
>> a couple of comments -- sorry.
>> did you need to respond to her question? I think she's wanting some specifics, and it looks like we're shying away from spisks.
>> he's saying he doesn't have specifics today. He will provide those in the future.
>> judge, what i would like to say is that i'm going to ask staff to provide you all with a written report both in terms of what training has occurred and the participants and also a very specific plan in terms of what training events are going to be happening in the very near future and where those would be targeted. So we'll provide you with a specific report in terms of that. I think the other part of this in terms of the response time, as bruce mentioned, is the geography. Maybe we need to be thinking about some sort of a decentralized system or some other alternatives. And again, we can have staff take a look at that and perhaps provide you with some options.
>> that would be good. We know that there are certain geographic areas that have intense activity that are getting underresponded to. So i do think geography should be a part of the specifics that we're looking at.
>> let me ask this question. Especially under this umbrella response time. When a person calls in and do you -- especially if we have to deploy enforcement from the sheriff's department, constable, whomever, we get a complaint and we of course, precinct 1 gets those, i guess all of us really do, complaints about animals that need to be dealt with. Is there a check to see whether or not if the call that's coming is within a corporate limit? We have about 22 minutes of priorities here, maybe a little more than that, but anyway, within travis county itself. And is there a response situation that will not be looked into if the person that's calling and complaining about such animals are within -- out of the corporate limits of a jurisdiction? A municipality.
>> yes, sir. My understanding, if it is in -- like in a municipality in travis county that has a response or has an animal control type response, they are the first responder. We still -- we may still continue going and we still get that call and assist, but they are the first responder to it in that municipality, if that answers it.
>> okay. So it is checked. In other words, they call in to my office and say, well, -- and i really don't know if the person that's calling is within the corporate limits of a municipality or not. I really don't know. But i have to deal with it as if they are not.
>> and we deal with it as if they are not unless they've made a specific response from that municipality.
>> okay. And if they do need assistance, and i guess the point is as far as transporting and things of that nature, is the municipality a part of the paying process to deal with -- because you have to be deployed. And of course, they may be the first responders in this particular situation, but are they also a part of the equation that end up having to pay if that particular animal need to be transported? And the paying process, the municipality.
>> i'm going to give it a try. Our costs are relative to activities in the unincorporated areas. So when we -- when our costs are calculated, the areas that are within someone's incorporated area are not considered as we factor in our costs. So, for example, if an animal -- if there's an animal call in Pflugerville, the first responder would be animal services within Pflugerville. Now, i think what i don't know the answer to is if Pflugerville transports that animal to animal services, that cost is 2001 the two of you.
>> that's correct, yes, ma'am.
>> but if we have to, then how is that -- in other words, let's say they -- we've got municipalities that may not have such animal control mechanism or to deal with those type situations. I really don't know how many of them do and how many do not. So my question is those that do not and we have to assist in transporting animals to the shelter, what shared cost is the municipality charged with? Is there a factor in that?
>> there should be none.
>> there is no charge to that municipality. And you may recall that staff under the court's direction had a meeting with the municipalities to talk about animal control issues, and we found just a varying gamut of animal control services being available in the various municipalities, everything from none to quite skilled and experienced animal control officers. But we do not pass any costs on to those municipalities who do not have a program.
>> it seems to me that we ought to have a follow-up work session where we have a lot more time to deal with some of these issues. So if we were to plan to do that, we would need to give ourselves how much time to pull together specific backup? Six weeks, eight weeks? If if
>> i don't think it would take that long. I think a lot of the issues were identified in the meetings that we've had in the municipalities. In addition to various anecdotal information, i think that your offices possess and have forwarded on to us and to the city. So it would be a matter of pulling that information together. If there were specific questions that the court members have not given to us previously, then we would like to go have those.
>> but if our goal is to deal with fixes rather than issues and questions, how much time would we need?
>> i'll take a stab at that. Ms. Fleming and i talked last thursday and we went over some of the issues and some of the things that we believe need to be fixed. And i'm totally in dpreament we need to have a further work session to drill down and talk --
>> how much time would we need?
>> six weeks i think would be a good start to at least come back to you with some recommendations.
>> when is the interlocal up for approval?
>> the interlocal, you would be reapproving the interlocal no later than september 30th of this year. So i would say we would -- if you're anticipating changes that would impact the agreement, then those changes would need to be discussed prior to that time.
>> okay. Today is august 10th. So if we were to do a month, we're looking at mid september.
>> yes.
>> could we do it then?
>> i think we can.
>> okay. So if our goal is 40 minutes, at some point the question becomes what do we need to do to achieve that, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> why don't we put on the table, if we leave it to incorporated areas to address their own issues, and we free up whatever staff is available to work on austin and incorporated areas, unincorporated areas, how does that improve our response time? And then the question is okay, in addition to that, what else do we need to do? And if we need to partner with constables or sheriff's deputies, then they need to be graduate bureaucrat to the table. And the question is how do we accomplish that? So we need a work session, it seems to me, where they're in attendance. And we can get their input and give them an opportunity to think about that before the work session so when they come, they can present their perspective and we can take all of that into account. And so if we're looking at mid september, we need to get word to them, i guess, ms. Fleming, fairly soon. Now, i have seen the memos that address some of these issues, so i guess they've been thinking about this a little bit, but if we haven't asked of them, then it would help to get it to them, i guess in a week or so, give them time to prepare for a mid september discussion.
>> major claire with the sheriff's deputy has been working with us throughout the department of time we've been looking at these issues, so i believe they'll be prepared to talk about what the sheriff's department, what their viewpoint would be on this issue.
>> the money i have seen is way above the budget that travis mention add few minutes ago.
>> yes, sir, it is.
>> commissioner?
>> i was just going to say we've been talking with all of these parties for at least over six to eight months now, and where we haven't gotten to is what the changes at the city of austin will be to address these problems. In specificity.
>> what changes at the city of austin are also changes at the sheriff's department and the constable's office, if in fact we plan to collaborate a whole lot more than we have historically. The other thing is that if we plan to exclude unincorporated areas, then at some point we need to let them know. And if excludes means that we expect them to take care of what's in their areas, the question really becomes, if you're chasing a wild dog and he runs into a city, i guess you don't plan to stop. I mean, you would try to --
>> [ laughter ]
>> this is an issue we have not -- we're not unfamiliar with. We've seen similar issues with emergency service districts and the provision of emergency fire and medical services. This is a problem of increased urbanization outside our urban core. I hear what you're saying that given the territory that has to be covered and the amount of staff vainl, because i heard you say earlier that the goal was 40 minutes, but you don't think it's attainable. So i think that at this mid september work session we need to have landed in advance of that work session on what the scope of services the city of austin can actually reasonably provide.
>> with the current level of funding.
>> yes.
>> i think what we're dancing around here is that what the city of austin used to provide is simply not doable any longer because of the increased urbanization outside the urban core.
>> thieng very -- i think that's very cravment.
>> that needs to be reflected in the interlocal for how much we're paying you and for what. Because it appears that our interlocal reflects that we're paying you for something that you cannot provide.
>> i think that's correct.
>> so both from a fiscal and policy standpoint i think we need to land on that in advance of that work session.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> you said that very well, better than i could have, but i would agree. It's not the city of austin isn't for one way or the other doing its job. It's that conditions have changed so dramatically in recent years that the model we're operating under may no longer be viable for the unincorporated areas.
>> i eagerly anticipate that mid september discussion.
>> thank you.
>> a real simple question, though. Now, this airport-183 animal facility site has been landed on. And a final decision has been made for that to be the location.
>> correct.
>> i recall what i've been reading in the paper and hearing about in media. That final decision has been made.
>> construction has begun.
>> okay. Mr. Reeferseed?
>> thank you, sir. Just a taxpayer expressing his appreciation for the center and also briefly that i think it should include service to taxpayers in unincorporated land. But the two issues i wanted to mention was about microchipping. I'm afraid pets are engine any pigs right now for future human microchipping. And because it's been found to be fatal, not worth it often times, to put these little things in little animals that kill them. So i'm just hoping that's not happening. It's listed as more capacity for microchipping and it also says and for improved veterinary facility. And my question for you is, does that include for citizens? For example, how about pro bono service for the homeless, many of whom have animals and they of course need service and help. And if we're having a whole new building and a whole new thing and need new policies, our way of including pro bono veterinary service for the homeless and others.
>> yes or no.
>> no, sir.
>> no.
>> nothing for the homeless.
>> okay.
>> if you have some ideas, reduce them to writing, get them to ms. Fleming and mr. Lurie, and we'll include those idea in our discussion in mid september.
>> that's wonderful. Thank you, sir.
>> we're here to serve, mr. Reeferseed. Commissioner eckhardt?
>> i had one other issue that i don't expect us to answer today, but the specific question was in regard to your first slide, what is the city of austin's share of the 16.4 million?
>> i'll ask melanie to respond to that for you.
>> it would be the net, right? 16.4 minus .8.
>> the county's share is 2.89.
>> imagine a portion of it is federal --
>> no. That's city and county only.
>> that's city and county only.
>> yes.
>> and then how much of the program services are provided by third-party contractors?
>> i would say very little. Because most of this is direct service provision by city employees.
>> most of it is direct service? Okay. And just an issue to raise for us to keep working on, i just want to encourage continued working on it. We have achieved better coordination in service delivery of programs that relate to early childhood, for instance, but obviously we have a lot of work to do on animal control. And i would like to see some additional -- we've got a high degree of decentralization with regard to the affordable housing piece, a very high degree of decentralization, and i would like to see a greater level of coordination.
>> and let me point out that neither child care nor the housing piece is covered by this interlocal.
>> that's true.
>> see you in september.
>> thank you.
>> now, b.
>> house bill 216, during the staff update to the court following the last legislative session, we briefly updated the court on this particular piece of legislation. And at that time we said to you we would come back once we found out what our city partners were going to be doing with the recommendation that we shadow their process and that you are periodically updated and given an opportunity to determine whether you wanted to promulgate the same rules related to boarding homes within the unincorporated areas of travis county. So today we have a brief update from our city partners based on the work they have been doing on this particular piece of legislation. I can tell you just sort of as a preview is that we are still anticipating the state guidelines. And so until those state guidelines are in place, our local response is somewhat nonexistent. So until we know what the state rules will be --
>> how long do you have to wait to anticipate the delivery of those particular --
>> i think mr. Jones will speak to that in just one second.
>> okay. And before we start this timely update, do we have just one document that provides all of the legislation that was enacted? Because our backup had two or three amendments and other stuff. So is there a final document that we can rely on?
>> related to house bill 216?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> there was one presentation that was filed --
>> i'm talking about the backup we got. We had a legislation and several amendments.
>> there's a legislation we can get to you. It's not part of that.
>> whatever was finally enacted is what we need to see. Update.
>> okay. As you know, house bill 216 was passed in 2009 and the purpose of the legislation is directed by the state legislature which directed the health and human services commission to promulgate rules that will address the issues of what is referred to as boarding homes. So i'll quickly go through our presentation to talk about that. The first one is the commission was to develop model standards for the operation of private boarding homes that may be utilized by local government to regulate these facilities. The second thing was the focus of the legislation was to be looking at elderly and disabled populations and not the entire population or any necessarily subsets, but specifically elderly and disabled. Three is the health and human services commission has held various public meetings to gather input and feedback on models, rules and standards. The city of austin has provided testimony on february the 16th in favor of such rules. The health and human services has indicated it will complete the rule making process by september 2010. So our hope is that we will have those rules promulgated by the first of september 2010. Until we have them we cannot specifically say what the bill was and all the ramifications. We have not been able to do much in terms of strategic planning until we have those, even though we are beginning to look at that, and our purpose today is to give you that update. In the law there are specific definitions of boarding homes to be covered by this bill. The first one is to furnish -- build facilities that furnish one or more buildings, lodging to three or more persons with disabilities or elderly persons who are unrelated to the owner of the establishment by blood or marriage. And secondly, provide community needs -- these facilities must provide community meals, lighthouse work, meal preparation, transportation, grocery, shopping, money management, laundry services or assistance with self-administration of medication, but does not provide personal care services, meaning bathing, feeding, those type of things. The rules would allow the city of austin and travis county to regulate the following areas with regard to boarding homes. Construction and remodeling of boarding homes, sanitation and related conditions in boarding homes, the reporting and investigation of injuries, incidents and unusual accidents at these homes, establishment of policies and procedures to ensure residents' health and safety, assistance with self-administration of medication, requirements for in service education of facility staff, criminal history record checks, and assessment and periodic monitoring to ensure that a resident does not require personal care nursing or other services and is capable of self-administering medication.
>> so the city and county are allowed to do that long list of things.
>> correct.
>> and if we choose not to, the state would do them?
>> no. The state leaves is up to the municipality, but it does not say that it will cover those activities.
>> so the city and county decide not to do them, then they remain undone?
>> they remain unregulated.
>> unregulated.
>> what is the size of the problem inside travis county with regard to unregulated boarding homes?
>> we're in the process of trying to ascertain that right now. The problem is that no regulations are identifying what these types of specific homes are, how many are they within the city of austin and within travis county. We're looking at it right now. We don't have a specific number. One of the reasons that travis county was engage understand terms of discussing this is that many residents within certain precincts in the county have indicated that they have significant calls to a.p.d., travis county sheriff and others regarding a resident in homes that fit this definition. So we're in the process now of trying to ascertain through reports from our local law enforcement agencies, emergency medical response as to how many calls have been related to these types of homes.
>> because i just want to put my cards on the table here. While i think it's wonderful that this authority is provided, i really would like to know the size of the problem and the nature of the problem before promulgating a regulatory scheme and funding a regulatory scheme. It just seems like good governance to know what we're trying to do before we do it.
>> we agree with you, commissioner. Both at the city as well as should the county agree to do this, we will have to have that information to be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not this is something we should or should not be doing.
>> to just indulge in a moment of anecdotal, i had -- i was the guardian eventually of my exceedingly eccentric uncle. And since that's the case, what ends up happening as far as the funding mechanism of a lot of things, especially with situations that we really have not had a chance to really get our arms around, especially when it comes to applying regulations, that there will have to be a cost associated with some things that probably haven't even been uncovered at this time. As far as different events or different situations, probably on case by case situations. I really don't know. It's kind of a -- the rules haven't yet been established, but then again the circumstances that may generate an uncertainty about the amount of money especially that is going to take to deal with some of these particular situations is a real gray area for me at this time. It's a dprai area for all of us, especially when we look at situations by sometimes we get into situations, especially coming from state and anybody else making the rules, we kind of left with some unfunded type mandate situations. So i think we need to be very cautious and careful on all this. However the need is probably just as relevant as anything else, but then again, we need to be cautious of future funding and rules haven't been established, so we kind of are not blowing bubbles, but we are -- we're not there yet. Until we see something that really lays out the rules.
>> yes, commissioner. And staff's intent today is to have you aware that this process is moving forward and request your approval for staff to continue to work with the city on this process, keeping in mind that ultimately we will have to come back to you with this information, with what the rules are, and have you decide whether or not you want to move this forward. But we do believe that there's public benefit to county staff working alongside of city staff as we develop through the rules and as the city's rules are developed so that you have the opportunity to decide whether or not this is important for the county and absolutely capitalize on fact that we do have other staff that will be working with us on this. So that is our intent today.
>> okay.
>> move approval of the request to keep working with the city.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> now, three or four things that we need to look into. One is that we need legal's input as soon as possible. Two is we were provided the second printing of the senate amendments. We need a final document. Three is part of this says that the state can adopt minimum standards. The implication there is they have to be complied with no matter what the city and county do. Right? We need a list of those minimum standards, ms. Gearhart, if in fact they need to be complied with no matter what the city and county do, which the implications seem to be.
>> minute muslim standards have not been -- the minimum standards have not been written yet.
>> but this also sets forth specific areas where the commissioner at the state level is required to adopt standards. So even if they've not been adopted yet, the areas here, this seems to say whether the commissioner wants to or not, he's got to adopt them. Or she. Who is the commissioner, by wait? Is that dr. Leakey? Anyway, whoever it is at the state level. The other thing, though, is that at some point i guess the city of austin will do what the city thinks is appropriate. The question is whether the county wants to follow that lead or not. But there are many implications of following that lead. I mean, a lot of these things, if you are required to do certain things like register, there's a criminal penalty if you don't, a misdemeanor. I think you can also require fees, right?
>> correct.
>> regulatory fees. Then the question is whether those who would be regulated or typically in a financial position to pay them -- some operations clearly are. Others i really kind of wonder about. This is a big document.
>> it is.
>> it has a lot of specific provisions. And i think we want to do the right thing, but at the same time we want to make sure that whatever we agree to do in fact we can do.
>> yeah.
>> and judge, if i may, i think it's also important to talk about what this is not. And this does not enjoin, at least at this point -- once we see the rules we may have to correct this statement, but right now we are merely talking about boarding homes that deal with the disabled and senior citizens. We are not talking about what we would historically think of as a transitional housing facility. So i think it's important for us to make that clear publicly that we're not talking about transitional housing facilities. We're simply talking about, and the statute addresses boarding homes for elderly and disabled persons.
>> you have made that clear today. Have legal backing you next time you tell us that.
>> [ laughter ]
>> anything else we need to do today?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> thank you.
>> we eagerly anticipate our next discussion.
>> thank y'all.
>> now, hopefully a fairly quick item before we get to those budget matters.
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, August 10, 2010, 2010 1:30 PM
