Travis County Commissioners Court
January 10, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 11
Number 11, consider and take appropriate action on next steps for the office on violence against women, safe havens, supervised visitation and safe exchange grant.
a, utilize the 1101 nueces building by projected date of may 2012.
b, relocate the counseling and education services nueces staff temporarily to 1010 lavaca, second floor, in February 2012.
and c, discuss funding options for move and renovations.
>> good morning, I'm roner johnson, county executive for justice and public safety.
I'm going to let these folks introduce themselves.
>> greta gardner, safe havens director under the office of counseling and education.
>> carol coburn, counseling and education department.
>> julia span, executive director of safe place.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> we've come to you several times over the last many no, sir give you updates on the safe haven's grant and now we've come to a -- point of implementing some of the work.
there are a lot of great work these folks have done.
and it does require some logistical considerations that we're going to discuss with you today.
and with that, if you don't mind, carol, I'm going to let you take this.
>> okay.
yes, and actually before I take it, I'm going to pass it to miss gardner so you can give you a quick update of what we have accomplished with our two grants.
we are a third of the way into our second safe haven's grant on violence against women.
>> thank you.
your honor and Commissioners, just by way of a little history, it's been -- this grant has been around for a while and there's a reason for that.
there really is a three-part phase to this particular grant.
the first is the planning phase which we were granted a $200,000 grant for a two-year period.
in that grant we were required to hire a coordinator, which is me, a part time extent, and develop a multi-disciplinary team of stakeholders who could help us figure out all sorts of reasons why we needed it, how we were going to accomplish it, who should participate in it, how it would look different from anything else we've had.
one of the requirements of the grant that's a little different than what has historically occurred in Travis County is that it cannot be a therapeutic model, it cannot be cps cases specifically, that there has to be some underlying child abuse incident that is ancillary to the domestic violence, sexual assault or stacking incident that -- stalking incident that has arisen that gave the family or courts a reason to supervise safe exchange.
there was going to be a pair dime shift as to how unsupervised visitation was going to occur so, this planning committee met for two years.
it's represented by a -- core partners are associate district judges, Travis County attorney's office, Travis County sheriff's office, Austin police department, the domestic relations office, the legal -- Texas rio grande legal aid and safe place.
and so over those two years we were able to identify some of the past barriers to supervise visitation and safe exchange and those three that were identified has been moment as you know that families who are involved in domestic violence situations often have extraordinary expenses associated with divorce, custody, guardianship, child support, hiring counsel, protection orders if they are involved, et cetera, and supervised visitation has been quite costly.
so one of our goals was to make sure that we could do the office of the grant, be able to to make sure there was a nominal fee, and in our proposed free ranges that we sent to obc, fees for exchanges will be $5 to $50 as the maximum on a sliding scale fee based on zero dollars per month as income, up to $5,000 per month, where it was previously and is currently with kids exchange network $65 to $205 per month.
our supervised visitation would be 10 to $55 per visit based on how many children you have up to five children, five or six children.
whereas the current one is $55 to 110.
so we've almost cut tonight half so it's a lot more affordable.
and, of course, hopefully as successful as we become we'll be able to increase that more and look for indigent clients to be able to make that free if the court ordered.
one of the other concerns was the lack of understanding about the dynamics of domestic violence and how really certain attention needs to be paid to manipulative behavior and make sure there's no coercion which is obviously why we have safe haven as a stakeholder which is making sure we -- policies and procedures and how we treat not only the clients but how we present the issues to the community to make sure we're responsible around that.
and the third was location, making sure it was accessible to all of the participants within Travis County and to making it accessible to the corporate.
during one of our planning sessions it was asked by the court, it would be quite convenient in the event that they needed emergency visitation if it could be accessible so that the community could use it right away if all the parties were in the courtroom at that time, wouldn't it be nice to send them somewhere right away to be able to do.
that and so to the best that we can, we'll try and accommodate that request.
we finished our planning phase, but in the middle of our planning phase another grant application came out for the development and implementation phase which is the second and third phases that I referred to earlier.
we were told by office on finance and program manager we were the only applicant in the planning phase pool of 10 to 12 applicants that made it to the development and implementation phase is a huge fitter in the cap of Travis County.
it's very hard to move from planning into development and implementation because there's so many supervised visitations that have great history, great programs competing for that funding.
so we received that in October 1, 2010, and we completed that September 30, 2011 for development.
we are ready to move into implementation.
our policies and procedures are currently being reviewed.
we have a parent handbook that's currently being reviewed.
we cannot move into implementation without a structure, unfortunately, and one of the discussions that we had early on was the commitment of Travis County and want to go see this happen and the possibility of using a county building.
we did have our program manager come from office
>> [indiscernible] in October and she met with make of the shake holders.
or collaboration team, safe place, miss coburn and me.
and within about ten meetings of seeing the structure after a lot of due diligence and trying to find a structure either owned by the county or private entity, it was the only structure that met all of our requirements under the rules and regulations of the grant as far as two entrances, two exits that could be monitored, that were bus accessible.
public transportation accessible.
the one floor having enough room so we could accommodate enough families, et cetera.
within ten minutes, and this is a program manager who can be very difficult to impress, she was extraordinarily impressed, overwhelmed by our collaboration team of all the incredible work that we've done, of all the thoughts and planning that we have put into this program and she approved it on site, which is pretty much unheard of.
so we are here today to -- and miss coburn will continue on to talk more about the logistics to ask the court's indulgence in helping us to move on to implementation so we can hopefully have the center up and running on a part-time may cyst by may at the latest, June.
we're intend to go service 75 families per year, but after review with office on violence against women found that extremely ambitious so we're hoping to serve between 20 to 25 families on a part-time basis with the center and just sustainability over the next year so we can either broaden or have a plan in place beyond the two year limitation.
>> thank you, greta.
we're here to seek approval from the court for the two deliverables that we have done for the first year of the second grant.
what we call the developmental phase.
and the main one was location of a space.
the collaboration team pretty early on probably because we had our collaboration team meetings at 1101 nueces realized that it did meet those unique criteria that obw required.
we started working with facilities, went through the central campus master plan meetings, and it's taken us a little bit longer than we had thought.
our original plan was for ces intake, our office is 14 staff which to move to the airport location where the rest of the department is.
when we found out the cost of that move, it was very, very high and we realize that was not going to work in the middle of a budget year.
so we put that off and do plan on asking for the funding for that move in f.y.
13 budget request.
but through the work of really roger jeffries called together many meetings and collaboration team met and came up with several ideas and we did-facilities located another location for ces intake staff to move, 1010 lavaca, that hrmd had been housed in before they moved to search and rescue.
moved -- 700 lavaca.
our request now is to get approval for the staff from 1101 nueces and allowing that space to being utilized by safe place for supervised visitation and safe exchange center.
there is a child recipient contract that needs to be approved.
we do not have that with us today.
purchasing will be bringing that before the court within the next week or too to working.
it been completed by county attorney's office and looked at by auditors and purchasing right now.
so -- and then for the funding options, we have looked the our budget and we can absorb the cost of the move within ces's budget.
and facilities management is also helping out with their internal funds by fixing up the place, painting and recarpeting, cleaning the carpeting where it need it.
>> what we don't have the funding for yet is the actual renovation of nueces for safe place.
and I believe the estimate is around $15,000.
so the total cost is what?
>> total cost is -- change change
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> we would like to come back in a budget process.
I think the long-term vision for ces is for them to be co-located at airport and whenever that is financially feasible for the county to eventually let that happen.
so what we contemplate is this will be temporary.
>> will it be required in the future, transition to the airport?
what, $287,000 at that time?
would the same square footage requirement be the same.
>> I think we would be able to have the total department together and that amount of square footage would last us for quite awhile, Commissioner.
>> so if the airport was at 5,000, of course I don't know what the temporary square footage is for what we're looking at now.
and of course we're looking at future --
>> the future number, once we sit down and look at the program in more detail about the and design and all, I think will number will go down, the number for airport.
but let me make some comment on that, on the esb second floor, we -- after the human resource left the 700 lavaca we're going to use this space as a swing space.
and we have some car replacement and paint on the wall we're doing internally, so it will be ready for whatever program you want to put over there.
so we will move it over to nueces if you approve it to second floor on usb, perfect space for them.
it's about 11,000 square feet, but it does have some internal hallways and mechanical rooms and all.
but we went and looked at this area on site and right now we finished all the -- all the requirement, you know, the little repair here, repair there.
that's management should take care of that, so it's no cost there and additional cost in allocated reserve for any other.
the 1101 nueces, it's really very minor details.
everything is -- it adds up to that cost.
and there is -- this is one time cost, but I want to share with the court also there is ongoing costs y'all need to be aware of right there that it's an annual maintenance, grounds, custodial.
and if the 1101 nueces is about 4,300 square feet, that's like $10,750 annual maintenance, custodial, and ground over there.
in addition to that, you will have a $7,412 for the electricity utility -- not the electric.
the utility water.
we quantified that because this one building has its own meter and all of that.
so the total would be ongoing costs, on 1101 nueces would be 18,000 -- $18,400, plus or minus.
>> but would we incur the 18,000 plus cost even if we were not considering this proposal?
>> right.
I mean, right now 1101 nueces right now is -- I mean, with the ces over there would pay that money anyway.
at the 1101 nueces.
but 1101 nueces, if it's empty, you won't incur that much cost.
the utility would not be that.
and maintenance and custodial.
>> now, there is mention of a $400,000 grant funding, so what's that money used for?
>> currently the breakdown, your honor, is about roughly $10,000 per personnel, which would be for me to continue to coordinate.
the grant requires that there be an government entity that does the oversight at a minimum of five percent so it's not taking away from programmatic money.
>> you don't want to mess with the $10,000, do we?
>> I would appreciate that.
>> [ laughter ]
>> ovw also requires $50,000 to basically be earmarked for travel and continued education and training, etcetera, on supervised visitation, safe exchange issues, sponsored by their office.
but basically the programmatic funding is about roughly $372,461 is going to go to save place.
out of that $372,000, about 33,000 of that is for training for them.
>> okay.
the revenue that will come in from fees --
>> yes.
>> is projected to be how much?
>> your honor, we haven't pinpointed that just yet because we are wait to go find out if we even got a structure before we started massaging how much we will be able to service.
it will be nominally, your honor.
even if we were to go with a low number of 20 families per month, it would also depend on how many exchanges we were going to be able to do, what the supervised visitation looked like.
we do have a meeting planned for tomorrow to actually figure out a little bit harder numbers about what program fees we can anticipate.
>> so where would that money go?
>> your honor, it actually goes back into the Travis County coffers, and it is able to be used only for program expenses.
>> okay.
but the advice today is not to count on that funding.
let's wait a year or so and see what develops.
>> that's correct.
if people can't pay and then we have delay and then if we -- it's too nebulous to really rely on.
there will be some, but I couldn't even begin to estimate.
>> and the fee is really a skin in the game fee.
it's not a cover the expenses fee.
>> that is correct.
it's more a part of the accountability piece.
>> absolutely, absolutely.
>> so when we got the planning grant, which I guess was phase 1, our commitment, I guess, was that if this works out, Travis County is in and at some point if space is needed, that would be the county's contribution.
>> yes, your honor.
>> where was I when you made that commitment, roger?
>> [ laughter ]
>> (indiscernible).
>> questions, comments?
actually, this is a program that we need to do.
we have been doing it and we have had different models.
some have been more successful than others, but so far those who have done it for us at some point have pretty much concluded that their continuation is not appropriate for them, and so we've been left trying to find somebody else to do it.
>> yes.
>> because at one point I remember constables being involved, right?
and others.
>> yes.
>> judge, do you want to speak to this at all from the family court perspective, how crucial this piece is?
>> thank you.
I've been involved and had the honor of being involved in this project since its inception back in 2008.
I think that's when the original grant was awarded.
and that was largely the result of Travis County's vision in recognizing this as a serious need and a public health and safety issue.
and from the court's perspective, and I left some folks over in my courtroom this morning waiting for their protective order hearing cases to be heard because I think this is such an important issue.
this is desperately needed to this community.
and our group has been a collaborative of community stakeholders and worked remarkably well to get us to this point.
and I would really like to see us be able to bring this to fruition and open our doors in the spring and begin to serve these children and families.
>> we have been down -- we have had a reduced capacity it for exchanging children for how many years now?
>> since 2008.
so about three and a half years.
>> and to put it in perspective for folks watching, without having this kind of program, it involves grandparents, friends, family, brothers, sisters.
it's a very, very difficult situation to call in additional family members to involve themselves in what -- in what can often times be an abuse circumstance and calling them in to be in a position of judgment.
in a volatile situation.
>> judge, your name for the record?
>> andrew hapcock.
>> for the handful of people that don't know you.
>> [ laughter ]
>> judge, julia stance from safe place.
many of our board members are here today just first of all to say thank you very much for your vision and understanding, Commissioners, what an important issue this is.
and that when family violence is involved in these cases, how extremely dangerous it is.
and so having a visitation center that really focuses on the greatest -- some of the greatest need is I think essential as again health and safety issue for our community.
we're delighted to partner with you on this and have been pleased as an organization to have committed thousands of hours of planning time to it.
and thank you for your consideration.
having the facility is absolutely key and appropriate and appropriate facility.
and we realize that staff are having to move out and make some temporary changes and that's a hardship.
we know that and we appreciate it.
we think it's in the best interest of people who are hurt by violence.
>> julia, can I ask you a location question?
I see real value in the location being in the value of the courthouse because it does have a -- just the robe and the building have an effect on the behavior of the people who are coming to exchange their children.
do you see that as a long-term benefit to maintain a kids' exchange presence in the shadow of the courthouse or should we be looking to locations -- other locations that are more optimal long run?
>> I think this is a great location.
and others can probably address this better, but the big vision is that at some point you would have multiple locations, so if you're really looking at the ability of true accessibility for all folks that you would have some various ones.
but this one, both the -- being right in front of the -- behind the courthouse, also it's on a good bus line, so there are many attributes to this location.
>> we looked at a lot of different options, and this was really the very best one that we could come up with.
and as greta said earlier, when the representative from washington, d.c.
came, they were very impressed with the location.
and so I think this is a great start.
I think long-term we would like to see multiple locations throughout the county to make it more convenient and accessible for all families, but this is a central location.
it's a safe location, first and foremost.
and I think it will be accessible to most people.
>> okay.
I understand the cost to relocate and renovate, and I understand the ongoing costs of 18,000 plus, but this is 400,000 bucks of grant funding.
at some point that grant will go away.
and when will that point be?
>> well, your honor, it depends on when implementation actually begins.
and as I said earlier, our implementation period right now, we're kind of in a holding pattern, so we're able to identify a structure.
the grant has about $370,000 waiting in abeyance for a two year period to implement the actual program.
the grant funding could end March 2013, it could end September 30th, 2013.
it really will depend on when we can get started and what I can negotiate with the office on violence against women.
>> okay.
but the Commissioners' court should anticipate what annual cost after grant funding?
>> well, that's what our consulting committee is going to be working on now.
it's kind after broader committee to look at the funding.
and during the planning grant we visited a lot of different centers, and the way that they are sustained really varies from community to community, but it's usually -- sometimes you can -- they still have implementation money from ovw.
some from the city, some from the county.
a lot of fund-raising is also included, so it really -- our committee is going to be looking at the best way to sustain the center in Travis County.
>> I'll give you a ballpark figure, the actual implementation cost per year is roughly $150,000.
so in the event that all those things were successful and what have you and our bake sales were successful --
>> we'll pursue other grant possibilities and try to generate what money we can, but ultimately without some outside source of funding, we're looking at an annual cost of about 150,000 bucks.
>> that would be correct.
>> which is a reality check.
if the service is critical, it's critical, and we kind of get the pilot initiative going with grant funds, and most of these programs at some point, the local governmental entity either picks it up or drops it.
and what I'm hearing is that we have done several things to try to keep -- try to sustain this program because it is so important and this grant helped us start this latest model.
but in reality this could end up costing us I guess 170, 175 if we add the other costs to the 150.
so are you asking for grant fund fog the difference, for -- fund fog the difference?
>> as far as offering costs?
>> as far as the move.
>> yes.
we're asking for --
>> allocated reserve.
>> yes, allocated reserve.
we're asking for money that would be used to renovate or to make nueces appropriate for the exchange center.
again, the renovation -- it's not really renovation,r but some of the move costs and computer hookup costs and things that are associated with ces's move to uvs or usb would be absorbed within our budget, so we could pay for that.
>> so if we were to approve this today, when would implementation take place?
>> our goal is to have a soft launch for may in time for mother's day.
and if we were behind and not successful in doing that, our hard date is father's day in June.
>> so we would be able to meet that schedule?
get the work done by then?
ms. Fleming, don't go far because we know you have golden words for us.
>> [ laughter ]
>> this will take us until the end of January to have usb ready for the move, 1101 nueces, and we have enough time to make that day by may.
>> okay.
speaking of funding, I think that's why ms. Fleming came to the microphone.
>> thank you, judge.
sherri fleming, county executive for health and human services.
and my comment is jermaine to our discussion about operating and I wanted to remind the court that in the fiscal 12 process you did earmark between 42 or $44,000.
I can't remember the exact amount, for a position that is related to this project.
so I just wanted to remind you of that action that you took during the fiscal year of 2012 budget process.
>> so we funded the position, but it's yet unfilled?
>> the money is still in reserves.
we have not requested that release just yet.
>> what's the name of that reserve, ms. Fleming?
>> the allocated reserve, I believe.
it's not in the health and human services budget.
>> what did I say?
>> mr. Nellis, you may have $45,000 you don't know about.
>> [ laughter ]
>> here comes the man in black.
>> the 45,000 is earmarked in the allocated reserve that you earmarked during markup.
>> how is it described?
>> it is described as hhs and veteran services coordinator position, safe haven/safe place, 45,000.
>> so you would be able to collaborate with them, ms. Policemen fleming?
>> yes.
-- ms. Fleming?
>> yes.
>> it seems to me if this is something we ought to do, we've kind of been toying around with it for a few years.
and if we committed to the grantor that we would do planting, do the development and then implement it, we ought to keep our word, and the time has come for that.
that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> and legal, we're talking about at least one agreement, right?
>> there is a meeting this afternoon.
we are working on that, a license agreement for nueces this afternoon, with the county attorney's office.
and it's actually going to be an exhibit in the overall subrecipient contract.
so that will be coming before you I think the 24th.
>> okay.
so if we approve this I guess next week, there would be a budget transfer into an appropriate line item, and so funding would be ready when the contract is -- if we need another one, is available.
that sound good, ms. Potero?
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.
>> thank you.
and by the way, that's all of 11, right?
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.
Subscribe for updates