[00:00:03]
SPEEDING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 20TH, 2025.
THE RECORD SHOW IT'S 9:00 AM UH, WE WILL OPEN THIS MEETING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND ACT UPON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS. UM,
[I. CONSENT]
THE CONSENT UNDER ITEM A, PURCHASING TO ACCEPT, REJECT, RENEW, RFP PC 25 DASH 39, JUVENILE PROBATION MENTAL HEALTH, DIVERSIONARY SERVICES, KIM.TWO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FROM PECAN VALLEY CENTERS IN SHILOH HEALTH FOR R-F-P-P-C 25 DASH 39.
JUVENILE PROBATION MENTAL HEALTH, DIVERSIONARY SERVICES, THE JUVENILE PROBATION DIRECTOR, CHIEF JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER REQUEST AWARD TO PECAN VALLEY AS THE MOST QUALIFIED AND COMPLIANT PROPOSAL.
AND TO RATIFY THE AWARD TO OCTOBER 13TH, 2025.
AND THAT'S THE CURRENT, THAT'S WHO WE CURRENTLY USE.
ANY CHANGE WITH THIS AT ALL? WELL, THIS IS A NEW, NEW CONTRACT.
AND WHAT IS IT COMPOSED OF? WHAT IS IT ADDITIONAL? ALL THAT SERVICES.
ASHLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES, CERTAINLY.
SO THIS WAS A PREVIOUSLY A GRANT FUNDED POSITION IN WHICH WE LOST THAT GRANT FUNDING.
UM, AND I DID A GRANT RENEWAL.
AND BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS NUMBERS AND WHAT NEEDED TO BE A CHANGE ADMINISTRATION WITH MHMR, WE DID NOT GET THAT GRANT AGAIN.
SO WE BUDGETED IN THE JUVENILE BUDGET TO COVER THIS COST.
THE SERVICES INCLUDES SKILLS TRAINING, PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENTS, MEDICATION MANAGEMENT, COGNITIVE BASED THERAPY.
THE OVERALL GOAL IS TO DIVERT YOUTH WHO NEED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FROM DEEPER PENETRATION INTO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST? $50,000.
SO, UH, WE BUDGETED TO SERVE 25.
SO, AND THIS IS BUDGETED IN THE CURRENT BUDGET THAT WE JUST PASSED? YES.
SO, UM, BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER, UM, I KIND OF STEP OUTSIDE OF ROBERT'S RULES.
I GUESS JUST REAL QUICK NOTE IS WE NOW HAVE A GRANT WRITER.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN COME BACK AND THEN FIND OUT AND IDENTIFY HOW WE DIDN'T, WHY WE DIDN'T GET IT, SO WE COULD GET, BE, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, COMPETITIVE NEXT TIME AROUND? SIR, CAN WE, CAN WE RE-QUALIFY FOR THIS? UM, NO, THIS WAS A SIX YEAR GRANT.
I DID ASK WHY WE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR IT.
UM, AND THEY SAID BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS NUMBERS ON THE GRANT THAT WAS OFFERED.
THEY FAILED TO MEET THEIR MEASURABLE OUTCOMES.
SO IT WAS BASED UPON OUTPUT OF THIS PROGRAM ON HOW THAT GRANT WAS OR ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
BUT I AM CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE GRANT WRITER AND WE WILL USE HER IN FULL CAPACITY MOVING FORWARD.
I JUST THOUGHT THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOL, UH, I'LL SECOND IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR? I'M SO SORRY, I, UH, SKIPPED A STEP.
[II.A. Discuss/Take action regarding Parker County grant policy. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen) ]
MOVE TO ITEM TWO ON APPROVAL AND UNDER ITEM MAY DISCUSS, TAKE ACTION REGARDING PARKER COUNTY GRANT POLICY.UM, AS THE GRANT COORDINATOR, UM, I SERVE TO BE THE CENTRALIZED POINT OF ALL GRANT RELATED ACTIVITIES.
SO I'M WORKING ON A GRANT POLICY AND DO NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU AND WHAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE AND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE SOME GRANTS AT TIMES OR THEY HAVE SHORT TURNAROUND TIMES.
AND, UH, WE HAD ONE RECENTLY FOR THE OTHER VICTIM'S ASSISTANCE GRANT.
WE LITERALLY HAD TWO WEEKS TO APPLY FOR THAT.
AND WE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO MEET, UM, HERE IN COURT FOR PRE-APPROVAL FOR THE APPLICATION.
HOWEVER, THE, UH, GRANTOR DID ALLOW TO SUBMIT THE RESOLUTION AFTER THE FACT, AFTER THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
AND SO JUST KIND OF NEED GUIDANCE FROM YOU TO WRITE IT DOWN IN THE POLICY AS TO WHAT THE AUTHORITY IS WHEN WE GO TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
I THINK, UH, THE AUDITOR HAD SOME INPUT ON THAT, THAT WE HAVE TO BE APPROVED.
IS THAT BEFORE WE APPLY FOR A GRANT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? I WAS TOLD BY THE AUDITOR THAT WE HAD TO HAVE APPROVAL BY COURT BEFORE WE APPLY FOR A GRANT.
IS THAT IN THE POLICY, IN OUR POLICY OR IS THAT BY LAW? NO, I THINK THAT RELATES BACK, RELATES BACK TO THE, THE AUDIT THAT WE RECEIVE, THE OUTSIDE AUDIT.
JOHN, YOU HAVE INPUT ON THAT AND DID THE LEGALITIES? IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER A RESOLUTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPLICATION.
UH, A LOT OF THESE WOULD ALLOW US TO APPLY FOR A GRANT WITHOUT THE RESOLUTION.
BUT IF, IF IT DOES REQUIRE THE RESOLUTION, THEN, THEN
[00:05:01]
ABSOLUTELY THE STEP, THE GRANTS DICTATE.NOW, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT DIDN'T REQUIRE RESOLUTION, BUT I, I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD TO HAVE APPROVAL BEFORE I APPLIED FOR THE TURP GRANT THAT WE'VE APPLIED FOR, FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, 13 YEARS PRIOR APPROVAL BY COURT, PUT THE, YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THIS? YOU'VE BEEN SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES, BUT I'M JUST, I'M UNDER THIS SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT ANYTIME ANYONE RE YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S COURT'S AUTHORITY WHETHER OR NOT TO APPLY FOR A GRANT OR NOT.
'CAUSE I THINK WE'VE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE NOT EVERY GRANT IS A GRANT YOU SHOULD REALLY APPLY FOR.
MAYBE IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT REQUIRES A 90% MATCH AND YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY GET $10,000.
SO THAT'S WHY IT REQUIRES COURT'S APPROVALS TO SEE IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY WANT US TO GO AFTER, BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR.
ARE THERE ANY GRANTS IN WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT CREATES AN OBLIGATION ON OUR PART? THERE'S A TWO STEP PROCESS.
THE APPLICATION USUALLY IN A COMPETITIVE IS NOT OBLIGATION BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE ONLY APPLYING TO COMPETITIVELY GET THE GRANT.
THE GRANT WHEN YOU'RE OBLIGATED IS THE POINT OF ACTUALLY ACCEPTING THAT GRANT AWARD AND THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
SO IF WE APPLY FOR A GRANT, WE'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THAT GRANT.
IF WE THEN REVIEW THE TERMS AND DETERMINE FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR BOUNDS, UM, MY SUGGESTION TO THE COURT WOULD BE COULD WE ADOPT A BLANKET RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GRANT COORDINATOR TO APPLY FOR GRANTS UNDER THE CONDITION THAT SET APPLICATION DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE COUNTY.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE'S A SPECIAL GRANT WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT COSTS MONEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO APPLY FOR, OR IF YOU WIN, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT, THEN THOSE WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC COURT APPROVAL.
BUT OUTSIDE OF OBLIGATIONS LIKE THAT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE THE GRANT COORDINATOR THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
AND ONE THING I I'D ADD ON THAT IS THE COURT ULTIMATELY HAS TO APPROVE RIGHT? THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT PERIOD.
SO EVEN IF IT'S APPLIED FOR THE COURT HAS COME BACK, THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS IF IT IS IMPACTING OUR AUDIT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT RULE OR WHAT, HOW THAT'S IMPACTING US.
SO, UM, THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THAT, RIGHT? NUMBER ONE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT OUR, OUR AUDIT.
HOWEVER, THE COURT STILL ULTIMATELY HAS THE FINAL SAY AND ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT ONCE IT'S GOTTEN TO THAT POINT.
I THINK THE KEY OF IT IS, IS GETTING INTO THE BALLGAME, GETTING, GETTING AT LEAST GETTING INTO IT TO BE ELIGIBLE TO QUALIFY.
AND THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE COURT ON WHETHER, WHAT IS THOSE CRITERIA OF, OF MATCHING FUNDS, WHETHER IT OBLIGATES US, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE, THE LOOPHOLES TO GO THROUGH? SO I, I THINK THAT'S, UH, THAT, THAT'S KEY HERE.
AND IT'S, AND THAT, AND THAT'S SAME KIND OF WHAT YOU CALL IT IN FORT WORTH, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO THE GRANT POLICY WILL SERVE AS AN INTERNAL CONTROL.
THAT'S PART OF THE GUIDANCE THERE.
UM, THAT'S WHY WE WANNA MAKE IT MORE FORMAL, THE PROCESS.
UM, BUT YES, THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS WERE ALLOWED TO APPLY BUT STILL HAD TO COME TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE AND THEY HAD THE WINDOW OF UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, AND IF IT WAS MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL.
SO THEY DID IT UPFRONT, THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE UPFRONT.
SO THEN THERE WAS NO HICCUPS IN IMPLEMENTING THE, THE GRANT PROGRAM AND THAT THEY COULD START SPENDING THE MONEY.
WHAT CLARIFY SOON AS THEY, I SEE WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
UH, FOR DEPARTMENTS TO, TO QUALIFY OR TO APPLY THESE NEED TO GO THROUGH YOU AT LEAST TO, TO AT LEAST MAKE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING OR MM-HMM
TO BE THE COORDINATOR OF THAT TO 'CAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT.
IS IT THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY IS THAT WHAT'S HURTING US ON OUR AUDITS? UM, PERHAPS BECAUSE IT WAS PERMITTED, UM, TO APPLY OVER THERE WITHOUT THE COUNCIL APPROVAL.
UM, I THINK THAT IS AN INTERNAL CONTROL.
SO YES, THE, THE, WHEN YOU HAVE A GRANT POLICY, IT WILL HELP THE AUDIT PROCESS.
SO I'VE, I'VE MADE A MOTION HERE.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER WALDEN IS SECONDED AND MY MOTION IS THAT WE ADOPT A RESOLUTION AS PART OF A BROADER POLICY THAT AUTHORIZES THE GRANT COORDINATOR AND THE GRANT COORDINATOR ONLY TO APPLY FOR GRANTS SUBJECT TO THERE NOT BEING ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY CREATED FOR SAID APPLICATION.
IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT IS STILL THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN APPROVE AND ACCEPT MM-HMM
[00:10:01]
YES.SO, SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE HAVING A BLANKET APPROVAL BY THE COURT TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
I THINK THAT PROBABLY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT IN THE PAST WITH THE, THE, UH, TURP GRANT.
THEN WE'VE COME BACK AND ASKED, TELL THE COURT THAT WE'LL BE APPLYING FOR TURP GRANTS THIS YEAR.
SO THIS WILL, THIS WILL BE A BLANKET THAT WOULD SAY WE CAN APPLY FOR GRANTS AND, UH, THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO COURT FOR APPROVAL RIGHT.
BEFORE ANY FUNDS ARE RECEIVED OR THE GRANT IS ACTUALLY ACCEPTED.
SO THAT WILL BE AFTER THE, AFTER THE APPROVAL FROM THE, THE, THE GRANTOR.
SO, AND, AND THAT TIES HER HANDS TO WHERE SHE'S ABLE TO DO THE JOB WE HIRED HER TO DO.
AND SO THE OTHER DEAL IS, IS THAT, THAT, THAT WE DO NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE BIANCA IN THE LOOP AND SAY, LOOK, HERE'S THIS GRANT.
WE'VE APPLIED FOR IT FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS SO THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.
I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION WITH ONE THING SUBJECT TO COMMISSIONER WALDEN AGREEING I WOULD LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED ON THE AGENDA UNDER NOTIFICATION WHEN YOU DO APPLY FOR I'M PERFECT.
SO DO YOU WANT IT JUST BE NOTIFICATION, NOT A RATIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION? SO, UM, UN UNDER OUR AGENDA MM-HMM
WE HAVE A NOTIFICATION SECTION THAT JUDGE DEAN ALWAYS READS OUT.
I'D, I'D LIKE JUST THE APPLICATION OF THE GRANTS TO BE LISTED THERE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO ANY GRANTS THAT WE SEEK IN EACH DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE, SHE NEEDS TO AT LEAST BE MADE AWARE OF.
I I THINK FOR NOW, HAVING A SINGLE POINT COORDINATOR IS GOOD FOR US.
WE CAN MODIFY THAT CERTAINLY AS WE GO.
BUT, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE IS THAT I'M CLEAR ON IS THAT WE'RE STILL ABLE TO DO THE DIRECT, THE DIRECT APPLICATION FOR A GRANT SUBJECT TO HER BEING IN THE LOOP SUBJECT TO HER AGREEMENT.
YEAH, SO MY INTENT WAS IF YOUR OFFICE MANAGER, FOR EXAMPLE, APPLIES FOR A GRANT MM-HMM
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WASN'T THE ONE HAVING TO FILE ALL OF THE GRANTS FOR ALL OF US.
NOW I WOULD SAY I'M NOT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT PRE-SUBMIT THE APPLICATION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD.
UM, AS FAR AS SOME OF THE SYSTEMS AND THE GRANTORS, UH, THE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL IS JUDGE DEAN, SO I AM NOT ABLE TO SIGN OFF ON THAT.
HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE, YEAH.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND I DO HAVE, UM, JUST SOME, I PRINTED THIS FROM THE CONGRESS.GOV AS FAR AS LIKE THE PROCESS OF THE FEDERAL AND THE EXPECTATIONS FROM THEM SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE LYING.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIE.
AND, UH, WAS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE, UM, PART OF THE GRANT POLICY REVIEW PRIOR TO BRINGING IT TO COURT FOR APPROVAL? OR WHAT'S THE EXPECTATION FOR THAT? FOR THE GRANT POLICY, BECAUSE I'M WORKING ON IT.
I'M MISSING SOME PIECES, BUT SURE.
THAT WE, AND COORDINATE WITH THE AUDITOR AND I'D LIKE TO BE A PART OF THAT TOO WITH JACOB AND, AND, UH, WITH THE COORDINATE WITH THE AUDITOR AND YOURSELF.
I SAW GEORGE ABOUT TO VOLUNTEER.
GEORGE, YOU WANNA BE ON THERE? NO,
[II.B. Waive 10-posting for Director of Strategic Projects position. (Judge Deen) ]
UNDER ITEM B, WAIVE 10 DAY POSTING FOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PROJECTS POSITION.AGAIN, THAT'S JUST KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING GETTING, GETTING IT CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONY.
OH, MS. BECKY, DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? UM, NO.
WE DISCUSSED THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND YOU, YOU'LL HAVE IT.
[III. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
MOVE TO, UH, ON ITEM THREE, EXECUTIVE SESSION.ACCORDING TO SECTION 5 5 1 0 7 1, THE GOVERNMENT CODE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO A MEETING, CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSED UNDER ITEM A, AN EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION MEETING WILL BE HELD PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5 5, 1 0 7 1 AND TWO AND 1 2 9 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK ADVICE FROM ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING ITEM A, THE ACTIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PARKER COUNTY LAND ITEM B, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO TEXAS COUNTIES.
AND ITEM C ANY OTHER MATTER DESCRIBED IN THIS MEETING.
RECORDS SHOW THAT WE WILL MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT NINE 15.
[00:15:06]
UH, NO.OKAY, WE'RE GONNA RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10 34 AND MOVE TO ITEM THREE ON ITEMS TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND TAKE NO ACTION.
MOVE TO ITEM FIVE AND ASK FOR MOTION.
A RECORD SHOW WILL ADJOURN AT 10 34.