TCOG Governing Board Meeting Agenda 1117 Gallagher Drive, Sherman, Texas Thursday, May 20, 2021 – 5:30 p.m.
A. Call to Order & Declaration of a Quorum B. Invocation and Pledges C. Welcome Guests D. Executive Director’s Report 1. Strategic Plan Update 2. Key Activities Update 3. Special Presentation: Tourism StoryMap – Michael Schmitz, Antero Group E. Approval of Minutes: Approve Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2021 – page 3 F. Action 1. 2022-2025 Community Needs Assessment (ES): Authorize and approve submission of the 2022-205 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). Judy Fullylove, Energy Services Director – page 5
2. Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) Program FY21 (RS): Approve the FY21 CESF Program Resolution. Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager – page 50
3. Interlocal Agreement between TCOG and Fannin County (RS): Ratify Interlocal Agreement between TCOG and Cooke County to update the Fannin County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager – page 52
4. Office of the Governor’s Criminal Justice Division FY22 Prioritized Projects (RS): Authorize the recommendations from the TCOG Criminal Justice Advisory Committee (CJAC) results from the scoring and ranking of applicants for the following funding categories for Funding Year FY22: Criminal Justice Program, General Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Program Solicitation, General Victim Assistance Direct Service Program Solicitation, and Violent Crimes against Women Criminal Justice & Training Projects Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager – page 57
5. TCOG 9-1-1 Program Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Interlocal Agreement (RS): Authorize the execution of Interlocal Agreements for 9-1-1 PSAP services with the City of Bonham, Fannin County, Grayson County, City of Whitesboro, City of Gainesville and Cooke County. Beth Eggar, 9-1-1 Program Manager – page 61
6. TCOG 9-1-1 Program Interlocal Agreement for Backup and Training Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) (RS): Authorize the execution of Interlocal Agreement for 9-1-1 PSAP services with Texoma Council of Governments. Beth Eggar, 9-1-1 Program Manager – page 77
7. Personnel Policy Manual Amendment (AF): Authorize amendment to TCOG’s Personnel Policy Manual regarding remote/tele-work policy. Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director – page 91
8. FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budgets Update (AF): Accept recommendation, if any, regarding TCOG’s FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budgets. Mindi Jones, Finance Director – page 92
9. FYE 2021 Cost Pool Allocations (AF): Accept recommendation, if any, regarding TCOG’s FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budget Rate changes. Mindi Jones, Finance Director
G. President’s Report 1. Officer and committee member appointments reminder for upcoming board term June – May. a. Audit & Finance Subcommittee Members b. Human Resources Subcommittee Members c. Executive Committee Officers H. Adjourn
APPROVAL
______Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director
AS: Aging Services Department AF: Administration & Finance Department CS: Client Services Department ES: Energy Services RS: Regional Services Pursuant to the Texas Open Meeting Act, Government Code Chapter 551 one or more of the above items may be considered in executive session closed to the public, including but not limited to consultation with attorney pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 and Section 551.074 arising out of the attorney's ethical duty to advise TCOG concerning legal issues arising from an agenda item. Any decision held on such matter will be taken or conducted in open session following the conclusion of the executive session.
Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services are requested to contact Administration & Finance at 903-813-3514 two (2) work days prior to the Pagemeeting 2so that appropriate arrangements can be made. The above Agenda was posted online at https://www.tcog.com and physically posted at the Texoma Council of Governments offices in a place readily accessible to the public. The Agenda was also emailed to the County Clerk offices in Cooke and Fannin Counties, TX on Friday, May 14, 2021. TCOG Governing Board Minutes 1117 Gallagher Drive, Sherman, TX Thursday, April 15, 2021 – 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Keeler, Jeff Whitmire, Teresa Adams, Bryan Wilson, Nathan Caldwell, Sandra Melton, Jason Snuggs, Bob Rhoden, Randy Moore Members Absent: Daniel Harrison, Cecil Jones, Stan Thedford, Scott Neu
A. Jeff Whitmire called the meeting to order and declared a quorum at 5:32. B. Bob Rhoden provided the invocation, and Randy Moore led the pledges. C. Guests included: Brandon Shelby, Judy Fullylove, Mary Browning-Rodriguez, Delano Smith, Virginia Rhodes, Molly Guard, Catherine Krantz, Evan Brown, Jacob Samford, Sean Norton, Mindi Jones, Eric Bridges
D. Eric Bridges referred the board to the handout for updates. E. Jason Snuggs made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 18, 2021. Sandra Melton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Consent 1. Bob Rhoden made a motion to approve the consent items including authorizing the submission and, if awarded, acceptance of the AmeriCorps Seniors Continuation Grant for the Texoma Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). This motion was seconded by Jason Snuggs. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Action 1. Ken Keeler made a motion to authorize the audit engagement for fiscal year ending April 30, 2021. Bryan Wilson seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. 2. A motion was made by Sandra Melton to authorize submission and, if awarded, acceptance of the AmeriCorps Seniors Renewal Grant for the Foster Grandparent Program. Ken Keeler seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. A motion was made by Jason Snuggs to authorize a 180-day contract extension for the FY 2020 Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program. Nathan Caldwell seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. A motion as made by Randy Moore to authorize submission of 2-1-1’s Request for Application. This motion was seconded by Sandra Melton. Motion carried unanimously. 5. A motion was made by Bryan Wilson to accept the report of investments for the period of January 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. Bob Rhoden seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. There was no action taken regarding TCOG’s FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budgets nor allocation rates. 7. Bob Rhoden made a motion to set the fixed carry-forward Indirect Cost Rate at a total of 30% for FYE 2022. This motion was seconded by Randy Moore. Motion carried unanimously. 8. A motion was made by Nathan Caldwell to approve the proposed Membership Dues Schedule for FYE 2022. This motion was seconded by Sandra Melton. Motion carried unanimously. 9. A motion was made by Bob Rhoden to approve the proposed holiday schedule for FYE 2022. This motion was seconded by Ken Keeler. Motion carried unanimously. 10. A motion was made by Nathan Caldwell to approve the proposed FTE and Salary Budget Authority for FYE 2022. This motion was seconded by Sandra Melton. Motion carried unanimously.
H. Jeff Whitmire adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Page 3
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Judy Fullylove, Energy Services Director JF DATE: May 12, 2021 RE: 2022-2025 Community Needs Assessment (CNA)
RECOMMENDATION Authorize and approve submission of the 2022-205 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA).
BACKGROUND The Community Services Block Grant provides support for a wide range of services and activities that addresses poverty. Funding can be used to support salaries as well as community and family initiatives related to employment, education, income management, housing, emergency services, nutrition, linkages, self-sufficiency and health.
DISCUSSION As a sub-recipient of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), TCOG is required to conduct a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) once every three (3) years. By analyzing quantitative and qualitative data, the CNA identifies the top five needs affecting people in poverty in the region. The revision included data that supported conclusions of the top five (5) needs stated in the plan. Those needs are: 1) Affordable housing; 2) Utility assistance; 3) Food insecurity; 4) Transportation; 5) Medical/Mental Health 6) Childcare The CNA is utilize to develop a five-year (5) strategic plan to address poverty as well as annual Community Action Plans in Cooke, Fannin, and Grayson counties. The submission deadline is June 1, 2021.
BUDGET None
Page 4
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Community Needs Assessment 2022-2025 Texoma Region, Texas
May 2021 Texoma Council of Governments
0 | Page
Page 5
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
1. TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS & THE TEXOMA REGION 3 Organizational Profile 3 Texoma Region 4 2. THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 6 Methodology, Timeline and Data Collection Plan 6 Data Sources 7 Data Analysis Methods 7 3. QUANTITATIVE DATA 8 Community Profile, Demographics of the Texoma Region 8 Poverty 10 Demographic Variables for Poverty 11 Mapping Family Poverty 12 Mapping Childhood Poverty 18 Geographical Conclusions 26 Causes of Poverty 28 4. QUALITATIVE DATA 29 211 Database 31 Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) 31 TCOG Client Survey 32 Agency Survey 33 Key Informant Interviews (Elected Officials) 33 5. IDENTIFIED NEEDS 34
6. KEY FINDINGS 35
7. COMMUNITY STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES 37
8. BARRIERS TO ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED NEEDS 37
9. PRIORITY NEEDS & SUGGESTED ACTIONS 38
APPENDICES 40
1 | Page
Page 6
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Executive Summary
This 2021 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) was conducted following guidelines set forth by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs; however, additional information on poverty is included in the report so that there is a more complete picture of poverty in the Texoma region, and in Cooke, Fannin, and Grayson Counties. The Texoma region consists of these three counties in north-central Texas. Grayson is the most populous and most urban, while Cooke and Fannin counties have smaller populations and are more rural.
As a public community action agency that receives Community Services Block Grant funding, Texoma Council of Governments engages in a community needs assessment every three years as mandated by the federal government, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, information memorandums 49 and 138. The CNA is utilize to develop a five-year (5) strategic plan to address poverty as well as annual Community Action Plans. Data Collection Methods
Data collection methods were both qualitative (interviews, focus groups, organization survey, regional 211 call assistance data, Aging & Disability Resource Center data), and quantitative (US Census data). Data sources for this assessment include the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2019 (ACS 2019), with estimates used whenever possible, as well as Community Commons maps, with data generally from the ACS 2019. This study looked at poverty from two viewpoints, demographic (who is more likely to be in poverty), and geographic (locations of higher rates of poverty). When addressing poverty in the region, and in the three counties, the aggregate data for poverty do not differ much from Texas and US figures; however, when separated by age, race/ethnicity, education level, and family composition, a different picture of poverty in the region emerges. As in our previous needs assessment, in all three counties children under 5 and children from 5-18 are the age categories most likely to live in poverty. In fact, data show that childhood poverty is prevalent in all three counties. Also in all three counties, residents of African American descent are more likely to live in poverty. The total numbers are not extremely high, but the percentage of poverty is much greater.
Education level is linked to poverty, with those having less than a high school diploma much more likely to be low income than those having higher levels of education.
Overall, poverty rates are higher for female-headed families with children than for married-couple families with children. In fact, female- headed households have some of the highest rates in the region. Maps from Community Commons illustrate where poverty is concentrated in census tracts by county, and by town. The needs data indicate five major needs for the region, and for each county. These needs are:
Ø Affordable housing Ø Utility assistance Ø Food insecurity Ø Transportation issues/gas money Ø Medical/mental health and Ø Childhood poverty and education issues were also noted.
2 | Page
Page 7
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
County needs are prioritized somewhat differently (below)
Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County Ø Affordable housing Ø Affordable housing Ø Affordable housing Ø Food insecurity Ø Medical/mental health Ø Utility assistance Ø Utility assistance Ø Utility assistance Ø Transportation issues/gas Ø Transportation issues/gas Ø Food insecurity money money Ø Transportation issues/gas Ø Food insecurity Ø Medical/mental health money Ø Medical/mental health
1. Texoma Council of Governments & the Texoma Region Organizational Profile
Texoma Council of Governments (TCOG) is a voluntary association of local governments in Cooke, Fannin, and Grayson Counties that works directly with citizens and local jurisdictions to improve and advance economic vitality and quality of life in Texoma. In collaboration with our public and private sector partners, TCOG delivers various programs and services designed to support the health, welfare, and future of our citizens, our communities, and the region as a whole. TCOG employees work hand-in-hand with elected officials and community leaders to develop sustainable and economically viable community and regional development solutions.
Many projects are funded through a state or federal funding allocation to the region. TCOG utilizes these funds for grant distribution, regional projects, and strategic development. Grant distributions fall into three major categories of homeland security funds, criminal justice grants, and rural community development block grants. Regional projects include conducting household hazardous waste collections and recycling and composting demonstration projects. TCOG also serves as the Economic Development Administration’s designated Economic Development District in Texoma, producing the annual Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the region.
TCOG and our community partners have developed innovative projects to improve quality of life and build the region. One such project is the provision of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) support to rural communities that enhances planning, zoning and other development-related decisions. GIS is an essential emergency management tool, and many local emergency managers, 911 dispatchers, firefighters, and law enforcement officers take advantage of this innovative service. TCOG also offers training, strategic planning, and project management services.
In addition to the work we perform for our cities and counties, TCOG provides a vast array of direct social services, including the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). This program seeks to mobilize resources to
3 | Page
Page 8
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT provide education, economic opportunities, and advocacy for the needs of low-income families and communities of Northeast Texas. Services offered by CSBG are designed to promote self-sufficiency.
Other social services include: Section 8 rental assistance (over 600 vouchers each year), benefits counseling, care coordination for the elderly and disabled, caregiver support services, senior volunteer programs, employment and education support, utility assistance, home weatherization, and comprehensive information and referral assistance to seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income families.
Collectively, through the planning and development services offered to cities and counties as well as the direct social services provided to citizens, TCOG has played a crucial role in the growth and development of the region since 1968. An Economic Impact Analysis conducted in 2011 estimated TCOG’s overall impact in the region at $34 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, including 174 permanent jobs with $6.2 million total earnings, 182,000 volunteer hours served valued at over $4 million, and an additional $658,000 in tax revenues to local jurisdictions. Directly through our projects and services and indirectly through our overall economic impact to the region, TCOG is touching lives and changing communities. Texoma Region The Texoma region consists of three north-central Texas counties, all bordering the Red River and the state of Oklahoma (see Figure A). These counties are Cooke, Fannin, and Grayson; common challenges are shared by all, but each has its own distinct concerns. Grayson County is the central county, the most populous, and the most urban (Sherman/Denison Metropolitan Area). Grayson is also the largest, at 979 square miles, followed by Fannin and Cooke at 899 and 898 square miles respectively.
4 | Page
Page 9
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure A: Texoma Region: Cooke County, Grayson County, Fannin County
Grayson County, with the largest population (131,014, ACS 2019 estimate), is also the center for major retail, industry, medical facilities, physician specialists, and higher education (Grayson College and Austin College) for the region. Sherman is the county seat of Grayson County and is the largest in population (42,432 US Census estimate).
Denison, also in Grayson County, is closest to the Red River and Lake Texoma. Denison has a 2019 US Census estimated population of 24,340.
The easternmost county, Fannin, has an estimated population of 34,537 (ACS 2019). Bonham, the county seat and largest city in the county, has an estimated population of 10,157 (ACS 2019) with an estimated 2,000 incarcerated at any given time (three prisons/jails in the town). Fannin County is more rural and more agricultural.
Cooke County is the westernmost county in the region, with a population of 40,041 (ACS 2019). It has only one large town, Gainesville, with a population of 16,441 (ACS 2019). The Cooke County economy centers on oil and gas production and associated industries and one post-secondary institution, North Central Texas College.
5 | Page
Page 10
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2. The Assessment Process
Methodology, Timeline and Data Collection Plan
Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered to assess the needs of low-income Texomans across the tri- county region of Cooke, Grayson, and Fannin Counties. This approach provides the ability to analyze both the quantitative (statistically relevant) and qualitative (descriptive) data collected and examine elements from several perspectives. Coupled with official demographic data, this combination provides a broader understanding of poverty in the region. The work plan for data collection efforts (Appendix A) was approved by TCOG’s Governing Board as recommended by the CSBG Advisory Council (Tri-Partite Board). Members of the Tri-Partite Board are:
Tiffany Dancer, Chair Private Sector Clinical Director, Child & Family Guidance Center Julie Craig Private Sector Child Care Contracts Manager, Texoma Workforce Solutions Jordan Brummett Private Sector Staff Member, Carrus Specialty Hospital David Turner, Co-Chair Public Sector Mayor, City of Southmayd, TX
Tim La Vergne Public Sector City Council, Bonham, TX Trish McElvy Poverty Sector Volunteer, St. Luke Episcopal Church Shana Pless, Secretary Poverty Sector Getting Ahead Graduate
Yvonne Sandmann Poverty Sector OSD Specialist, North Central Texas College Laura Ballard Poverty Sector Getting Ahead Investigator
The research team for this Community Needs Assessment included the following TCOG staff members:
v Judy Fullylove, BA, NCRI Energy Services Director v Molly Guard, MA, NCRI GIS & Planning Program Manager v Mailinh Nguyen, MPL Regional Projects Coordinator v Catherine Krantz, MPA Program Planner
6 | Page
Page 11
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Data Sources
The following were sources of information and data used in this needs assessment: Source Descriptions US Census American The United State Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (ACS 2019) was Community Survey, accessed to ascertain the most recent official data on poverty and poverty variables 2015-2019 available. These data were used extensively, both as stand-alone data, and in conjunction with Community Commons maps, to develop a detailed picture of
poverty in the Texoma region by county. Community The suggested survey questions provided by the Texas Department of Housing and Organization & Community Affairs in the Community Needs Assessment Guide were used to gather Service Agency information from local organizations. The primary community and service provider Survey agencies for poor and distressed individuals and families in each of the three counties were contacted. These surveys were used to gather insight from key
stakeholders on vital community needs. Respondents were asked about unmet needs. A matrix was created to analyze the qualitative data provided. Survey questions and a list of respondents are supplied at the end of this document. Virtual Focus Using direction from Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs in the Groups in Each Community Needs Assessment Guide, the research team developed focus group County and Key prompts to gain information from focus groups and individuals in the three Informant counties. The same TCOG individuals conducted every group, and the same Interviews prompts were used each time. Focus group participants were mostly staff of service provider agencies. Key informants were elected officials and agency/community
leaders. Those who participated varied in age, sex, race and family status. They were asked to be open and share their honest opinions. Each focus group or interview lasted for approximately 60 minutes, and consisted of lively discussions. In the end, contributors shared information not only with facilitators, but with each other. Community The Community Commons website, recommended by the Texas Department of Commons Data Housing and Community Affairs, was used to provide demographic and poverty Maps mapping information for the region. Through the Community Commons website, we were able to obtain maps showing American Community Survey poverty data distributed across the region. US Census Bureau Data from the US Census Bureau and Census studies such as the US American Community Survey 2019 (ACS 2019) were used for official demographic data.
Data Analysis Methods
Poverty, by both demographic and geographic variables, was analyzed using the Community Commons mapping tool, along with frequency tables for the ACS 2019 data. The community and agency responses were analyzed using frequency tables. Focus groups were analyzed by qualitative methods to ascertain themes and emergent issues that were documented by the recorder as the facilitator led the groups. The 211 Information and Referral Call Data were supplied in aggregate and by county for analysis.
7 | Page
Page 12
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3. Quantitative Data
Community Profile, Demographics of the Texoma Region
Table 1, next page, shows selected demographic information for Cooke, Grayson, and Fannin Counties: Sex, Age, Race, and Ethnicity.
v Overall, Grayson County is the most populous and the largest in the Texoma Region, with 64.0% of the population (131,014). Cooke County has 19.5% (40,041 population), and Fannin County has 16.5% (34,537). v Sex: 50.4% Female, 49.6% Male. v Age Group: 58.9% 18-64 Years, 17.8% 65 and older, 17.1% 5-18 years, and 6.2% <5 years of age. v Median Age: 40-41 years. v Races: 86% Non-Hispanic or Latino, 14.0% Hispanic or Latino. v Ethnicities: 87.7% Caucasian, 5.0% African American, 2.3% Native, 1.3% Asian, and 3.7% Others.
8 | Page
Page 13
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table1: Demographics for Texoma Region
Pop Percent Pop Percent Pop Percent Pop Percent
Male 19,871 49.6% 18,246 52.8% 63,944 48.8% 102,061 49.6% Female 20,170 50.4% 16,291 47.2% 67,070 51.2% 103,531 50.4% Total 40,041 100.0% 34,537 100.0% 131,014 100.0% 205,592 100.0%
<5 Age 2,731 6.8% 1,740 5.0% 8,271 6.3% 12,742 6.2% 5-18 Years 6,819 17.0% 5,578 16.2% 22,829 17.4% 35,226 17.1% 18-64 Years 23,222 58.0% 20,821 60.3% 76,971 58.8% 121,014 58.9%
9 | Page
Page 14
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Poverty
As shown in Table 2, below, the overall poverty level of each of the three counties is close to the poverty level of the State of Texas.
: Overall Poverty Rate by County
County Poverty Level Cooke 12.70% Fannin 13.20% Grayson 11.60% Avg 3 Counties 12.50% Texas 13.60%
Source: American Community Survey 2019
Table 3 (see next page) measures social and economic well-being, which includes three main factors: (1) Median Household Income, (2) Per Capita Income in past 12 months, and (3) Percent of People in Poverty in the 3 counties compared to nearest Metropolitan County (Dallas), Texas and US. Overall, the average median household income of the three counties ($56,555), is lower than the Dallas County number ($59,607) by 5%, the Texas figure ($61,874) by 9% and the US number ($62,843) by 10%. Similarly, the Per Capita Income in past 12 months of the three counties ($28,609), is smaller than Dallas County ($32,653) by 12.4%; Texas ($31,277) by 8.5% and the US ($31,103) by 8%. The US Poverty Level is $26,500 for a family of four (HHS, 2021).
Measures of Social and Economic Well-Being
Income & Poverty Avg 3 Dallas Cooke Fannin Grayson Counties County Texas US
Median Household Income (in 2019 dollars) $60,202 $54,648 $54,815 $56,555 $59,607 $61,874 $62,843
Per Capita Income in Past 12 Months $30,704 $27,112 $28,011 $28,609 $32,653 $31,277 $34,103
Percentage of People in Poverty 12.7% 13.2% 11.6% 12.5% 14.0% 13.6% 10.5%
Source: American Community Survey 2019
10 | Page
Page 15
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Demographic Variables for Poverty
There are several demographic variables that contribute to poverty status such as: Age, Race/Ethnicity and Education. Table 4, Poverty Demographic Variables, below, illustrates how poverty is distributed across these categories in Cooke, Grayson and Fannin Counties.
Poverty Demographic Variables
Demographics Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County Total 3 Counties Pop Poverty Percent Pop Poverty Percent Pop Poverty Percent Pop Poverty Percent Sex/ Gender Male 19,348 2,054 10.6% 15,550 1,855 11.9% 62,616 7,283 11.6% 97,514 11,192 11.5% Female 19,761 2,970 15.0% 16,027 1,941 12.1% 65,699 9,492 14.4% 101,487 14,403 14.2% Total 39,109 5,024 12.8% 31,577 3,796 12.0% 128,315 16,775 13.1% 199,001 25,595 12.9%
Age (Year) <5 Age 2,545 744 29.2% 1,687 245 14.5% 8,188 1,816 22.2% 12,420 2,805 22.6% 5-18 Age 6,520 1,486 22.8% 5,553 748 13.5% 22,423 3,913 17.5% 34,496 6,147 17.8% 18-64 Age 22,992 2,339 10.2% 18,516 2,258 12.2% 75,446 9,226 12.2% 116,954 13,823 11.8% 65 Age 7,052 455 6.5% 5,821 545 9.4% 22,258 1,820 8.2% 35,131 2,820 8.0% Total 39,109 5,024 12.8% 31,577 3,796 12.0% 128,315 16,775 13.1% 199,001 25,595 12.9%
Ethnicities Caucasian 36,013 4,239 11.8% 28,494 2,924 10.3% 111,235 13,540 12.2% 175,742 20,703 11.8% African American 978 360 36.8% 1,233 361 29.3% 6,835 1,711 25.0% 9,046 2,432 26.9% Asian 332 7 2.1% 225 142 63.1% 1954 156 8.0% 2,511 305 12.1% Others 1,786 418 23.4% 1,625 369 22.7% 8,291 1,368 16.5% 11,702 2,155 18.4% Total 39,109 5,024 12.8% 31,577 3,796 12.0% 128,315 16,775 13.1% 199,001 25,595 12.9%
Educational Attainment Not High School Graduate 3,632 636 17.5% 2,753 736 26.7% 9,741 2,281 23.4% 16,126 3,653 22.7% High School Graduate 8,448 808 9.6% 7,670 973 12.7% 26,014 2,803 10.8% 42,132 4,584 10.9% Some College, AA Degree 9,040 822 9.1% 7,302 541 7.4% 33,414 3,273 9.8% 49,756 4,636 9.3% BA Degree or Higher 5,621 91 1.6% 4,069 177 4.3% 17,958 805 4.5% 27,648 1,073 3.9% Total 26,741 2,357 8.8% 21,794 2,427 11.1% 87,127 9,162 10.5% 135,662 13,946 10.3%
Source: American Community Survey 2019
11 | Page
Page 16
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mapping Family Poverty
Family Household Poverty Map, Overall 3 Counties Family Households Living Below the Poverty Level, Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Fannin Cooke Grayson
For all of the maps, the darker the shade of orange, the higher percentage of family households estimated by the Census Bureau to be living in poverty. See Maps in Figures B1-B7 next pages.
12 | Page
Page 17
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Families in Poverty Map, Grayson County Family Households Living Below the Poverty Level, Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Grayson
As expected, the same census tracts in Sherman and Denison that indicate higher levels of families in poverty also have higher levels of childhood poverty. Figure C2, next page shows family poverty by census tract for Sherman.
13 | Page
Page 18
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Families Poverty Map, Sherman Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Sherman
Grayson
Tract 14, in the further north of Sherman, has an estimated of 27.4% of families living in poverty, while in the north and center part, tract 20, has an estimated of 15.6% and in the south east part, tract 17, has 25.4% of families living in poverty.
In the west and further southern part of Sherman, tract 15 has 15% and tract 18.01 has 11.4% of families are living in poverty. Again, the same tracts having higher percentages of childhood poverty also have higher percentages of family poverty. Figure C3 next shows the distribution of family poverty in Denison and the surrounding area.
14 | Page
Page 19
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Families Poverty Map, Denison Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015- 2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Denison
Grayson
As expected, family poverty tends to be concentrated in the same areas as childhood poverty. Census tract 4, in the northwest part of the Denison, has 15.0 % of families estimated to be living in poverty. Tract 5.01 has an estimated at 18.3% and tract 2 at 22.6% in the north east part of the city. Tract 6, in the southeast of Denison, has an estimated 11.7 % families in poverty.
Figure B4, below shows the areas of family poverty for Fannin County.
15 | Page
Page 20
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Families in Poverty Map, Fannin County Family Households Living Below the Poverty Level, Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Bonham Fannin
Figure B4, above, again indicates that family poverty is concentrated in Bonham. This census tract (9504.01) has an estimated 20.0 % of families living below the poverty level. For this variable, tracts in the eastern part of the county show higher levels of family poverty than northern, eastern, and southwest parts of the county. Figure B5, below, shows family poverty distributed in Cooke County.
16 | Page
Page 21
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Families in Poverty Map, Cooke County Family Households Living Below the Poverty Level, Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Cooke
Again, as expected, family poverty is concentrated in the same areas of Cooke County as childhood poverty. Tracts 5, 6 and 11, in the center part of Gainesville, have an estimated 41.1%, 16.0% and 16.2%, respectively, of families living in poverty.
17 | Page
Page 22
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mapping Childhood Poverty
For all of the maps, the darker the shade of brown, the higher percentage of children aged 5 - 17 estimated by the Census Bureau to be living in poverty. See Maps B-C series in the next pages.
Childhood Poverty Map, Overall 3 Counties Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Cooke Grayson Fannin
18 | Page
Page 23
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Grayson County Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Grayson
As indicated in Figure C1, childhood poverty is concentrated in three census tracts in north, northeast, and east Sherman, as well as south, east/northeast and west in Denison. The map below shows where these tracts are located in the City of Sherman.
19 | Page
Page 24
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Sherman Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Sherman
Grayson
The census tract in the northern part of Sherman and Knollwood (tract 20) has an estimated 30.7% of children 0-17 living in poverty. The tract in the northeast part of Sherman (tract 14) has an estimated 34.6% of children living in poverty, while the tract in east Sherman (tract 15) indicates an estimated 21.6 % of children living in poverty. The tract in the south part of Sherman (tract 17) has an estimated 45.1% of children living in poverty. Clearly, there are distinct areas of poverty in Sherman, the numerically largest city in the region. Similarly, the Figure C3 shows the same data for the City of Denison.
20 | Page
Page 25
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Denison Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Denison
Grayson
The census tract in west Denison (tract 4), indicates that an estimated 39.6% of children ages 0-17 are living in poverty. The tract in the south of Denison (tract 7) shows 23.7% of children in need. The large tract in east Denison, running up to the Red River just down from the Denison Dam, and over to the Red River just below Hendrix, Oklahoma (tract 2) has an estimated 28.7% of children living in poverty. As in the case of Sherman, there are clear areas of hardship.
21 | Page
Page 26
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Fannin County Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Bonham
Fannin
In Fannin County, as shown in Figure C4, childhood poverty (children ages 0-17 living in poverty) is concentrated in the center area of Bonham. Tract 9504.01 has an estimated of 24.8%, tract 9506 has an estimated 26.7%. The census tract in the central south part of Fannin County (tract 9507.01) has an estimated 21.5 % children in need... The map of Bonham, Figure C5, below, shows where childhood poverty is concentrated in Bonham.
Childhood Poverty Map, Bonham
22 | Page
Page 27
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Bonham
Fannin
Childhood poverty in Bonham is concentrated in the center and west parts of the city, in tract 9504.01. The data indicate an estimated 38.87 percent of children in this part of the city are impoverished. Again, there seems to be an area of poverty, as measured by childhood poverty, in Bonham.
23 | Page
Page 28
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Cooke County Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Bonham
Cooke
As shown in Figure C6, childhood poverty tends to be greatest in Gainesville, and concentrated in central and south Gainesville. Figure C7, below, shows childhood poverty in Gainesville in more detail.
24 | Page
Page 29
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Childhood Poverty Map, Gainesville Population Below the Poverty Level, Children (Age 0-17), Percent by Tract Survey Program: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Source: Community Commons 2021
Gainesville
Cooke
The tract in north of Gainesville, tract 5 has an estimated of 76.9% of children 0-17 living in poverty, one of the highest concentrations in the region, while tract 6 is at 34%. South Gainesville, extending out into unincorporated area (tract 11), has an estimated 31.1 % of children 0-17 living in distress. The east part of Gainesville, tract 6, has an estimated 22.8%, and the west part, tract 4, has 22.8 % of children in poverty.
25 | Page
Page 30
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Geographical Conclusions Numerous other variables indicating poverty all validate the concept of areas of poverty in the region. West Bonham; northwest, northeast and south Sherman; west, north, northeast, and south Denison; and north, north east, east, south, southeast and central Gainesville are the areas where poverty is concentrated in the Texoma region. Table 5 below summarizes the areas of poverty in the Texoma region by poverty variables.
Selected Poverty Indicator Variables by Select Pockets of Poverty Census Tracts Poverty Cooke Fannin Grayson Variable County County County Census Tract 11 5 6 9504.02 20 14 15 17 18.01 4 5.01 6 Gainesville Bonham Sherman Denison Children Age 0-17 Below Poverty Level 22.6% 90.2% 39.0% 0.0% 19.8% 33.3% 27.3% 31.4% 27.2% 27.4% 24.2% 52.1% Children Age 0-4 Below Poverty Level 36.7% 70.3% 32.1% 0.0% 34.8% 41.6% 18.9% 49.4% 22.6% 45.5% 24.8% 7.4% Family Households Below Poverty Level 12.2% 50.8% 27.8% 12.6% 30.7% 31.6% 15.7% 39.4% 4.7% 15.5% 24.6% 8.3% Female Single Parent Households Below Poverty Level 59.3% 71.9% 81.9% 100.0% 100.0% 94.9% 100.0% 68.8% 91.4% 100.0% 89.3% 80.0% Individuals with Income Under $25,000 13.4% 35.0% 20.6% 7.0% 21.5% 32.1% 16.8% 26.3% 9.1% 17.3% 27.1% 15.3% Households with Income Under $25,000 15.6% 34.8% 22.1% 20.0% 38.2% 37.5% 20.9% 30.0% 14.8% 29.8% 38.2% 26.5% Minority Population (Non White) 52.7% 23.5% 11.9% 76.4% 21.0% 13.0% 24.5% 14.6% 4.7% 27.9% 5.4% 12.0% Less than High School Graduate 16.6% 40.9% 18.0% 26.7% 20.5% 36.6% 46.8% 23.5% 6.4% 32.3% 39.9% 19.0% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 15.9% 19.8% 10.0% 11.5% 30.9% 16.3% 9.8% 17.6% 11.1% 11.0% 22.9% 16.4% Source: Census Data, ACS 2019 (Tables: S1701, B17006, DP03)
26 | Page
Page 31
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Census Tracts, Texoma Region
Cooke Grayson Fannin
27 | Page
Page 32
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Causes of Poverty
When viewed across variables, several tracts stand out with high percentages in poverty. In the region, certain characteristics been linked to poverty in each county (below):
In Cooke County, Tract 5, 90.2% of children 0-17, in need, 71.9% of female-headed households, and 40.9% of residents with less than high school degrees are in poverty. Tract 6 also has a high percentage (39.0%) of children in poverty, and 81.9% of female-headed households in poverty. In Gainesville (tract 11) (36.7% of children under age 5, 59.3% female-headed households and 52.7% of the minority population (non- white) are living in poverty. In these areas, and all across the region, age, female-headed households and lack of education are all causes of poverty
In Fannin County, among Tract 9504.02 residents, 100% of female-headed households are in poverty; 76.4% in poverty are minority population (non-white); 26.7% of the poor are less than high school graduates and 20% of the poor have incomes under $25,000.
In Grayson County throughout all tracts (20, 14, 15, 18.01, 4, 5.01) 68.8%-100% of female-headed households live in poverty. In Sherman (Tract 20), 34.8% children under age 5 are in poverty, 30.9% of high school graduates live in poverty, and 30.7% of families are below poverty level. Denison (tract 4) has 45.5% children under age 5 in poverty, 32.3% of less than high school graduates in poverty, 29.8% of households with income under $25,000, and 27.9% minority population (non-white) in poverty.
28 | Page
Page 33
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
4. Qualitative Data
TCOG houses the regional Texas 211 Information & Referral Center. Data are maintained in the 211 iCarol database. A report generated from TCOG 211 call data (referral requests) is shown below. These data are generated from calls received between 1/01/2020 and 2/28/2021. Were we provided call count? Texoma Region Top Needs 1. Electric Service Payment Assistance 2. Rent Payment Assistance 3. Food Pantries 4. COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests 5. Water Service Payment Assistance 6. Housing Authorities 7. Functional Needs Registries 8. Gas Service Payment Assistance 9. Food Stamps/SNAP Applications 10. Area Agencies on Aging
Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County 1. Electric Service Payment 1. Electric Service Payment 1. Electric Service Payment Assistance Assistance Assistance 2. Rent Payment Assistance 2. Rent Payment Assistance 2. Rent Payment Assistance 3. COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests 3. COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests 3. Food Pantries 4. Food Pantries 4. COVID-19 Control 4. COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests 5. Functional Needs Registries 5. Food Pantries 5. Water Service Payment 6. COVID-19 Immunization Clinics 6. Functional Needs Registries Assistance 7. Food Stamps/SNAP 7. Food Stamps/SNAP 6. Housing Authorities Applications Applications 7. Gas Service Payment 8. Gas Service Payment 8. Area Agencies on Aging Assistance Assistance 9. Gas Service Payment 8. Area Agencies on Agencies 9. Talklines/Warmlines Assistance 9. Food Stamps/SNAP 10. COVID-19 Control 10. Evacuation Transportation Applications 10. Functional Needs Registries Source: 211 iCarol database. 2020 – 2021, referrals by county
29 | Page
Page 34
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Top Needs Report for the Texoma Region reflects a real need for basic, core services and describes services as follows:
Electric Bill Payment Assistance is the top need and reflects the ongoing struggle that many have for electricity, even though there are referral agencies available. Rent Payment Assistance is an ongoing request from callers due to a low-income housing crisis and a constant need for housing. Food Pantries may be a request for basic food or may be due to a wait time for SNAP benefits. There are many referrals for this need. COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests give callers many options for testing, test results, information on the testing process and more. Water Service Payment Assistance Programs that pay all or a portion of the water service expenses of people whose water has been or is at risk of being shut off. Housing Authorities reflect a need for affordable housing in the region. Although there may be referrals available, there may be wait times. Functional Needs Registries maintain information about people who may require special assistance in the event of a disaster or crisis that will tell emergency responders or volunteers where they are located and the type of care and support they need. Gas Service Payment Assistance may pay all or a portion of the gas service expenses of people whose gas service expenses of people whose gas has been or is at risk of being shut off. Food Stamps/SNAP Applications provide access to HHSC representatives who may either help with an application over the phone, or other ways to apply, such as the website or application. Area Agencies on Aging provide services for older individuals age 60 and above.
30 | Page
Page 35
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The top five needs in the region as reported by the database are: 211 Database
Top Five Needs from 211
1. Utility (score 15) 2. Rent Assistance (score 12) 3. Medical/Mental Health (score 10) 4. Food (score (score 6) 5. Community Support (score 1) Fannin County Grayson County Cooke County 1. Utility (5) 1. Utility (5) 1. Utility (5) 2. Rent (4) 2. Medical/Mental Health (5) 2. Rent (4) 3. Medical/Mental Health (3) 3. Rent (4) 3. Food (3) 4. Food (2) 4. Food (1) 4. Medical/Mental Health (2) 5. Community Support (1) 5. Community Support 5. Community Support
Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC)
ADRC uses the iCarol database as does 211. Their focus, however, is referrals for disabled individuals younger than 60. ADRC Texoma Region Top Needs Report for 1/1/2020-2/28/2021
1. Utility Payment Assistance 2. Rent Payment Assistance 3. Affordable Housing 4. Transportation Issues 5. Medical/Mental Health 6. Undesignated Temporary Financial Assistance 7. Food Pantries 8. Food Stamps/SNAP Application 9. Area Agencies on Aging
31 | Page
Page 36
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Top Five Needs from ADRC
1. Utility Assistance (score 15) 2. Rent Assistance (score 12) 3. Affordable Housing (score 9) 4. Transportation Issues (score 6) 5. Medical/Mental Health (score 3)
Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County 1. Utility (5) 1. Utility (5) 1. Utility (5) 2. Rent (4) 2. Rent (4) 2. Rent (4) 3. Affordable Housing (3) 3. Affordable Housing (3) 3. Affordable Housing (3) 4. Transportation (2) 4. Transportation (2) 4. Transportation (2) 5. Financial (1) 5. Financial (1) 5. Financial (1)
TCOG Client Survey
TCOG clients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey. There were 118 respondents. See below the top 5 responses to the question, “Which service have you received from Texoma Council of Governments?” Respondents could select multiple answers.
Service Received Number % of Responses Utility Assistance 106 89.8% Section 8 or Public Housing 20 17% Rental Assistance 18 15.3% Weatherization 17 14.4% 2-1-1 Information and Referral 13 11%
Top Five Needs from Client Survey
1. Utility Assistance (score 5) 2. Affordable Housing (score 4) 3. Rent Assistance (score 3) 4. Weatherization (score 2) 5. Community Support/Communications (score 1) (Cooke county and Fannin County data not available)
32 | Page
Page 37
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Agency Survey
TCOG also sent out a needs survey to social service agencies in the Texoma Region (See Appendix for agency list). To the question “What do you think are the top five key needs of low income persons in the community?” responses from the 39 respondents were as follows: Top Five Needs from Agency Survey
1. Affordable Housing (score 14) 2. Food (score 11) 3. Transportation Issues (score 8) 4. Medical/Mental Health (score 5) 5. Childcare/Early Childhood Education (Childcare and early childhood education did not appear on all lists but was rated number 3 in Grayson County)
Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County 1. Food (5) 1. Housing (5) 1. Housing (5) 2. Affordable Housing (4) 2. Food (4) 2. Transportation (4) 3. Utility Assistance (3) 3. Medical/Mental Health (3) 3. Childcare/Early Childhood 4. Transportation (2) 4. Transportation (2) Education (3) 5. Medical/Mental Health (1) 5. Utility (1) 4. Food (2) 5. Medical/Mental Health ( 1) Don’t score 5-1
Key Informant Interviews (Elected Officials)
The research team interviewed key informants in each county. These included elected officials, county and community leaders, and representatives of service agencies. Below is the results.
Top Five Needs from Key Informant Interviews (Elected Officials)
1. Food (score 11) 2. Employment (score 8) 3. Transportation Issues (score 7) 4. Affordable Housing (score 7) 5. Utility Payment Assistance (score 4) (Next Top Needs are: Medical/ Mental Health, Community Support, and Rent Payment Assistance)
Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County 1. Transportation (5) 1. Housing (5) 1. Food (5) 2. Food (4) 2. Employment (4) 2. Utility (4) 3. Medical/Mental Health (3) 3. Community Support (3) 3. Employment (3) 4. Housing (2) 4. Food (2) 4. Transportation (2) 5. Employment (1) 5. Medical/Mental Health (1) 5. Rent (1)
33 | Page
Page 38
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5. Identified Needs
Table 7 shows the overall rankings for the data collection methods.
Table 7: Aggregate Most Needs (Scores)
Most Needs Cooke Fannin Grayson Total 3 Counties Housing 17 22 26 65 Utilities 18 12 24 54 Food 21 11 16 48 Transportation 11 9 21 41 Medical/Mental Health 10 17 7 34 Rent 8 8 13 29 Employment 2 5 3 10 Childcare 2 6 8 Community Support 1 3 1 5 Financial 1 1 1 3 Weatherization 2 2 Medical/Mental 1 1 Grand Total 90 90 120 300 Source: Multiple sources as shown in the table for each method.
Table 8 shows the aggregate for each county, incorporating the focus group rankings and all other data for each county.
Table 8: Aggregate Top 5 Needs
Cooke Fannin Grayson Food (21) Housing (22) Housing (26) Utility (18) Medical/Mental Health (17) Utility (24) Housing (17) Utility (12) Transportation (21) Transportation (11) Food (11) Food (16) Medical/Mental Health (10) Transportation (9) Rent (13)
The aggregate results for Fannin County indicate that affordable housing is the number one need, followed by healthcare/medical, especially mental health, utility payment assistance, food and transportation. In Grayson County the needs are affordable housing, utilities, transportation, and food and rent assistance. Interestingly, utility assistance is either number one or two in Grayson and Cooke counties, but number three in Fannin. Cooke County has food as number one, followed by utility assistance, affordable housing, transportation, and medical/mental health.
34 | Page
Page 39
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6. Key Findings
Although there are some county variations on the rankings, the same basic needs emerge for all three counties. These are:
Texoma’s Top Basic Needs CSBG Domain: Housing 1 Affordable Housing Level of Need: Community and Family CSBG Domain: Housing 2 Help with Utilities (electricity, gas, telephone, water, Level of Need: heating) Family CSBG Domain: Health & Social & Behavioral 3 Hunger - Food Development
Insecurity Level of Need: Community and Family CSBG Domain: Infrastructure 4 Transportation Level of Need: Community and Family CSBG Domain: Health 5 Medical/Mental Level of Need: Health Community CSBG Domain: Education 6 Childcare/Early Level of Need: Childhood Community Education (although not always a top 5)
35 | Page
Page 40
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Focus Group Discussion, Causes & Conditions of Poverty
Focus groups were held in each county. Participants were given the top needs as identified in agency surveys and invited to discuss.
An area of note, because it is not a major need, is employment. Just as in other areas of the state, many Need to include more on employment residents lost wages either through job loss or reduction in work hours as a result of the pandemic. Some of these individuals have not returned to work citing a number reasons including but not limited to lack of child care providers, school-age children engaged in remote learning, reliance on unemployment benefits and social service providers or because their employer has closed. Pre-pandemic, Texoma was functionally at full employment, but many jobs were part-time and/or low-paying without benefits. Several organizations have combined forces to ensure that the local colleges and even high schools, are offering the right training for high wage manufacturing jobs. Lack of employment is a cause of poverty.
As noted in the section on poverty, childhood poverty, especially for children under five, remains a region- wide issue. Female-headed and minority households are also much more likely to be in poverty, or at near-poverty. One disturbing trend was the percent of people ages 18 – 34 who are living in poverty – these are the primary workers, homeowners, consumers that support the local economy. Again, the overlap of age, minority, and female place many of the people of Texoma at considerable risk of poverty.
Transportation concerns were mentioned by all sources. Many Texoma residents do not have personal This is an infrastructure issue vehicles to get to employment, the grocery store or their medical providers. Texoma Area Paratransit System (TAPS), as mentioned, is rebuilding but still not offering adequate services, such as fixed routes. Additionally, TAPS require an advance appointment of 24-hours. Lack of transportation is an infrastructure issue and contributes to conditions of poverty. The 5 Year Regional Coordinated Transportation Plan is currently being updated, which should help address this.
All sources also mentioned residents’ lack of food. Although this need scored highly, it is more a condition than a cause of poverty. There are multiple food banks and distribution points available in Texoma, but many residents do not have the ability to get to them.
36 | Page
Page 41
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7. Community Strengths & Weaknesses
The Texoma community, especially Grayson and Fannin counties, is already aware of mental health needs. The Texoma Health Foundation has begun a drive to understand and address mental health issues, with widespread support from education, government, social help agencies and the medical community. Several agencies, such as TCOG, school districts, and industry have adopted the “Me Too” program, making it acceptable for people to talk more openly about mental health issues. However, there are not enough mental health care providers in the region to meet the needs, especially the needs of children. In a recent Texoma Behavioral Health Leadership Team needs assessment, common themes included: ü A chronic lack of providers, although this appears more significant in Fannin County, where there is a lack of individual clinicians, mental health provider organizations, and pediatricians; and ü A need to continue to focus on anti-stigma efforts to improve service engagement for children, youth, and their families (Texoma Behavioral Health Needs Assessment, Dec 2020).
Several cities in the region, along with economic development corporations, are addressing the shortage of safe, affordable housing, with a variety of strategies to build more safe and affordable housing. Progress has been slow due to a lack of support from some communities and a shortage of skilled workers. Lack of employment and low wages contribute to families’ inability to find affordable, or workforce, housing. An increase in home prices in newer areas while good for the communities overall, can also be problematic.
Utility assistance remains an issue, with TCOG providing the major assistance, region wide, for this need. Unfortunately, funding is limited and not all needs can be met. This is one area that needs much more attention region-wide. The need for utility assistance is a condition of poverty, and along with rent assistance, is related to affordable housing.
8. Barriers to Addressing Identified Needs
Most major barriers to addressing the identified needs have not changed since the previous assessment. They are: v Lack of funding, especially to meet housing, utility and medical needs, v The continued slow rebuilding of TAPS, with no adequate structural or functional replacement(s), v Food deserts in existence for the foreseeable future; “dollar” and convenience stores building in high-poverty areas of towns (areas of poverty), v A lack of early childhood educational opportunities in the region, especially in Fannin and Cooke counties, v The continued lack of mental healthcare practitioners and facilities, especially in Fannin and Cooke Counties, ,
37 | Page
Page 42
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
v The continued concentration of the poor in the “areas of poverty,” as noted earlier, v The continued clear overlap of sex, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity, v The lack of programs to address the very clear early childhood poverty issues.
9. Priority Needs & Suggested Actions Priority needs and suggested actions are: v Affordable Housing: This is a major need, both for the families of the region, but also for the economic development (jobs) of each county. Cities are already addressing this issue, but it will remain a need for the next few years as population steadily increases in the region. Single and multi-family housing is being built now in Grayson County in the cities of Sherman and Denison and the Bois D’arc Lake region of Fannin County.
v Help with Utilities: Energy insecurity is a contributor to affordable housing as the second most costly expense to homeowners and renters. Many Texoma residents need utility assistance. More agencies could be brought into this service area.
v Food Insecurity and Food Deserts: The concentration of poverty in specific geographical areas gives rise both to food deserts and insecurity. This need also overlaps with childhood poverty, with children especially suffering from hunger. School backpack programs and food access points have grown more available over the past year, especially in Fannin County.
v Transportation: This problem unequally affects the elderly and disabled, who cannot get transportation to medical providers and facilities. Planning efforts are underway by the local MPO, as well as the Regionally Coordinated Transportation Plan.
v Medical Mental Health Needs: Community education about this need is the necessary first step to address this issue. Groups such as the Texoma Behavioral Health Leadership Team and other efforts to increase the assets to address this need are underway.
v Childhood Poverty: As noted above, this is a critical need to alleviate poverty. These are often the unseen children who fall through the cracks. More attention, efforts and assets must be brought forward to address this priority need.
v Childcare and Early Childhood Education: Childcare and early childhood education must be made more accessible and affordable. Agencies must make an effort to offer these services, while increasing awareness of services, especially in areas of poverty.
38 | Page
Page 43
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Data Sources US Census Bureau, ACS 2019, data extracted in 2021 Provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more.
GIS Maps Commons Community based on Census Tract and CARESHQ, map extracted 2021
Texas Workforce Commission Unemployment Claims Unemployment claims by numbers from March 7, 2020 through June 6, 2020.
Survey Monkey of regional social service agencies An online survey providing qualitative information from 53 respondents of Texoma area agencies and community organizations revealed the greatest concerns facing agencies. Participating agencies: food pantries, homeless shelters, churches and agencies that serve clients 60 and older.
Client Satisfaction Survey
An online Survey Monkey sent to TCOG clients; 128 respondents.
Community Commons 2021
Mapping of poverty variables
2-1-1 Information and Referral TCOG also houses the regional 211 Information & Referral program. Data were collected and analyzed for a 14-month period (January 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021). The primary data focus on an individual caller’s presenting need, met need, and unmet need (including services not available).
TCOG Community Needs Assessment – 2019-2021 A regional needs assessment conducted once every 3 years as part of the Community Services Block Grant.
Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Texoma Behavioral Health Leadership Team “Community Mental Health Needs Assessment 2021”
39 | Page
Page 44
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Appendices Appendix A Data Collection and Work Plan 2022-2025 Texoma Council of Government Community Needs Assessment
1. Identify quantitative data to use: Community Commons, ASCI, US Census Data, 211 call data, LIHEAP (Utilities/WAP) data. February – March 2021 2. Identify qualitative data to use: Key Informant Interviews, Agency Questionnaires, Elected Official/Board Member Questionnaire and at least one focus group from each County. February – March 2021 3. Identify and interview Key Informants in each county: elected officials, law enforcement, school principals. 4. Surveys agencies. February – March 2021 5. Assignments: a. Molly – Identify and analyze quantitative data February – March 2021; b. Molly - Write Community Needs Assessment. – April 2021 c. Judy Fullylove– Survey agencies; facilitate focus groups. February – March 2021; assist Molly as needed d. Catherine Krantz – Interview Key Informants – February - March 2021 e. Bobbie McDonald – Assist Judy Fullylove as needed. 6. Present draft to TCOG Community Services Advisory Council and TCOG Governing Board May 2021 7. Submit to TDHCA June 1, 2021
Service Agencies Abigail's Arms Cooke County Family Crisis Center Law Enforcement American Red Cross - Texoma Chapter Cooke County Department of Juvenile Services Bonham Community Health Service Agency Cooke County Sheriff's Office Child and Family Guidance Center of Texoma Fannin County Department of Juvenile Services Denison Helping Hands Fannin County Sheriff's Office Denison Housing Authority Grayson County Department of Juvenile Services Fannin County Family Crisis Center Grayson County Sheriff's' Office Four Rivers Outreach, Inc. Bonham Police Department Gainesville Housing Authority Sherman Police Department Grand Central Station - The Dining Car Denison Police Department Indigent Health Care of Fannin County Gainesville Police Department Manna House - Bonham Whitesboro Police Department Meals on Wheels of Texoma Whitewright Police Department (Bo) Sherman Housing Authority Whitewright Police Department (Bo) Texoma Community Center Volunteers In Service To Others (VISTO) Educational Institutions Bonham Independent School District Municipal Callisburg Independent School District
40 | Page
Page 45
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Bonham Denison Independent School District City of Denison Fannindel Independent School District City of Gainesville Gainesville Independent School District City of Howe Grayson College City of Ravenna Leonard Independent School District City of Sherman North Central Texas College City of Valley View Sherman Independent School District Cooke County Courthouse and Services St. Mary's Catholic School - Gainesville Fannin County Courthouse and Services St. Mary's Catholic School - Sherman Grayson County Courthouse and Services Whitewright Independent School District
Appendix B
Elected Officials Telephone Interviews
DATE COUNTY OFFICIAL POSITION 3/26/2021 COOKE JASON BRINKLEY FORMER COUNTY JUDGE 4/5/2021 COOKE LEON KLEMENT COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 4 2/15/2021 FANNIN A.J. SELF COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 2 3/9/2021 FANNIN RANDY MOORE COUNTY JUDGE WILLIAM L. 3/12/2021 GRAYSON MAGERS COUNTY JUDGE 3/11/2021 GRAYSON JEFF WHITMIRE COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 1 GRAYSON DAVID TURNER MAYOR OF SOUTHMAYD, TX
41 | Page
Page 46
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Appendix C
COMMUNITY AGENCY INTERVIEWS
AGENCY COUNTY SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE/POSITION CHILD & FAMILY GUIDANCE TIFFANY DANCER, STAFF & TRI-PARTITE CENTER GRAYSON COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEMBER VIETNAM VETS OF CHARLES HOLCOMB, PRESIDENT & 211 AMERICA, CHAPTER 973 GRAYSON COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBER ST. LUKES EPISCOPAL TRISH MCELVY, VOLUNTEER & TRI-PARTITE CHURCH GRAYSON FAITH-BASED COUNCIL MEMBER SHERMAN-DENISON MPO GRAYSON GOVERNMENT CLAY BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TEXOMA HOUSING PARTNERS FANNIN GOVERNMENT SUSAN ENSLEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR COOKE COUNTY UNITED WAY COOKE PRIVATE ANDREA GRANGRUTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VISTO FOOD PANTRY COOKE PRIVATE BEKKI JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER COOKE HEALTH KRISTI RIGSBY, MARKETING DIRECTOR COOKE COUNTY LIBRARY COOKE EDUCATION JENNIFER JOHNSON-SPENCE COOKE, GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF FANNIN, NORTHEAST TEXAS GRAYSON EMPLOYMENT CARIN PURDUM COOKE, WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS FANNIN, JULIE CRAIG, CHILD CARE CONTRACTS MGR, OF TEXOMA GRAYSON EMPLOYMENT TRI-PARTITE COUNCIL MEMBER BONHAM POLICE DEPARMENT FANNIN GOVERNMENT MIKE BANKSTON, POLICE CHIEF DENISON DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC ALLIANCE GRAYSON DEVELOPMENT TONY KAAI, PRESIDENT
42 | Page
Page 47
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Appendix D
FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS
GRAYSON COUNTY FOCUS GROUP #1
DATE NAME COUNTY SECTOR AGENCY JANDANCE 4/13/2021 WILLIAMS COOKE PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING DEBRA 4/13/2021 WHITFIELD GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING
4/13/2021 LOIS PHELPS GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING SHARON 4/13/2021 FUGETT GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING DORIS 4/13/2021 MCCULLOUGH GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING
4/13/2021 DALE RIDEOUT GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING
4/13/2021 PAMELA SMITH GRAYSON PUBLIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING
GRAYSON COUNTY FOCUS GROUP #2
DATE NAME COUNTY SECTOR AGENCY
4/14/2021 LEIGH WALKER GRAYSON HOUSING FAMILY PROMISE
4/14/2021 ANGELA SHARP GRAYSON HOUSING TEXOMA FAMILY SHELTER NATASHA NORTH TEXAS YOUTH 4/14/2021 HAYDEN GRAYSON HOUSING CONNECTION
4/14/2021 AMY MCALISTER GRAYSON HOUSING FAMILY PROMISE
4/14/2021 SHELLI WHITE GRAYSON TRANSPORTATION FAMILY PROMISE HEATHER 4/14/2021 MAHAFFEY GRAYSON HOUSING CRISIS CENTER BOBBIE COOKE, FANNIN, TEXOMA COUNCIL OF 4/14/2021 MCDONALD GRAYSON PUBLIC GOVERNMENTS BARBARA 4/14/2021 MALONE GRAYSON EDUCATION GRAYSON COLLEGE COOKE, FANNIN, 4/14/2021 MAJOR ELLIS GRAYSON FOOD, HOUSING SALVATION ARMY
43 | Page
Page 48
2022-2025 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COOKE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP
DATE NAME COUNTY SECTOR AGENCY JOBS, EDUCATION, 4/16/2021 CHERYL GOMEZ COOKE CHILDCARE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS COOKE, FANNIN, 4/16/2021 LOREN HERVEY GRAYSON MEDICAL TEXOMA COMMUNITY CENTER COOKE, FANNIN, 4/16/2021 KAREN KEMP GRAYSON TRANSPORTATION TAPS COOKE, FANNIN, 4/16/2021 SHELLI WHITE GRAYSON TRANSPORTATION TAPS
FANNIN COUNTY FOCUS GROUP
DATE NAME COUNTY SECTOR AGENCY PHYLLIS 4/21/2021 KINNARD FANNIN EDUCATION BONHAM ISD
4/21/2021 CINDI GODBEY FANNIN HEALTH FANNIN CO CLINIC COOKE, FANNIN, JOBS, EDUCATION, 4/21/2021 JULIE CRAIG GRAYSON CHILDCARE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS COOKE, FANNIN, 4/21/2021 KAREN KEMP GRAYSON TRANSPORTATION TAPS COOKE, FANNIN, 4/21/2021 SHELLI WHITE GRAYSON TRANSPORTATION TAPS JORDAN 4/21/2021 BRUMMETT GRAYSON HEALTH CARRUS SPECIALTY HOSPITAL
4/21/2021 TRISH MCELVY GRAYSON PRIVATE ST LUKE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH TIFFANY COOKE, FANNIN, CHILD & FAMILY GUIDANCE 4/21/2021 DANCER GRAYSON PRIVATE CENTER CHIQUITA 4/21/2021 WILBURN FANNIN EDUCATION FANNINDEL ISD ROBERT 4/21/2021 WILLIAMS FANNIN EDUCATION TEXAS A&M COMMERCE TEXOMA COUNCIL OF 4/21/2021 DELANO SMITH FANNIN GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTS JESSICA 4/21/2021 RICHARDS FANNIN FOOD FANNIN CO FOOD PANTRY
4/21/2021 TERE CURTIS FANNIN FOOD FEEDING FANNIN
44 | Page
Page 49
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager DATE: May 3, 2021 RE: Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) Program FY21
RECOMMENDATION Approve the FY21 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) Program Resolution
BACKGROUND Division B of H.R. 748 Pub. L No.116136 (Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Health Response and Agency Operations) also known as the “CARES Act” authorized more than $2 trillion to battle COVID-19 and its economic effects. The State of Texas expects to make approximately $1.3 million available to the Regional Council of Governments to assist in the preventing, preparing for, and responding to COVID-19. The Office of the Governor’s (OOG) Criminal Justice Division (CJD) has determined that TCOG is eligible to apply for $25,000 of these funds.
DISCUSSION Per requirements from the Office of the Governor Homeland Security Grant Division, the TCOG Board must execute the attached Resolution prior to grant award. This resolution designates TCOG’s Executive Director as the authorized official for the FY21 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) project.
BUDGET $25,000 for personal protective equipment, supplies, and costs associated with the implementation of the CDC recommendations.
Page 50 1117 Gallagher Drive, Suite 470 Sherman, Texas 75090 www.tcog.com (903) 813-3512 Phone (903) 813-3511 Fax
WHEREAS, The Texoma Council of Governments finds it in the best interest of the citizens of Cooke, Fannin, and Grayson Counties that the TCOG FY21 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) Program, be operated for the FY21; and
WHEREAS, The Texoma Council of Governments agrees that in the event of loss or misuse of the Office of the Governor funds, The Texoma Council of Governments assures that the funds will be returned to the Office of the Governor in full.
WHEREAS, The Texoma Council of Governments designates the Executive Director as the grantee’s authorized official. The authorized official is given the power to apply for, accept, reject, alter or terminate the grant on behalf of the applicant agency.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The Texoma Council of Governments approves submission of the grant application for the TCOG FY21 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) Program.
Signed by:
Grant Number: 4355901
Texoma Council of Governments | Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director | Honorable Jason Brinkley, President, Governing Board Page 51
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager DATE: May 4, 2021 RE: Interlocal Agreement between TCOG and Fannin County
RECOMMENDATION Ratify Interlocal Agreement between TCOG and Cooke County to update the Fannin County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
BACKGROUND In 2008 and 2015, Texoma Council of Government’s Public Safety Program partnered with Fannin County to create and update the Fannin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. After State and FEMA approval, this plan allowed for the application and award of state mitigation funds to implement projects such as the countywide Residential Safe Room Rebate Program and the construction of the Sam Rayburn School Safe Room. To continue to qualify for such programs a current FEMA-approved mitigation plan must be in place. Through an Interlocal Agreement with Fannin County, the Texoma Council of Governments will develop an updated plan.
DISCUSSION The purpose of the attached agreement is for Fannin County to compensate Texoma Council of Governments for the development of an updated Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please find attached the contract between Fannin County and Texoma Council of Governments.
BUDGET $75,000 for salaries, training, and supplies.
Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Stephanie Davidson, Criminal Justice/Emergency Planning Program Manager DATE: May 4, 2021 RE: Office of the Governor's Criminal Justice Division FY22 Prioritized Projects
RECOMMENDATION Authorize the recommendations from the TCOG Criminal Justice Advisory Committee (CJAC) results from the scoring and ranking of applicants for the following funding categories for Funding Year FY22: · Criminal Justice Program · General Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Program Solicitation · General Victim Assistance Direct Service Program Solicitation · Violent Crimes against Women Criminal Justice & Training Projects
BACKGROUND Working with the 25 member CJAC, TCOG’s Criminal Justice Program promotes and helps to develop coordinated, collaborative prevention and justice-oriented initiatives across Texoma. Partners on these projects include grantees, volunteers, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, government agencies, the private sector and others. Through a contract with the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, TCOG administers the local process for grant distribution to the region. Over the years, this program has directed millions of dollars into area criminal justice systems for improvements.
DISCUSSION On April 7, 2021 TCOG CJAC held a meeting to review, score, and prioritize the certified applications for FY22 OOG, CJD funding. (See attached funding history, project summaries and score results). The TCOG CJAC recommends for approval the score/ranking of FY22 projects for submission to the Office of the Governor’s, Criminal Justice Division.
BUDGET No budget impact.
Page 57 4/7/2021 CJAC Results for FY22 CJD Grant Applications FY22 CJD DJ-Criminal Justice (Budget Expectation = $101,285.91) Gainesville PD Grayson County SO Ladonia PD Whitesboro Router Self Defense & Training Patrol Vehicle Camera Upgrade $12,050 $12,972.95 $62,000 $18,756 FINAL SCORE 93.6500 92.8000 96.4500 93.7000 RANK 3 4 1 2
FY22 CJD VA-Victim's of Crime * (Budget Expectation = $ 606,571.09) Abigail's Arms Fannin County Crisis Grayson County Women's Crisis Victims Assistance Victims Assistance Victim Assistance $267,840.00 $64,692.09 $334,060.45 FINAL SCORE 97.1667 96.0000 97.1111 RANK 1 3 2 *The Texoma Council of Government’s CJAC met on April 7, 2021 to score and rank the FY22 projects. At this meeting the CJAC passed the following motion “In the event funding is not available to fund all three VA applications at 100% the Texoma CJAC requests that the state fund the Abigail’s Arms Project and the Grayson County Women’s Crisis Center project at 95% of the requested amount to allow for funding of the Fannin County Crisis Center project. “
FY22 CJD SF-Juvenile Justice (Budget Expectation = $31,716.13) Fannin County Juvenile Boys & Girls Club Services Truancy Prevention Family Therapy $207,200.00 $50,000 FINAL SCORE 91.1429 98.0000 RANK 2 1
FY22 CJD WF-Violence Against Women Formula Grants (Budget Expectation = $31,875.00) Grayson County Domestic Violence Investigator $33,536.25 FINAL SCORE 93.0500 RANK 1
Page 58 CJD Funding History FY16-FY21 (The CJD grant year is Sept 1st - Aug 31st or Oct 1st - Sept 30th and is named based on the calendar year the grant ended.)
Total Agency Source FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY16-FY21
City of Savoy Criminal Justice (DJ) $29,293 $29,293
City of Gainesville Criminal Justice (DJ) $34,452 $27,599 $62,051
Fannin County Criminal Justice (DJ) $41,899 $41,899
City of Tom Bean Criminal Justice (DJ) $23,948 $23,948
City of Collinsville Criminal Justice (DJ) $15,825 $15,825
City of Gunter Criminal Justice (DJ) $20,250 $20,250
City of Van Alstyne Criminal Justice (DJ) $37,703 $50,334 $88,037
Grayson County Criminal Justice (DJ) $15,072 $15,072
City of Whitesboro Criminal Justice (DJ) $43,000 $19,688 $41,368 $24,293 $128,349 Fannin Co Juvenile Juvenile Justice $28,081 $40,000 $32,000 $32,500 $50,000 $41,144 $223,725 Services Abigail's Arms $302,083 $450,000 Victims of Crime Act (VA) $267,840 $1,786,092 $214,500 $210,000 $341,669 Family Co Family Crisis Victims of Crime Act (VA) $66,621 $135,688 $132,403 $64,347 $399,059
Grayson Co Women's $270,833 $300,627 $338,000 Crisis Center Victims of Crime Act (VA) $170,178 $1,688,139 $156,846 $139,245 $312,410
Grayson Co Violence Against Women (WF) $33,536 $33,536 $33,536 $33,536 $33,536 $33,536 $201,217
Fannin Co Violence Against Women (WF) $20,021 $20,021
$744,155 $652,725 $1,037,015 $779,345 $854,907 $674,829 $4,742,975
Page 59 CJD Funding History FY16-FY21 (The CJD grant year is Sept 1st - Aug 31st or Oct 1st - Sept 30th and is named based on the calendar year the grant ended.)
Total FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY16-FY21
Criminal Justice $43,000 $72,155 $61,587 $58,496 $91,702 $97,784 $424,723
Victims of Crime $639,537 $507,034 $889,872 $654,813 $679,669 $502,365 $3,873,290
Juvenile Justice $28,081 $40,000 $32,000 $32,500 $50,000 $41,144 $223,725
Violence Against Women $33,536 $33,536 $53,557 $33,536 $33,536 $33,536 $221,238
TOTALS $744,155 $652,725 $1,037,015 $779,345 $854,907 $674,829 $4,742,975
Page 60
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Beth Eggar, 9-1-1 Program Manager DATE: May 5, 2021 RE: TCOG 9-1-1 Program PSAP Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDATION Authorize the execution of Interlocal Agreements for 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) services with the City of Bonham, Fannin County, Grayson County, City of Whitesboro, City of Gainesville and Cooke County.
BACKGROUND The Texoma Council of Governments 9-1-1 Program provides management and planning support on behalf of seven 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in the region. The program works to ensure compliance with rules and regulations set forth by the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications (CSEC), the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) and others. Projects include strategic planning and budgeting, compliance, contracts, call taker training, capital equipment, database maintenance, new technology implementation, GIS services, and coordination between local and state agencies.
DISCUSSION CSEC requires Interlocal Agreements between TCOG and local governments with PSAPs administered by the 9-1-1 Program to coincide with the state biennium and program years. The current agreements expire August 31, 2021. The new agreements will be for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. The agreement is the same signed during the last biennium FY2020-2021.
BUDGET No budget impact.
Page 61
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR E9-1-1 PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT SERVICES
Article 1: Parties & Purpose
1.1 The Texoma Council of Governments (RPC) is a regional planning commission and political subdivision of the State of Texas organized and operating under the Texas Regional Planning Act of 1965, as amended, Chapter 391 of the Local Government Code. The RPC has developed a Strategic Plan to establish and operate 9-1-1 service (Strategic Plan) in State Planning Region 22, and the Commission on State Emergency Communications (Commission) has approved its current Strategic Plan.
1.2 (Local Jurisdiction) is a local government that operates Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) that assists in implementing the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission.
1.3 The Commission, as authorized by Health & Safety Code, Chapter 771, is the oversight and funding authority for regional planning commissions implementing 9-1-1 service.
1.4 The Contract for 9-1-1 Services between the Commission and the RPC requires the RPC to execute interlocal agreements with local governments relating to the planning, development, operation, and provision of 9-1-1 service, the use of wireline and wireless 9-1-1 fees and equalization surcharge appropriated to the Commission and granted to the RPC (9-1-1 Funds) and adherence to Applicable Law.
Article 2: Applicable Law
2.1 Applicable laws include, but are not limited to, the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 771; Commission Rules (Title 1, Part 12, Texas Administrative Code) and Program Policy Statements; the biennial state General Appropriations Act, Texas Government Code (including Uniform Grant and Contract Management Standards [UGMS]), Chapter 783 and Title 1, Part 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter A, Division 4, Texas Administrative Code; Preservation and Management of Local Government Records Act, Chapter 441, Subchapter J; and Resolution of Certain Contract Claims Against the State, Chapter 2260); Texas Local Government Code (including Regional Planning Commissions Act, Chapter 391).
2.2 Any new or amended policy or procedure, other than an adopted rule, shall be enforceable against the Local Government 30 days following the date of its adoption unless the RPC finds and declares that an emergency exists which requires that such policy or procedure be enforceable immediately. The RPC shall provide the Local Government written notice of all new or amended policies, procedures or interpretations of Commission rules within a reasonable time after adoption, and in any event at least 10 days prior to the time such policies or procedures are enforceable against the Local Government.
Article 3: Deliverables
3.1 The Local Government agrees to:
3.1.1 Operate and maintain the Whitesboro Police Department PSAP located at 113 West Main Street, Whitesboro, Texas;
Rev 042009 Page 62
3.1.2 Provide 9-1-1 public safety answering service 24 hours per day, seven days per week; and
3.1.3 Cooperate with the RPC in providing and maintaining suitable PSAP space meeting all technical requirements.
3.2 Ownership, Transference & Disposition of Equipment
3.2.1. The RPC and the Local Government shall comply with Applicable Law, in regards to the ownership, transfer of ownership, and/or control of equipment acquired with 9-1-1 Funds in connection with the provision of 9-1-1 service (9-1-1 equipment).
3.2.2 The RPC shall establish ownership of all 9-1-1 equipment located within the Local Government’s jurisdiction. The RPC may maintain ownership, or it may agree to transfer ownership to the Local Government according to established policy.
3.2.3 The Local Government shall ensure that sufficient controls and security exist by which to protect and safeguard the 9-1-1 equipment against loss, damage or theft.
3.2.4 Ownership and transfer-of-ownership documents shall be prepared by the RPC and signed by both parties upon establishing ownership or transference of ownership of any such 9-1-1 equipment in accordance with UGMS and the State Comptroller of Public Accounts. Sample forms are provided as Attachments A and B to this Agreement.
3.2.5 Replacement insurance on 9-1-1 equipment shall be purchased and maintained by the RPC and proof of insurance shall be provided upon request.
3.2.6 The RPC and/or the Commission shall be reimbursed by the Local Government for any damage to 9-1-1 equipment other than ordinary wear and tear.
3.3 Inventory
3.3.1 The RPC shall maintain a current inventory of all 9-1-1 equipment consistent with Applicable Law;
3.3.2 All 9-1-1 equipment shall be tagged with identification labels.
3.3.3 Any lost or stolen 9-1-1 equipment shall be reported to the RPC as soon as possible.
3.4 Security
3.4.1 The Local Government shall limit access to all 9-1-1 equipment and related data only to authorized personnel.
3.5 Training
3.5.1 The Local Government shall notify the RPC of any new 9-1-1 call takers with the monthly Call Volume and Equipment Testing Report to ensure applicable training is provided.
Rev. 040109 2 Page 63
3.5.2 The Local Government shall schedule new call takers for TDD/TTY beginner training within the first six months of employment.
3.5.3 The Local Government shall schedule all call takers for TDD/TTY refresher training every six months as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Department of Justice guidelines. Any call taker who does not attend scheduled refresher training shall attend the next available beginner training.
3.6 Operations
The Local Government shall:
3.6.1 Designate a PSAP supervisor and complete the 9-1-1 PSAP Supervisor Form and return to the RPC. Any changes in information previously provided on the form should be reported immediately to the RPC;
3.6.2 Monitor and test the 9-1-1 equipment in accordance with the monthly equipment checklist and report any failures or maintenance issues immediately to the appropriate maintenance vendor and/or the RPC;
3.6.3 Coordinate with the RPC and local elected officials in the planning for and implementation and operation of all 9-1-1 equipment;
3.6.4 Allow 24-hour access to the 9-1-1 equipment for repair and maintenance service, as required;
3.6.5 Assist the RPC in conducting inspections of all 9-1-1 equipment at the PSAP as identified by the RPC for quality assurance;
3.6.6 Test all Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) for proper operation in accordance with the monthly TDD test form. Each call taker should perform at least one TDD test call each month.
3.6.7 Log Text test calls performed monthly by each call taker on form provided by RPC.
3.6.8 Log all TDD 9-1-1 calls and equipment testing as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 on forms provided by RPC;
3.6.9 Log all trouble reports on form provided by RPC and make copies available to the RPC as required by the RPC;
3.6.10 Make no changes to 9-1-1 equipment, software or programs without prior written consent from the RPC.
3.6.11 Comply with all the requirements identified in the Scope of Work (Attachment C).
Rev. 040109 3 Page 64
Article 4: Performance Monitoring
4.1 The RPC and the Commission reserve the right to perform on-site monitoring of the PSAP(s) for compliance with Applicable Law and performance of the deliverables specified in this Agreement. The Local Government agrees to fully cooperate with all monitoring requests from the RPC and/or the Commission for such purposes.
Article 5: Procurement
5.1 The RPC and the Local Government agree to use competitive procurement practices and procedures required by Applicable Law and RPC procurement policies in connection with any procurement to be funded with 9-1-1 Funds.
5.2 The RPC shall reimburse Local Government for supplies necessary for performance of the deliverables per this Agreement.
Article 6: Financial
6.1 As authorized by Applicable Law, the provisioning of 9-1-1 service throughout the Region is funded by Commission grants of appropriated 9-1-1 Funds.
6.2 The RPC will provide 9-1-1 Funds to the Local Government on a cost reimbursement basis using a monitoring process that provides assurance that the reimbursement requests from the Local Government are complete, accurate, and appropriate.
6.3 The RPC may withhold, decrease, or seek reimbursement of 9-1-1 Funds in the event that those 9-1-1 Funds were used in noncompliance with Applicable Law.
6.4 The Local Government shall reimburse the RPC and/or the Commission, as applicable, any 9-1-1 Funds used in noncompliance with Applicable Law.
6.5 Such reimbursement of 9-1-1 Funds to the RPC and/or the Commission, as applicable, shall be made by the Local Government within 60 days after demand by the RPC, unless an alternative repayment plan is approved by the RPC and then submitted to the Commission for approval.
6.6 The Local Government commits to providing 9-1-1 services as a condition to receiving 9- 1-1 Funds as prescribed by the RPC’s Strategic Plan and any amendments thereto.
Article 7: Records
7.1 The Local Government will maintain adequate fiscal records and supporting documentation of all 9-1-1 Funds reimbursed to the Local Government for 9-1-1 service consistent with Applicable Law and generally accepted accounting principles and as approved in the RPC’s current approved Strategic Plan;
7.2 The RPC or its duly authorized representative shall have access to and the right to examine and audit all books, accounts, records, files, and/or other papers or property pertaining to the 9-1-1 service belonging to or in use by the Local Government, the PSAP, or by any other entity that has performed or will perform services related to this Agreement.
Rev. 040109 4 Page 65
7.3 The Commission and State Auditor’s Office shall have the same access and examination rights as the RPC.
Article 8: Assignment
8.1 The Local Government may not assign its rights or subcontract its duties under this Agreement. An attempted assignment or subcontract in violation of this paragraph is void.
Article 9: Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity
9.1 The RPC and the Local Government shall not exclude anyone from participating under this Agreement, deny anyone benefits under this Agreement, or otherwise unlawfully discriminate against anyone in carrying out this Agreement because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, handicap, or national origin.
Article 10: Dispute Resolution
10.1 Disputes include, but are not limited to, disagreement between the parties about the meaning or application of the Strategic Plan, the Applicable Law or policy, or this Agreement.
10.2 The parties desire to resolve disputes without litigation. Accordingly, if a dispute arises, the parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute between them. To this end, the parties agree not to sue one another, except to enforce compliance with this Article 10, until they have exhausted the procedures set out in this Article 10.
10.3 At the written request of either party, each party shall appoint one non-lawyer representative to negotiate informally and in good faith to resolve any dispute arising between the parties. The representatives appointed shall determine the location, format, frequency, and duration of the negotiations.
10.4 If the representatives cannot resolve the dispute within 30 calendar days after the first negotiation meeting, the parties agree to submit the dispute to a mutually designated legal mediator. Each party shall pay one-half the total fee and expenses for conducting the mediation.
10.5 The parties agree to continue performing their duties under this Agreement, which are unaffected by the dispute, during the negotiation and mediation process.
10.6 If mediation does not resolve the parties’ dispute, the parties may pursue their legal and equitable remedies.
Article 11: Suspension for Unavailability of Funds
11.1 In the event that (i) the RPC’s approved budget and/or appropriations to the Commission from the Texas Legislature do not permit or otherwise appropriate funds for reimbursement to Local Government provided for in this Agreement, and (ii) such lack of permission or non- appropriation shall not have resulted from any act or failure to act on the part of the RPC, and (iii) the RPC has exhausted all funds legally available for reimbursement to Local Government, and no other legal procedure shall exist whereby payment hereunder can be made to Local Government; and (iv) RPC has negotiated in good faith with Local Government to develop an
Rev. 040109 5 Page 66
alternative payment schedule or new agreement that will accommodate RPC’s approved budget and/or appropriations for the applicable period, then RPC will not be obligated to reimburse the Local Government for the applicable budget year(s).
Article 12: Notice to Parties
12.1 Notice under this Agreement must be in writing and received by the party against whom it is to operate. Notice is received by a party (1) when it is delivered to the party personally; or (2) on the date shown on the return receipt if mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the party’s address specified in this Article and signed on behalf of the party.
12.2 The RPC’s address is:
Texoma Council of Governments 1117 Gallagher Drive Sherman, Texas 75090
The Local Government’s address is:
12.3 A party may change its address by providing notice of the change in accordance with paragraph 12.1.
Article 13: Effective Date and Term
13.1 This Agreement is effective as of September 1, 2021 and shall terminate on August 31, 2023.
13.2 In the event of default in the performance of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement after providing written notice of the default to the defaulting party, and the failure of the defaulting party to cure said default within 30 calendar days of said notice.
13.3 If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, the RPC shall not be liable to the Local Government for any damages, claims, losses, or any other amounts arising from or related to any such termination.
Article 14: Force Majeure
14.1 The RPC may grant relief from performance of the Agreement if the Local Government is prevented from performance by act of war, order of legal authority, act of God, or other unavoidable cause not attributable to the fault or negligence of the Local Government. The burden of proof for the need of such relief shall rest upon the Local Government. To obtain release based on force majeure, the Local Government shall file a written request with the RPC.
Article 15: Confidentiality
15.1 The parties will comply with the Texas Public Information Act, Government Code, Chapter 552 as interpreted by judicial opinions and opinions of the Attorney General of the State of Texas.
Rev. 040109 6 Page 67
This Agreement and all data and other information generated or otherwise obtained in its performance may be subject to the Texas Public Information Act. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of information received during the performance of this Agreement.
15.2 The Local Government or its duly authorized representative will notify the RPC upon receipt of any requests for information.
Article 16: Indemnification
16.1 To the extent authorized by law, each party agrees to indemnify the other and agrees to defend its governing body members, officers and employees, against any claim, suit or administrative proceeding, and to indemnify them against any liability including all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred arising out of an act or omission of the governing body, any officer, employee or agent in carrying out this Agreement.
Article 17: Historically Underutilized Business Requirements
17.1 The Local Government shall comply with requirements of Chapter 2261 of the Government Code regarding Historically Underutilized Businesses.
Rev. 040109 7 Page 68
Article 18: Miscellaneous
18.1 For purposes of this Agreement, terms not specifically defined herein are defined in the Applicable Laws.
18.2 Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of a party warrants that he or she is legally authorized to do so, and that the party is legally authorized to perform the obligations undertaken.
18.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all oral or written agreements between the parties relating to matters herein. An amendment to this Agreement is not effective unless in writing and signed by both parties.
18.4 All parties agree that should any provision of this Agreement be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the term of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.
18.5 The following Attachments are part of this Agreement:
Attachment A Ownership Agreement Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form Attachment C Scope of Work Attachment D PSAP Operations Performance Measures and Monitoring Attachment E Commission Documents – Legislation, Rules and Program Policy Statements
18.6 This Agreement is binding on, and to the benefit of, the parties’ successors in interest.
18.7 This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (Local Jurisdiction)
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name
Title: Executive Director Title: ______
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 8 Page 69
Attachment A Ownership Agreement
As stipulated in Article 3 of the Agreement, the RPC shall establish ownership of all 9-1-1 equipment located within the Local Government’s jurisdiction.
The RPC hereby establishes all 9-1-1 equipment located at Whitesboro Police Department, in Grayson County, to be the property of the Texoma Council of Governments, hereinafter referred to as “Owner”.
Attached is an itemized listing of 9-1-1 equipment hereby defined as the property of Owner.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Local Jurisdiction
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name: ______
Title: Executive Director Title:______
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 9 Page 70
NOTE: NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT
Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form
As stipulated is Article 3 of the Agreement between ______(RPC) and ______(Local Government) dated ______, 20___, the RPC shall document all transfers of ownership of 9-1-1 equipment between the RPC and the Local Government.
Indicate the appropriate classification:
Transfer______Disposition______Lost______
Please provide the following information in as much detail as possible.
Inventory Number Current Assignee:
Description Location:
Serial Number Signature:
Acquisition Date Date:
Acquisition Cost New Assignee:
Vendor Location:
Invoice Number Signature:
Purchase Order Number Date:
Condition
Continued……….
Rev. 040109 10 Page 71
Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form (continued)
Action Recommended by: ______
Title: ______
Date: ______
Comments: ______
Approved: _____Yes _____No
Proceeds, if any: ______
Approved by: ______
Title: ______Comptroller
Date: ______
Disposed or Lost Property shall require approval by the agency head.
Reviewed by: ______Executive Director (or other appropriate title of agency head)
Date: ______
Rev. 040109 11 Page 72
Attachment C Scope of Work
Local Governments will:
· Follow industry standards and best practices for handling of 9-1-1 calls for service. · Comply with established operating procedures from the Commission on State Emergency Communications pertaining to 9-1-1 service. · Designate a PSAP Supervisor and complete the 9-1-1 PSAP Supervisor Form and return to the RPC. Any changes in information previously provided on the form should be reported immediately to the RPC. · Coordinate with TCOG in the planning for, implementation and operation of 9-1-1 equipment. · Monitor the 9-1-1 equipment, report any failures or maintenance issues immediately to the appropriate equipment maintenance provider, and notify TCOG if appropriate response is not forthcoming from the company. · Keep a log of all trouble reports and make copies available to TCOG at monitoring visits or upon request. · Notify TCOG as soon as possible of any and all major service-affecting issues or issues needing escalation within a service provider’s organization. · Coordinate with TCOG Staff regarding 9-1-1 service issues prior to releasing information to the media or posting to social media. · Test all 9-1-1 and related equipment for proper operation and user familiarity at least once per month, in accordance with the Commission on State Emergency Communications requirements and guidelines. Testing is to be documented on the Call Volume and Equipment Testing Report and returned to the RPC by the 5th day of the following month. · Test alternate routing switches (Make Busy or Emergency Transfer) once a month. Testing is to be documented on the Call Volume and Equipment Testing Report and returned to the RPC by the 5th day of the following month. · Test all 9-1-1 TDD/TTYs for proper operation and to maintain user familiarity at least once per month. · Log all TDD/TTY calls including all test calls, and make copies available to TCOG (and the Department of Justice if requested) on a monthly basis. Each dispatcher is to make at least one TDD test call per month. Testing is to be documented on the TDD Use Log and returned to the RPC by the 5th day of the following month. · Log Text test calls monthly to be performed by each call taker. Testing is to be documented on the Text Test Log and returned to the RPC by the 5th day of the following month. · Limit access to all 9-1-1 equipment and related data only to trained, authorized personnel. · Make no changes to the 9-1-1 equipment, software or programs without prior written consent from TCOG. · Provide a safe and healthy environment for all 9-1-1 call takers/dispatchers which enhances proper use and maintenance of 9-1-1 equipment. · Fax, mail or email required reports or printouts to TCOG in time frame requested. · Not change or modify any configuration, software or hardware provided by TCOG. · Notify TCOG of any service provider changes and/or changes in phone numbers programmed on the 9-1-1 equipment. · Submit 9-1-1 ANI/ALI/Routing Discrepancy Reports to TCOG within three (3) business days of receiving the initial 9-1-1 call with information in error, per CSEC policy. Discrepancy reports may be provided through online internet access to the database
Rev. 040109 12 Page 73
provider (Intrado’s 9-1-1 Net website) or by submitting a completed TCOG 9-1-1 ALI Report form by email or fax.
The RPC will:
· Maintain an inventory of all equipment funded by the 9-1-1 Program. · Provide oversight, management and coordination of all matters related to 9-1-1 service on behalf of the Local Government, as authorized and outlined through the Commission on State Emergency Communications.
· Obtain and provide insurance on equipment purchased with 9-1-1 funds and kept at the Local Government offices for provisioning 9-1-1 service. · Coordinate and provide for all technical activities related to provisioning 9-1-1 service. · Comply with established operating procedures from the Commission on State Emergency Communications pertaining to 9-1-1 service.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (Local Jurisdiction)
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name: ______
Title: Executive Director Title:______
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 13 Page 74
Attachment D PSAP Operations Performance Measures and Monitoring
Reports
The RPC may request that the Local Government provide it with specialized reports which will not duplicate information readily available from vendors. Such reports shall include, but are not limited to:
1. ALI Reports (9-1-1 Discrepancies) within three (3) business days; 2. PSAP Call Volume and Equipment Testing Report by the 5th day of each month
Logs
The Local Government shall provide copies of logs and reports to assist with the RPC’s collection of efficiency data on the operation of PSAPs including, but not limited to:
1. Trouble report logs with service affecting issues upon request; 2. Report of TTY/TDD testing by 5th day of each month. 3. Report of Text test calls by 5th of each month.
Quality Assurance Inspections
RPC personnel will conduct site visits at least two times per year to evaluate the condition of equipment, efficiency of PSAP operations, and compliance with the Agreement.
In addition, quality assurance inspections will be conducted as follows:
The RPC’s equipment vendor will conduct equipment maintenance inspections on a quarterly basis, and more often if necessary. In addition, the RPC may conduct periodic inspections of the equipment, with or without equipment vendors, in order to assess condition and assure quality.
Rev. 040109 14 Page 75
Attachment E Commission Documents
The following documents govern the funding and provisioning of 9-1-1 services by the RPC:
1. Commission Legislation and Rules: https://www.csec.texas.gov/s/?language=en_US&tabset- fa183=1
2. Commission Program Policy Statements: https://www.csec.texas.gov/s/program-policy- statements?language=en_US&tabset-634e4=2&tabset-f25bf=1
Rev. 040109 15 Page 76
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director FROM: Beth Eggar, 9-1-1 Program Manager DATE: May 5, 2021 RE: TCOG 9-1-1 Program Interlocal for Backup and Training PSAP
RECOMMENDATION Authorize the execution of Interlocal Agreement for 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) services with Texoma Council of Governments.
BACKGROUND The Texoma Council of Governments 9-1-1 Program provides management and planning support on behalf of seven 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in the region. The program works to ensure compliance with rules and regulations set forth by the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications, the Federal Department of Justice and others. Projects include strategic planning and budgeting, compliance, contracts, call taker training, capital equipment, database maintenance, new technology implementation, GIS services, and coordination between local and state agencies.
DISCUSSION The Interlocal Agreement (ILA) is between the TCOG 9-1-1 Program and the Texoma Council of Governments for the period of September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. Oversight will be conducted by the TCOG 9-1-1 Program and the Commission on State Emergency Communications. (See attached ILA)
BUDGET No budget impact.
Page 77 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR E9-1-1 PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT SERVICES
Article 1: Parties & Purpose
1.1 The Texoma Council of Governments (RPC) is a regional planning commission and political subdivision of the State of Texas organized and operating under the Texas Regional Planning Act of 1965, as amended, Chapter 391 of the Local Government Code. The RPC has developed a Strategic Plan to establish and operate 9-1-1 service (Strategic Plan) in State Planning Region 22, and the Commission on State Emergency Communications (Commission) has approved its current Strategic Plan.
1.2 The Texoma Back-Up/Training PSAP is a local government that operates Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) that assists in implementing the Strategic Plan as approved by the Commission.
1.3 The Commission, as authorized by Health & Safety Code, Chapter 771, is the oversight and funding authority for regional planning commissions implementing 9-1-1 service.
1.4 The Contract for 9-1-1 Services between the Commission and the RPC requires the RPC to execute interlocal agreements with the Back-Up PSAP relating to the planning, development, operation, and provision of 9-1-1 service, the use of wireline and wireless 9-1-1 fees and equalization surcharge appropriated to the Commission and granted to the RPC (9-1-1 Funds) and adherence to Applicable Law.
Article 2: Applicable Law
2.1 Applicable laws include, but are not limited to, the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 771; Commission Rules (Title 1, Part 12, Texas Administrative Code) and Program Policy Statements; the biennial state General Appropriations Act, Texas Government Code (including Uniform Grant and Contract Management Standards [UGMS]), Chapter 783 and Title 1, Part 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter A, Division 4, Texas Administrative Code; Preservation and Management of Local Government Records Act, Chapter 441, Subchapter J; and Resolution of Certain Contract Claims Against the State, Chapter 2260); Texas Local Government Code (including Regional Planning Commissions Act, Chapter 391).
2.2 Any new or amended policy or procedure, other than an adopted rule, shall be enforceable against the Back-Up PSAP 30 days following the date of its adoption unless the RPC finds and declares that an emergency exists which requires that such policy or procedure be enforceable immediately. The RPC shall provide the Back-Up PSAP written notice of all new or amended policies, procedures or interpretations of Commission rules within a reasonable time after adoption, and in any event at least 10 days prior to the time such policies or procedures are enforceable against the Back-Up PSAP.
Article 3: Deliverables
3.1 The Back-Up PSAP agrees to:
Rev 042009 Page 78
3.1.1 Operate and maintain the Texoma Back-Up/Training PSAP(s) located at 1117 Gallagher Drive Sherman, Texas;
3.1.2 In the event that the Texoma Back-Up/Training is requested as a back-up PSAP from a member jurisdiction, the member jurisdiction will be responsible to provide 9-1-1 public safety answering service 24 hours per day, seven days per week as needed by; and
3.1.3 Cooperate in providing and maintaining suitable PSAP space meeting all technical requirements.
3.2 Ownership, Transference & Disposition of Equipment
3.2.1. The RPC and the Back-Up PSAP shall comply with Applicable Law, in regards to the ownership, transfer of ownership, and/or control of equipment acquired with 9-1-1 Funds in connection with the provision of 9-1-1 service (9-1-1 equipment).
3.2.2 The RPC shall establish ownership of all 9-1-1 equipment located within the Back- Up PSAP’s jurisdiction. The RPC may maintain ownership, or it may agree to transfer ownership to the Back-Up PSAP according to established policy.
3.2.3 The Back-Up PSAP shall ensure that sufficient controls and security exist by which to protect and safeguard the 9-1-1 equipment against loss, damage or theft.
3.2.4 Ownership and transfer-of-ownership documents shall be prepared by the RPC and signed by both parties upon establishing ownership or transference of ownership of any such 9-1-1 equipment in accordance with UGMS and the State Comptroller of Public Accounts. Sample forms are provided as Attachments A and B to this Agreement.
3.2.5 Replacement insurance on 9-1-1 equipment shall be purchased and maintained by the RPC and proof of insurance shall be provided upon request.
3.2.6 The RPC and/or the Commission shall be reimbursed by TCOG for any damage to 9-1-1 equipment other than ordinary wear and tear.
3.3 Inventory
3.3.1 The RPC shall maintain a current inventory of all 9-1-1 equipment consistent with Applicable Law;
3.3.2 All 9-1-1 equipment shall be tagged with identification labels.
3.3.3 Any lost or stolen 9-1-1 equipment shall be reported to the RPC and the Commission as soon as possible.
3.4 Security
3.4.1 The Back-Up PSAP shall limit access to all 9-1-1 equipment and related data only to authorized personnel.
Rev. 040109 2 Page 79
3.5 Operations
The Back-Up PSAP shall:
3.5.1 Monitor and test the 9-1-1 equipment in accordance with the monthly equipment checklist and report any failures or maintenance issues immediately to the appropriate maintenance vendor.
3.5.2 Coordinate with the RPC and local elected officials in the planning for and implementation and operation of all 9-1-1 equipment;
3.5.3 Allow 24-hour access to the 9-1-1 equipment for repair and maintenance service, as required;
3.5.4 Test all Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) for proper operation in accordance with the monthly TDD test form.
3.5.5 Log Text test calls performed monthly by each call taker on form provided by RPC.
3.5.6 Log all TDD 9-1-1 calls and equipment testing as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 on forms provided by RPC;
3.5.7 Log all trouble reports on form provided by RPC.
3.5.8 Make no changes to 9-1-1 equipment, software or programs.
3.5.11 Comply with all the requirements identified in the Scope of Work (Attachment C).
Article 4: Performance Monitoring
4.1 The RPC and the Commission reserve the right to perform on-site monitoring of the PSAP(s) for compliance with Applicable Law and performance of the deliverables specified in this Agreement. The Back-Up PSAP agrees to fully cooperate with all monitoring requests from the RPC and/or the Commission for such purposes.
Article 5: Procurement
5.1 The RPC agree to use competitive procurement practices and procedures required by Applicable Law and RPC procurement policies in connection with any procurement to be funded with 9-1-1 Funds.
Article 6: Financial
6.1 As authorized by Applicable Law, the provisioning of 9-1-1 service throughout the Region is funded by Commission grants of appropriated 9-1-1 Funds.
6.2 TCOG shall reimburse the Commission, as applicable, any 9-1-1 Funds used in noncompliance with Applicable Law.
Rev. 040109 3 Page 80
6.3 Such reimbursement of 9-1-1 Funds to the Commission, as applicable, shall be made by TCOG within 60 days after demand by the Commission, unless an alternative repayment plan is approved by the Commission.
6.4 The Back-Up PSAP commits to providing 9-1-1 services as a condition to receiving 9-1-1 Funds as prescribed by the RPC’s Strategic Plan and any amendments thereto.
Article 7: Records
7.1 The Local Government will maintain adequate fiscal records and supporting documentation of all 9-1-1 Funds reimbursed to the Back-Up PSAP for 9-1-1 service consistent with Applicable Law and generally accepted accounting principles and as approved in the RPC’s current approved Strategic Plan;
7.2 The RPC or its duly authorized representative shall have access to and the right to examine and audit all books, accounts, records, files, and/or other papers or property pertaining to the 9-1-1 service belonging to or in use by the Back-Up PSAP, the PSAP, or by any other entity that has performed or will perform services related to this Agreement.
7.3 The Commission and State Auditor’s Office shall have the same access and examination rights as the RPC.
Article 8: Assignment
8.1 The Back-Up PSAP may not assign its rights or subcontract its duties under this Agreement. An attempted assignment or subcontract in violation of this paragraph is void.
Article 9: Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity
9.1 The RPC and the Back-Up PSAP shall not exclude anyone from participating under this Agreement, deny anyone benefits under this Agreement, or otherwise unlawfully discriminate against anyone in carrying out this Agreement because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, handicap, or national origin.
Article 10: Dispute Resolution
10.1 Disputes include, but are not limited to, disagreement between the parties about the meaning or application of the Strategic Plan, the Applicable Law or policy, or this Agreement.
10.2 The parties desire to resolve disputes without litigation. Accordingly, if a dispute arises, the parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute between them. To this end, the parties agree not to sue one another, except to enforce compliance with this Article 10, until they have exhausted the procedures set out in this Article 10.
10.3 At the written request of either party, each party shall appoint one non-lawyer representative to negotiate informally and in good faith to resolve any dispute arising between the parties. The representatives appointed shall determine the location, format, frequency, and duration of the negotiations.
Rev. 040109 4 Page 81
10.4 If the representatives cannot resolve the dispute within 30 calendar days after the first negotiation meeting, the parties agree to submit the dispute to a mutually designated legal mediator. Each party shall pay one-half the total fee and expenses for conducting the mediation.
10.5 The parties agree to continue performing their duties under this Agreement, which are unaffected by the dispute, during the negotiation and mediation process.
10.6 If mediation does not resolve the parties’ dispute, the parties may pursue their legal and equitable remedies.
Article 11: Suspension for Unavailability of Funds
11.1 In the event that (i) the RPC’s approved budget and/or appropriations to the Commission from the Texas Legislature do not permit or otherwise appropriate funds for reimbursement to Back-Up PSAP provided for in this Agreement, and (ii) such lack of permission or non- appropriation shall not have resulted from any act or failure to act on the part of the RPC, and (iii) the RPC has exhausted all funds legally available for reimbursement to Back-Up PSAP, and no other legal procedure shall exist whereby payment hereunder can be made to Back-Up PSAP; and (iv) RPC has negotiated in good faith with Back-Up PSAP to develop an alternative payment schedule or new agreement that will accommodate RPC’s approved budget and/or appropriations for the applicable period, then RPC will not be obligated to reimburse the Back-Up PSAP for the applicable budget year(s).
Article 12: Notice to Parties
12.1 Notice under this Agreement must be in writing and received by the party against whom it is to operate. Notice is received by a party (1) when it is delivered to the party personally; or (2) on the date shown on the return receipt if mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the party’s address specified in this Article and signed on behalf of the party.
12.2 The RPC’s address is:
Texoma Council of Governments 1117 Gallagher Drive Sherman, Texas 75090
Back-Up PSAP’s address is:
Texoma Council of Governments 1117 Gallagher Drive Sherman, Texas 75090
12.3 A party may change its address by providing notice of the change in accordance with paragraph 12.1.
Article 13: Effective Date and Term
13.1 This Agreement is effective as of September 1, 2021 and shall terminate on August 31, 2023.
Rev. 040109 5 Page 82
13.2 In the event of default in the performance of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement after providing written notice of the default to the defaulting party, and the failure of the defaulting party to cure said default within 30 calendar days of said notice.
13.3 If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, the RPC shall not be liable to the Back-Up PSAP for any damages, claims, losses, or any other amounts arising from or related to any such termination.
Article 14: Force Majeure
14.1 The RPC may grant relief from performance of the Agreement if the Back-Up PSAP is prevented from performance by act of war, order of legal authority, act of God, or other unavoidable cause not attributable to the fault or negligence of the Back-Up PSAP. The burden of proof for the need of such relief shall rest upon the Back-Up PSAP. To obtain release based on force majeure, the Back-Up PSAP shall file a written request with the RPC.
Article 15: Confidentiality
15.1 The parties will comply with the Texas Public Information Act, Government Code, Chapter 552 as interpreted by judicial opinions and opinions of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. This Agreement and all data and other information generated or otherwise obtained in its performance may be subject to the Texas Public Information Act. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of information received during the performance of this Agreement.
15.2 The Back-Up PSAP or its duly authorized representative will notify the RPC upon receipt of any requests for information.
Article 16: Indemnification
16.1 To the extent authorized by law, each party agrees to indemnify the other and agrees to defend its governing body members, officers and employees, against any claim, suit or administrative proceeding, and to indemnify them against any liability including all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred arising out of an act or omission of the governing body, any officer, employee or agent in carrying out this Agreement.
Article 17: Historically Underutilized Business Requirements
17.1 The Back-Up PSAP shall comply with requirements of Chapter 2261 of the Government Code regarding Historically Underutilized Businesses.
Article 18: Miscellaneous
18.1 For purposes of this Agreement, terms not specifically defined herein are defined in the Applicable Laws.
18.2 Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of a party warrants that he or she is legally authorized to do so, and that the party is legally authorized to perform the obligations undertaken.
Rev. 040109 6 Page 83
18.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all oral or written agreements between the parties relating to matters herein. An amendment to this Agreement is not effective unless in writing and signed by both parties.
18.4 All parties agree that should any provision of this Agreement be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the term of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.
18.5 The following Attachments are part of this Agreement:
Attachment A Ownership Agreement Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form Attachment C Scope of Work Attachment D PSAP Operations Performance Measures and Monitoring Attachment E Commission Documents – Legislation, Rules and Program Policy Statements
18.6 This Agreement is binding on, and to the benefit of, the parties’ successors in interest.
18.7 This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 9-1-1 PROGRAM
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name: Beth Eggar
Title: Executive Director Title: 9-1-1 Program Manager
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 7 Page 84
Attachment A Ownership Agreement
As stipulated in Article 3 of the Agreement, the RPC shall establish ownership of all 9-1-1 equipment located within the Back-Up PSAP’s jurisdiction.
The RPC hereby establishes all 9-1-1 equipment located at 1117 Gallagher Drive, in Sherman, Texas, to be the property of the Texoma Council of Governments, hereinafter referred to as “Owner”.
Attached is an itemized listing of 9-1-1 equipment hereby defined as the property of Owner.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 9-1-1 PROGRAM
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name: Beth Eggar
Title: Executive Director Title: 9-1-1 Program Manager
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 8 Page 85
NOTE: NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT
Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form
As stipulated is Article 3 of the Agreement between ______(RPC) and ______(Local Government) dated ______, 20___, the RPC shall document all transfers of ownership of 9-1-1 equipment between the RPC and the Local Government.
Indicate the appropriate classification:
Transfer______Disposition______Lost______
Please provide the following information in as much detail as possible.
Inventory Number Current Assignee:
Description Location:
Serial Number Signature:
Acquisition Date Date:
Acquisition Cost New Assignee:
Vendor Location:
Invoice Number Signature:
Purchase Order Number Date:
Condition
Continued……….
Rev. 040109 9 Page 86
Attachment B Transfer of Ownership Form (continued)
Action Recommended by: ______
Title: ______
Date: ______
Comments: ______
Approved: _____Yes _____No
Proceeds, if any: ______
Approved by: ______
Title: ______Comptroller
Date: ______
Disposed or Lost Property shall require approval by the agency head.
Reviewed by: ______Executive Director (or other appropriate title of agency head)
Date: ______
Rev. 040109 10 Page 87
Attachment C Scope of Work
RPC Staff will:
· Follow industry standards and best practices for handling of 9-1-1 calls for service. · Comply with established operating procedures from the Commission on State Emergency Communications pertaining to 9-1-1 service. · Monitor the 9-1-1 equipment, report any failures or maintenance issues immediately to the appropriate equipment maintenance provider · Keep a log of all trouble reports · Test all 9-1-1 and related equipment for proper operation and user familiarity at least once per month, in accordance with the Commission on State Emergency Communications requirements and guidelines. · Test all 9-1-1 TDD/TTYs for proper operation and to maintain user familiarity at least once per month. · Log all TDD/TTY calls including all test calls · Log Text test calls monthly to be performed by each call taker. · Limit access to all 9-1-1 equipment and related data only to trained, authorized personnel. · Make no changes to the 9-1-1 equipment, software or programs. · Provide a safe and healthy environment for all 9-1-1 call takers/dispatchers which enhances proper use and maintenance of 9-1-1 equipment. · Not change or modify any configuration, software or hardware · Maintain an inventory of all equipment funded by the 9-1-1 Program. · Provide oversight, management and coordination of all matters related to 9-1-1 service, as authorized and outlined through the Commission on State Emergency Communications. · Obtain and provide insurance on equipment purchased with 9-1-1 for provisioning 9-1-1 service. · Coordinate and provide for all technical activities related to provisioning 9-1-1 service. · Comply with established operating procedures from the Commission on State Emergency Communications pertaining to 9-1-1 service.
TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 9-1-1 PROGRAM
By: By:
Printed Name: Eric Bridges Printed Name: Beth Eggar
Title: Executive Director Title: 9-1-1 Program Manager
Date: Date:
Rev. 040109 11 Page 88
Attachment D PSAP Operations Performance Measures and Monitoring
Quality Assurance Inspections
RPC personnel will conduct site visits at least two times per year to evaluate the condition of equipment, efficiency of PSAP operations, and compliance with the Agreement.
In addition, quality assurance inspections will be conducted as follows:
The RPC’s equipment vendor will conduct equipment maintenance inspections on a quarterly basis, and more often if necessary. In addition, the RPC may conduct periodic inspections of the equipment, with or without equipment vendors, in order to assess condition and assure quality.
Rev. 040109 12 Page 89
Attachment E Commission Documents
The following documents govern the funding and provisioning of 9-1-1 services by the RPC:
1. Commission Legislation and Rules: https://www.csec.texas.gov/s/?language=en_US&tabset- fa183=1
2. Commission Program Policy Statements: https://www.csec.texas.gov/s/program-policy- statements?language=en_US&tabset-634e4=2&tabset-f25bf=1
Rev. 040109 13 Page 90
TO: TCOG Governing Board THRU: Eric M. Bridges, Executive Director DATE: May 20, 2021 RE: TCOG Personnel Policy Manual Revision
RECOMMENDATION Authorize amendment to TCOG’s Personnel Policy Manual regarding remote/tele-work policy.
BACKGROUND TCOG Administration provides employees a single policy document, the TCOG Personnel Policy Manual, to communicate established policies within TCOG. The Personnel Policy Manual is defined as a “living document,” as it will continue to be reviewed and evaluated for purposes of improvement. New employees receive a copy of this document on their date of hire, while existing employees are notified of amendments when new versions are available on the employee Intranet.
DISCUSSION As an emergency response to the rapidly expanding COVID-19 pandemic, TCOG’s Executive Director instituted an organization-wide work-from-home option for all employees in March 2020. During TCOG’s Governing Board meeting in April 2020, the Executive Director was granted temporary emergency authorization on matters related to COVID-19. The Executive Director utilized this temporary emergency authorization in May 2020 to further refine the parameters of TCOG’s tele-work procedures. TCOG has been operating under these temporary COVID-19-related measures for more than a year. In addition to meeting its primary staff health and safety objective, the temporary measure resulted in numerous, unanticipated operational efficiencies and revealed that some job positions are able to complete their work off-site. An essential aspect of the Executive Director’s job is to manage an effective workplace. Management is recommending this amendment in order to provide the Executive Director a measure a flexibility with regard to remote vs in-the-office work assignments. Management has determined these changes to be acceptable and beneficial from a fiscal and administrative perspective. The proposed amendment is as follows: 12.7 TELECOMMUTING Telecommuting may be allowed at the discretion of the Executive Director or his/her designee. The option to telecommute shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
BUDGET No Direct Impact
Page 91
TO: TCOG Governing Board FROM: Mindi Jones, Finance Director MJ DATE: May 20, 2021 RE: FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budgets Update
RECOMMENDATION Accept recommendation, if any, regarding TCOG’s FYE 2021 Cost Pool Budgets.
BACKGROUND Each month the Governing Board is presented with a status update of the prior month and current (unreconciled) fiscal year budgets for the indirect cost allocation pool and the central service IT pool and afforded the opportunity to make desired changes to the general and administrative indirect cost allocation rate or the central service IT rate as conditions warrant.
DISCUSSION The following documents are attached: prior month updated Statement of Proposed Indirect Cost for FYE 4/30/2021 Status Report depicting fiscal year budget with fiscal year to date expense and budget balance, Statement of Central Service IT Costs for FYE 4/30/2021 Status Report depicting fiscal year budget with fiscal year to date expense and budget balance.
BUDGET No rate changes are recommended at this time.
Page 92 MARCH 2021
100 - General - 8.3% 10 - Finance and Administration 10000 - Indirect Pool 03/01/2021 - 03/31/2021
Current Month % of Budget March-21 Budget Actual Year-to-Date Budget Balance Remaining REVENUE Mortage Interest Income $ - $ 4.32 $ 344.78 $ 344.78 0.00% Total INDIRECT SALARY $ - $ 4.32 $ 344.78 $ 344.78 0.00% INDIRECT SALARY Indirect Salary Salaries $ 342,709.76 $ 28,692.65 $ 308,635.35 $ 34,074.41 9.94% FICA/Medicare $ 26,217.30 $ 2,205.32 $ 23,794.30 $ 2,423.00 9.24% Unemployment Insurance $ 429.30 $ - $ - $ 429.30 100.00% Workers Compensation $ 1,542.19 $ 105.35 $ (829.40) $ 2,371.59 153.78% Insurance Health $ 21,861.45 $ 1,053.87 $ 13,452.90 $ 8,408.55 38.46% Insurance Health Copay Medical $ 16,291.32 $ 1,782.72 $ 15,854.01 $ 437.31 2.68% Dental $ 1,346.40 $ 99.76 $ 1,181.14 $ 165.26 12.27% Insurance Health Savings Account $ 3,083.01 $ 150.90 $ 2,513.03 $ 569.98 18.49% Insurance Health Retirement Account$ 1,726.80 $ 191.88 $ 1,706.42 $ 20.38 1.18% Insurance Life $ 289.06 $ 21.66 $ 256.45 $ 32.61 11.28% Employee Assistance Program $ 114.48 $ - $ 114.48 $ - 0.00% Fraud Hotline $ 49.70 $ 49.30 $ 49.30 $ 0.40 0.80% Retirement $ 23,989.69 $ (3,928.24) $ 2,361.18 $ 21,628.51 90.16% Total INDIRECT SALARY $ 439,650.46 $ 30,425.17 $ 369,089.16 $ 70,561.30 16.05% CONTRACTED SERVICES Janitorial $ 13,610.00 $ 1,133.72 $ 12,470.92 $ 1,139.08 8.37% Lawn Service $ 3,000.00 $ 248.86 $ 2,737.46 $ 262.54 8.75% Pest Control $ 550.00 $ 45.10 $ 496.10 $ 53.90 9.80% Total CONTRACTED SERVICES $ 17,160.00 $ 1,427.68 $ 15,704.48 $ 1,455.52 8.48% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Audit $ 24,200.00 0.00 24,180.00 $ 20.00 0.08% Employee Benefit Consultant $ 6,450.00 0.00 6,450.00 $ - 0.00% Consultant $ 16,500.00 1,923.75 14,748.75 $ 1,751.25 10.61% Legal $ 6,500.00 $ - $ 200.00 $ 6,300.00 96.92% Total PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 53,650.00 $ 1,923.75 $ 45,578.75 $ 8,071.25 15.04% UTILITIES Electric $ 63,000.00 $ 4,079.32 $ 56,468.88 $ 6,531.12 10.37% Natural Gas $ 21,000.00 $ 2,147.77 $ 19,731.79 $ 1,268.21 6.04% Sanitation $ 1,750.00 $ 146.28 $ 1,636.00 $ 114.00 6.51% Water $ 3,000.00 $ 207.11 $ 2,976.24 $ 23.76 0.79% Total UTILITIES $ 88,750.00 $ 6,580.48 $ 80,812.91 $ 7,937.09 8.94% OTHER Training & Travel $ 3,500.00 $ 49.37 $ 1,047.05 $ 2,452.95 70.08% Advertising $ - $ 526.29 $ 526.29 $ (526.29) 0.00% Copier Expense $ 1,100.00 $ 186.85 $ 1,481.20 $ (381.20) (34.65)% Depreciation $ 77,700.00 $ 6,475.00 $ 71,225.00 $ 6,475.00 8.33% Dues/Subscriptions $ 10,750.00 $ - $ 11,204.91 $ (454.91) (4.23)% Insurance $ 7,950.00 $ - $ 7,189.81 $ 760.19 9.56% Postage $ 650.00 $ 99.09 $ 2,408.77 $ (1,758.77) (270.58)% Printed Material $ 1,250.00 $ - $ 1,981.43 $ (731.43) (58.51)% Building Maintenance $ 43,500.00 $ 600.24 $ 17,456.62 $ 26,043.38 59.87% Page 93 MARCH 2021
Current Month % of Budget March-21 Budget Actual Year-to-Date Budget Balance Remaining Elevator Maintenance $ 5,700.00 $ 546.97 $ 5,645.67 $ 54.33 0.95% Training & Travel $ 8,400.00 $ 646.16 $ 7,753.92 $ 646.08 7.69% Mortgage Interest Expense $ 20,076.00 $ - $ 13,805.55 $ 6,270.45 31.23% Supplies $ 13,000.00 $ 900.17 $ 9,622.16 $ 3,377.84 25.98% Total OTHER $ 193,576.00 $ 10,030.14 $ 151,348.38 $ 42,227.62 21.81% Total INDIRECT $ 792,786.46 $ 50,387.22 $ 662,533.68 $ 130,252.78 16.43% YTD Budget $ 726,720.92 REIMBURSEMENT Allocation Indirect Expense $ 822,066.00 $ 62,189.11 $ 723,698.68 $ 98,367.32 11.97% Total REIMBURSEMENT $ 822,066.00 $ 62,189.11 $ 723,698.68 $ 98,367.32 11.97% YTD Budget $ 753,560.50
CENTRAL IT IT-Voice & Data Service $ 9,216.00 $ 998.56 $ 10,468.30 $ (1,252.30) (13.59)% Network Professional Services $ 58,428.00 $ 4,369.45 $ 44,445.03 $ 13,982.97 23.93% Software-Licensing-Maint $ 22,207.00 $ - $ 20,627.91 $ 1,579.09 7.11% Total EXPENSES $ 89,851.00 $ 5,368.01 $ 75,541.24 $ 14,309.76 15.93% YTD Budget $ 82,363.42 REIMBURSEMENT Allocation CIT Expense $ 89,851.00 $ 6,601.43 $ 78,536.31 $ 11,314.69 12.59% Total REIMBURSEMENT $ 89,851.00 $ 6,601.43 $ 78,536.31 $ 11,314.69 12.59% YTD Budget $ 82,363.42
Page 94 MARCH 2021
Current Month % of Budget March-21 Budget Actual Year-to-Date Budget Balance Remaining
Page 95 MARCH 2021
FYE 2021 YTD Indirect and CIT Budgets
FY 2021 YTD Allocations YTD Expenditures % of 4/1/2020 Approved Budget Thru March 2021 Thru March 2021 Budget Balance Budget Remaining Under/(Over) Indirect* $ 822,066 $ 723,699 $ 662,534 $ 159,532 19.41% $ (61,510) CIT 89,851 78,536 75,541 14,310 15.93% (2,995) Total $ 911,917 $ 802,235 $ 738,075 $ 173,842 19.06% $ (64,505)
Expenses vs. Allocations
YTD Allocations YTD Expenditures Thru March 2021 Thru March 2021
$800,000
($61,510)
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000 ($2,995)
$- Indirect* CIT
*Includes Year-to-Date Depreciation Expense Estimate
Page 96 Membership Fee Schedule FYE 2021
FYE 2021 FYE 2021 FYE 2021 FYE 2021 Member Name Member Name Member Dues Dues Paid Member Dues Dues Paid COOKE COUNTY $ 4,185.23 $ 4,185 3/18/2021 Bells ISD $ 177.29 $ 177.29 3/11/2021 Callisburg $ 100.00 Bonham ISD $ 375.41 $ 375.41 3/11/2021 Gainesville $ 3,448.92 $ 3,448.92 3/11/2021 Collinsville ISD $ 104.57 Lindsay $ 225.77 $ 225.77 3/11/2021 Denison ISD $ 951.56 $ 951.56 3/19/2021 Muenster $ 327.34 $ 327.34 3/22/2021 Dodd City ISD $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/3/2021 Oak Ridge $ 100.00 Ector ISD $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/11/2021 Road Runner $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/18/2021 Valley View $ 168.68 $ 168.68 3/19/2021 Era ISD $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/11/2021 GRAYSON COUNTY $ 8,566.20 $ 8,566.20 3/18/2021 Fannindel ISD $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/19/2021 Bells $ 310.91 $ 310.91 3/22/2021 Gainesville ISD $ 613.20 Collinsville $ 400.26 $ 400.26 3/18/2021 Grayson College $ 858.21 $ 858.21 4/3/2021 Denison $ 5,201.27 $ 5,201.27 3/18/2021 Honey Grove ISD $ 127.61 Dorchester* $ 100.00 Leonard ISD $ 172.48 $ 172.48 3/3/2021 Gunter $ 333.15 $ 333.15 3/11/2021 Muenster ISD $ 107.18 $ 107.18 4/3/2021 Knollwood $ 110.98 $ 110.98 3/11/2021 NCTC $ 451.00 $ 451.00 3/30/2021 Pottsboro $ 505.23 $ 505.23 3/11/2021 Pottsboro ISD $ 289.67 $ 289.67 3/19/2021 Sadler $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/11/2021 Sam Rayburn ISD $ 107.18 $ 107.18 3/11/2021 Sherman $ 8,919.56 $ 8,919.56 3/11/2021 Savoy ISD $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/11/2021 Southmayd $ 221.76 $ 221.76 3/30/2021 Sherman ISD $ 1,511.47 Tioga $ 204.13 $ 204.13 3/11/2021 Tom Bean ISD $ 125.00 Tom Bean $ 230.38 $ 230.38 3/18/2021 Van Alstyne ISD $ 360.19 Van Alstyne $ 933.13 $ 933.13 3/18/2021 Whitesboro ISD $ 324.33 Whitesboro $ 829.16 $ 829.16 3/11/2021 TOTAL $ 7,156.36 $ 3,989.98 Whitewright $ 341.96 $ 341.96 3/11/2021 Howe $ 723.18 Bonham Chamber $ 175.00 FANNIN COUNTY $ 4,239.77 $ 2,868.00 3/18/2021 Denison Chamber $ 100.00 Bailey* $ 100.00 Sherman Chamber $ 100.00 Bonham $ 2,433.85 $ 2,433.85 3/11/2021 TOTAL $ - $ - Dodd City $ 100.00 Ector $ 145.44 $ 145.44 3/18/2021 ¹ Projections taken from "Total Populations of Counties and Places in Texas", Texas Demographic Honey Grove $ 333.35 $ 333.35 3/19/2021 Center, January 2019 Ladonia $ 125.41 $ 125.41 3/17/2021 ² Based on enrollments of 10/2018, Texas Education Agency Pecan Gap* $ 100.00 http://tea4avholly.tea.state.tx.us/TEA.AskTED.Web/Forms/ViewDirectory.aspx 3 Associate Members as defined by Article III(B)(ii) of TCOG's Bylaws Ravenna $ 100.00 $ 100.00 3/18/2021 Trenton $ 138.63 $ 138.63 3/11/2021 * Non Member Windom $ 100.00 Leonard $ 416.68 Savoy $ 169.48 $ 169.48 3/19/2021 TOTAL $ 45,189.79 $ 41,978.18 Page$45,968 97 / $52,346 MARCH 2021
Texoma Council of Governments Financial Information Balance Sheets for the Fiscal Years Ended:
Prior Month Not Current Month Not Prior Year Reconciled to Audit Year-to-Date Reconciled (3/31/2020) (3/31/2021) Change ($) Change (%) (4/30/2021) Notes ASSETS Current Assets Cash in Bank General 358,973.00 479,236.00 120,263.00 33.50% 308,140.00 Cash in Bank TCEQ 100.00 14,550.00 14,450.00 14450.00% 14,550.00
Cash in Bank Local 81,281.00 201,120.00 119,839.00 147.44% 202,502.00 Cash in Bank 911 190,894.00 353,678.00 162,784.00 85.27% 493,133.00 Cash in Bank FSS 104,403.00 135,886.00 31,483.00 30.16% 141,408.00 Cash in Bank Section 8 210,368.00 154,923.00 (55,445.00) -26.36% 151,943.12 Using reserve dollars Cash in Bank Chase LOC 331,891.00 0.00 (331,891.00) -100.00% - Moved to Texpool Texpool Investment Acct 1,031.00 333,371.00 332,340.00 32234.72% 333,371.00 Accounts Receivable 1,142,039.00 1,200,744.00 58,705.00 5.14% 313,958.00 Travel Advance (605.00) 0.00 605.00 -100.00% - No travel Prepaid Items 15,753.00 8,118.00 (7,635.00) -48.47% 8,118.00 Due From 2,480,460.00 1,655,963.00 (824,497.00) -33.24% 1,655,963.00 Close out of grants Other Assets 88,749.00 45,130.00 (43,619.00) -49.15% 45,130.00 Cost pool closeout *Amount will not change until yearend Total Current Assets 5,005,337.00 4,582,719.00 (422,618.00) -8.44% 3,668,216.12 Fixed Assets Building & 2,764,453.00 2,791,012.00 26,559.00 0.96% 2,806,012.00 *Amount changed with yearend entry Improvements Furniture, Vehicles & 2,892,773.00 3,061,714.00 168,941.00 5.84% 4,025,788.00 *Amount changed with yearend entry - Other Equipment PSAP equipment Accumulated (3,209,772.00) (3,473,148.00) (263,376.00) 8.21% (3,724,495.00) Depreciation *Amount changed with yearend entry Total Fixed Assets 2,447,454.00 2,379,578.00 (67,876.00) -2.77% 3,107,305.00 Total ASSETS 7,452,791.00 6,962,297.00 (490,494.00) -6.58% 6,775,521.12
LIABILITIES Accounts Payable 436,743.00 869,585.00 432,842.00 99.11% 869,585.00 Payroll Liability (9,104.00) (21,562.00) (12,458.00) 136.84% (21,562.00) FSS Escrow Liability 91,950.00 134,886.00 42,936.00 46.69% 134,886.00 Due To Due From Other 2,480,460.00 1,655,963.00 (824,497.00) -33.24% 1,655,963.00 Funds Close out of grants Deferred Local Revenue - 32,214.00 606.00 (31,608.00) -98.12% 606.00 AAA Grant Yearend adjustment Accrued Compensated 118,146.00 113,289.00 (4,857.00) -4.11% 113,289.00 Absences *Amt will not change until yearend Long Term Debt Building 600,951.00 521,427.00 (79,524.00) -13.23% 521,427.00 *Amt will not change until yearend Payable Total LIABILITIES 3,751,360.00 3,274,194.00 (477,166.00) -12.72% 3,274,194.00 Fund Balance 3,701,431.00 3,688,103.00 (13,328.00) -0.36% 3,501,327.12
7,452,791.00 6,962,297.00 (490,494.00) -6.58% 6,775,521.12 Total Liabilities & Fund Balance
Page 98 MARCH 2021
Texoma Council of Governments Financial Information For the Fiscal and Month-to-Date Periods
Current Year Not Prior Year Thru March Current Year Thru Reconciled 2/1/2021 (2020) 3/31/2021 Change ($) Change (%) (4/30/21) Notes OPERATION REVENUE Grant Revenue 12,918,110.49 13,949,027.58 1,030,917.09 7.98% 14,421,440.31 Up due to CARES Program Revenue 1,787,896.04 1,515,199.75 (272,696.29) -15.25% 1,526,267.43 HDM down - Local down Investment Income 199.53 497.55 298.02 149.36% 497.55 Up due to TexPool Interest Total OPERATING REVENUE 14,706,206.06 15,464,724.88 758,518.82 5.16% 15,948,205.29 Total Revenue 14,706,206.06 15,464,724.88 758,518.82 5.16% 15,948,205.29
EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 2,600,594.69 2,623,624.70 23,030.01 0.89% 2,849,815.67
Program Expenses 649,317.65 451,998.73 (197,318.92) -30.39% 465,650.35 IT direct, Misc, service rec awards, supplies, phone, in- kind expenses down due to COVID Direct Services 9,560,776.93 9,969,365.79 408,588.86 4.27% 10,625,964.52 Professional Fees 104,783.04 77,216.01 (27,567.03) -26.31% 84,550.03 Subcontract is down due to COVID Interest Expense 26,412.50 22,219.39 (4,193.11) -15.88% 24,132.02 Interest down paying more on principal Occupancy 309,099.70 255,321.84 (53,777.86) -17.40% 275,108.48 Not as many maint issues Conferences, Conventions, & 123,245.94 45,777.69 (77,468.25) -62.86% 48,314.99 Down due to COVID-19 Meetings Printing & Publications 43,309.81 46,276.42 2,966.61 6.85% 48,026.42 Dues & Subscriptions 9,502.16 17,434.42 7,932.26 83.48% 17,459.42 Operations 115,485.94 124,328.54 8,842.60 7.66% 128,215.64 Equipment 171,611.13 986,512.58 814,901.45 474.85% 986,512.58 PSAP Equipment and annual maintenance Total EXPENDITURES 13,714,139.49 14,620,076.11 905,936.62 6.61% 15,553,750.12
Net Revenue Over 992,066.57 844,648.77 (147,417.80) -14.86% 394,455.17 Expenditures
Depreciation 71,181.00 71,181.00 0.00 0.00% 77,652.00 Estimated amount of depreciation for year- end entry
920,885.57 773,467.77 (147,417.80) -14.86% 316,803.17
Page 99