Travis County Commissioners Court
November 29, 2005
Item 26
P.b.o. We have you there, then we'll call up the medical examiner's issue. 26 is to discuss consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
>> we have a number of budget amendments that are rue teen. We do have one discussion item that we would like to discuss with the court. We will be glad to answer any questions on a 1 through a 6 prior to that discussion if you would like.
>> a 1 through a 6 look pretty straightforward to me.
>> they are.
>> I would like to go ahead and move approval of a 1 through a 6, unless anybody have any questions on it?
>> I have a question.
>> okay. You have a question? Okay.
>> motion and a second. Question?
>> a 6. Do I understand that the amount of money that we have put in reserve for -- for the jail overcrowding issue, which we use that money to send out of county, I understand that we probably anticipate going through the amount that we budgeted faster than what we thought?
>> yes. That's correct.
>> and where we are really going to get bailed out on this is this grant that we -- that we have received. My question -- is that true?
>> we -- we are looking at the costs for out of county and in county for that matter for the rest of the year. Coming forward probably about the middle of December with a report that says, looks at that issue. Absolutely we recommend taking money which is about $656,000 which will be on your agenda next week and applied to the reserve.
>> what would we have done had we not gotten the scat money, go off the reserves?
>> you would have to go into the allocated reserves. I would suggest that that is still a possibility given the population that we have today.
>> still what in your opinion, where did we make the mistake, or where did we not realize that the amount of money that we had budgeted for this was going to be woefully inadequate? I mean, somewhere we -- we missed the mark on this thing.
>> well, certainly we didn't expect to have a couple of hurricanes come through. That didn't help matters. And -- because that caused some backup in the state. However the state has been taking right now more prisons than they have taken at this time last year. They are certainly catching up if not more than they should be. The other thing is the population simply, I have asked some -- some statistical work to be done, is -- probably larger than the -- than expected as far as just being hard to get through the system.
>> I think, bill, the Commissioner is asking where did we miss our projection on the population? Where do you think we missed it? Because we are obviously what, 100 inmates above where we are budgeted right now.
>> yes. Nine to 100 range, yes.
>> I understand that. And that hasn't snuck up on us. I mean, we have had that, I mean we budgeted, you know --
>> initially we thought it was hurricane related to a certain extent. Normally we would have had a drop that has not occurred. It has still not occurred that much. We are down to 27, we were at 2925. In the first week of October. That was to the great extent hurricane related. So we are down -- I’m doing this kind of off the top of my head.
>> more than 200?
>> well, a couple of hundred from where we were six weeks ago. But a lot of that is the state is taking people away from us. We still have a large population. Part of that report will be trying to examine the question that you -- that you asked, you are asking, but part of it is that we have not been able also to -- to have as much -- use as much [indiscernible] in our system. There has been a little bit of change. We assume the 6% and it's working out more like 8%. We only have a month or two of experience with that 6% number. It's been 3 or 4 years.
>> what does 6% represent now?
>> that represents the capacity for classification basically. Flex beds is the term that has been used. We are -- we are in the 80% range, that's a portion of it.
>> but the short answer is that the drop that we had anticipated in November and going into December, we haven't seen the drop as dramatic as what we projected. We are hoping that we'll see that. I might say that in anticipation of perhaps a soft projection on inmates, we did recommend to the court and you did approve a sizable allocated reserve this year. That was $3.2 million. So in answer to your question, the anticipation, if we ran through the jail overcrowding reserve, we were going to obviously use allocated reserve.
>> the point that I want to make sure is since a lot of the county watches us here on Tuesdays, I am really concerned about getting a handle on what we need to be doing with this jail overcrowding issue. I think the first year that I got here, there were great results witnessed out of -- you know, this docket, rocket docket, you know, put all of the dockets that you want and all of the propulsion that you want but -- but we need this -- this county needs to find a way to deal with this. I will tell you as the precinct 3 Commissioner I continue to get asked to see voted on promoted dollars, why people need equipment, why people need everything, but we are not very good at here are some problem solving solutions. And I think that -- and, hey, I’ll throw myself in this, we are a little remiss in really taking the bull by the horns and really finding some ways to deal with these things. I think that we have become lax and I think that the committee, I’m committed to if you need to have more involvement from the precinct 3 office, I’m willing to do that. But we have got to find some ways to find some results, either getting people through the system, it's making sure that we have accurate assessments, it's making sure that we do all of the things that we need too do to take on the ever growing increase of people that are incarcerated in this community. It's not to me it is not acceptable for us just to kind of like give it one of these about I don't know what's happening. I don't know why we are locking up people, I don't know what to do. I mean, I have often asked if there are people that are in this industry that know what we need to be doing, if there are people that make their living doing these things, ie I really need some answers from the sheriff's office or I need somebody that I think is on point with what needs to take place and what needs to happen and I don't know what those needs are. I mean as the Commissioner, I can tell you that I’m all ears whenever comes time to convincing me, Commissioner, here's what we need. If we get this, these are the results that we get. I’m finding and I continue to watch the asked fores 10 to grow -- continue to grow, I think we need to see results. I think y'all are part of this. I know that leroy you either chair it or you are pretty high up the ladder, you know, on the -- on the -- maybe not -- that's the fines and fees, which sort of --
>> ties in.
>> melts into this thing. But I think we need to as a community, we need to get very, very serious about this as opposed to just having these things that all of a sudden we have something that kind of bailed us out here. At some point in time we are not going to be able to use rita and katrina as the excuse for what's going on. I mean, that is not the excuse with the number of people that we -- it's not an excuse or it shouldn't be accepted that we don't know what to do with all of these people that we continue to incarcerate. I think it's what we need to continue to do with our interlocal agreement. If we are going to have to sit down with the city of Austin because it frightens me to death to think that we are fixing to have an onslaught of class c misdemeanors come into the system because of -- rightfully so, some of the things that the city is taking on saying we have got merchants that want you to do something with these ills and these problems. So I just want it understand as opposed to just, you know, pretty quickly let's consent a through 6, with 6 being an issue that really, maybe it just reached out and grabbed me, but I’m, you know, I’m very, very concerned about this. I think -- I know that the judge and I have had, you know, at least one side meeting on what can we do to expedite, what can we do to help, I mean, with the numbers that we have got coming at us. Because I don't think the numbers are going to get smaller if we don't have another hurricane or a tornado or, you know, a norther comes in, we are going to have, you know, these numbers growing so I hope that there are 'em that are listening to this -- there are people that are listening to this, if we are going to continue to ask for resources and ask for space and ask for all of the things that the Commissioners are expected -- because everybody got a good song as to why we need to be voted for some things, I just hope that somebody realizes at some point in time we are going to need to show some results. I think we did show some results at one time, but I think that has gotten a little pushed to the back.
>> let me just comment. I know that bill is working with the sheriff's department on next week's budget amendment item. I asked the same question. Have some of those programs slipped over the last couple of years? And the answer is no. It's that the misdemeanants are at an all-time low compared to the total population. I think it's what major balagia indicated the last time this come up. Which doesn't mean that we don't need to poke on it because it is the number one cost driver of this entire budget. But that more of the inmates are for felon offenses. And that makes sure jail population go up. So --
>> what would be also helpful to get back to us is that there was a legitimate case to be made several years back when this first started that somehow the incarceration rates in Travis County were higher in comparison to other large urban counties. And my question is what has happened since that? Have those numbers come down, are they remaining steady? And to see where we are in comparison to our other counterparts in terms of the number of people being held preadd judy cage, post adjudication in our facility. The other piece is at some point jail overcrowding becomes the sheriff's budget because we are going to be embarking on a very large capital project that will take a lot of these out of county and bring them back home in terms they will be embedded back into our budget. So the overcrowding piece is something that hopefully with the voters help and investment we'll get a handle on there. But it's a very legitimate question to be asked about, yeah, but what about the ongoing operating costs, how do we get those daily populations down. I think one of the things that was still quite disturbing was just the large number of women who are now going through the system. It's just a change in -- in population out there in terms of more felonies, more women and you are right, katrina was one place where we could talk about who was going on the out end in terms of not getting transferred in a timely manner, but that's now over. And we need to look at what's coming in on the end side, some of our efforts like adding people to intake in the district attorney's office. Some of the people that legitimately came in here saying this will help, we need to get reports on did you hire those people, is it helping. This stem is here because as -- this item is here because as of December 1 we owe frio county this amount of money. Unless something is done to eliminate the number of inmates in our custody, we will owe frio county another sum of money January 1. Are we billed monthly or quarterly?
>> monthly.
>> okay. I know that there are subcommittees working at some point we ought to have a work session agenda item so we can see exactly what you are doing. I don't know that the -- that those committees and initiatives that we had in place two or three years ago, are operating with the same urgency and intensity that they were operating within. The reality is that unless we can bring this number down significantly, we need to fund up to whatever we think the level is. But I would like to see us at least give creative, innovative efforts of a 110% effort. I’m sure everybody is working, but in any view those committees at some point simply just kept meeting but didn't really -- they were not meeting and acting afterwards as we were two or three years ago. I could be mistaken, but -- we ought to post this for work session discussion with an eye toward either evaluating programs that are in place or putting new ones in place that we think can -- can produce results and we did and I reminded the task force, we did add additional revenue to some programs and departments and we will -- we were given specific promises about outcomes. I think we ought to review that documentation, pull performance measures from those submissions, then ask the committee to add to the performance measures in that. But you know it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion without the d.a., the county attorney, the judges, cscd, pretrial services, a whole lot of departments that come into play and the back end is simply the sheriff's office where the inmates are housed. That's where the bill comes and our commitment to the counties is that if they did certain things when they sent the invoice, we would try to pay it in a timely manner, that generated this budget transfer.
>> yes, it did.
>> I think we need a work session, yeah.
>> maybe even late December. Where at least we will know what's going on and I was talking to ms. Pierce a couple of days ago, if nothing else, the different departments ought to know that we had performance measures in place and expectations. I know some of those positions have been posted. I don't know that all of them have been filled yet. But in terms of what impact they are having, it may be too early to get that. But they ought to know that we expect some information about impact at least three or four months from now. We don't want to wait until the end of the fiscal year. But at least we can discuss what the plan is as soon as we can get a work session discussion and we can get a status report on whether the new positions have been filled, and what the overall effort is. Everybody seems to be saying, you know, we are still on board, we understand there's a problem, you know, we have got to do more and better, but, you know, proof is in the pudding, if the pudding is these numbers, you know, that's not good proof so far. But I move approval -- there's a motion and second to approve a through 6. Any more discussion? I guess -- judge, I think you basically …
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> …because of when it would occur. There are no scheduled in January, but we are going to need to schedule every two weeks in January, February and March.
>> so either December 29th or the first opportunity in January.
>> that's correct.
>> the 29th is going to be some of your calendars are a little awkward during that time.
>> unless the court's retreat does not take place in mid December.
>> that's correct. You have established certain --
>> everybody is on board.
>> ? Everybody is on board and the consultant is on board. You can always council it, but it's there.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now the discussion item --
>> judge, I’m comfortable with the request being made by facilities and go with the position laid out by pbo that this needs to be internally funded, pending hr review. And there are multiple strategies in terms of people being able to cover all of this, but in early -- we're practically in December now, but it's too early to say it comes out of allocated reserves. This is consistent with what we've done it in the past in terms of internally funded through that function area and come see us if there's a problem at some later point, but there's multiple opportunities to make up the difference.
>> what is the likelihood of administrative operations being able to generate this much in salary savings between now and the end of the fiscal year?
>> overall --
>> could you come up?
>> let me take a look at it. We're much more comfortable with broadening that scope because there's more opportunities. Let me take a look at you and give you a precise answer.
>> and gee, if it just doesn't work out that way, come see us, but the come see us is happening in July, August, September, not in November.
>> and my view is that the compromise would be that if this change is really needed, and that's the question, is it needed and is it needed now, if so, what I would do is approve it and say basically in the functional area, administrative operations, try your best to generate -- it's $10,000 basically. Try your best to generate $10,000 between now and the end of the fiscal year rather than later saying we'll try to come up with the money. Just try to couple with the money and at the end of the year we'll know how to deal with it.
>> I’ll second that motion.
>> it would need to be $10,000 permanently. That's why pbo's recommendation is that when the budget submissions happen in may that administrative operations have the flexibility within all of the departments in that area to be able to come up with that $10,000' a permanent days.
>> but what I’m understanding is that as far as what the judge is recommending there and I’m going to second what he's recommending based on what I’m understanding, is let's go ahead and approve what's before us today, and if, if the department can come up with that, that's another story, but right now let's move up with what we're dealing with today. And if there's no significance in it, we can go to the allocated reserve and get the money. And if they aren't able to do what they need to do -- right now I think we need to approve what is being proposed here today. [overlapping speakers].
>> we have a savings of almost this much already. It's just not permanent. That's why I wouldn't just delay filling the position unless we don't need the position for that.
>> temporary savings.
>> it's a hirer position basically, but it's consistent throughout the department. So we have the one time salary savings that we can we lie on, realizing they're not permanent, and then we have the functional area the opportunity to try to generate additional salary savings during the fiscal year.
>> and if that's not possible make a budget request for that amount.
>> but hopefully the budget request will come like late summer instead of may.
>> and the caveat would be again depending on what the court's direction is and all the capital improvement program that is before you, then we would take another look and determine what staffing would be needed to execute that.
>> I think it makes total sense, the reorg that you have laid out here, it makes sense in terms of the direction you want to go.
>> when I looked at it, internal consistency and equity seem to say this ought to be done. And when you look at the funding, you've got one time salary savings that cover almost all of it anyway, plus we have the rest of the year. If you expand beyond facilities to the functional area of administrative operations, it really gives us a much better opportunity to generate eight to $10,000. I am assuming that we need to do this, in which case we ought to go ahead and do it now rather than wait.
>> we should move on with it. That's why I’m seconding your motion, judge.
>> may I say something in.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, the project manager is on the current projects and that is the position that most of the work is the care supporting the generation of the drawing for several projects. That position has become vacant a week ago. And I went -- I waited for that opportunity to have to convert that position into an architectural associate opinion in line with the other project managers team. As you look at my organizational chart, there's an arrow next to that engineering technician. As you can see, all of those project managers I have, I have four project managers. Currently they have -- currently right now each project manager has an architectural associate except team number 2, which has an engineering technician. That engineering technician, as I said, left. Now, this is my opportunity to upgrade that position. I’m in desperate need of a architect associate now.
>> we're not arguing with that.
>> but what happened is if I can go ahead and advertise for it --
>> I don't think that anybody here is saying -- we want to do that.
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> go ahead and do it.
>> don't talk us out of it. [ laughter ]
>> I misunderstood that. But you see, it was -- okay.
>> if you need to fill a position, it does not make sense to fill it with an engineering tech and then in may hope that the person is qualified for the architectural associate. I don't know if it's better to fire this person, fire that person and then post the job and hire an architectural associate. It makes more sense to hire that person right now, take our one time salary savings to cover as much of that as possible, but realize we need the administrative operation to try to generate about 10,000 in salary savings between now and the end of the fiscal year, and if that is not done at the appropriate time when we see that there's going to be a shortfall, then we fix it.
>> pbo has always maintained that this made logical sense pending an hr review.
>> I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.
>> move approval of all of that.
>> I seconded it two or three times, judge. Just go ahead and do what you need to do. Fill the slot.
>> pbo will cover the money one way or the other.
>> and if not come back and see us.
>> I’ve given it three shots. We'll revisit it late fiscal year if necessary. Okay?
>> for forth, young man. [ laughter ]
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, November 30, 2005 9:31 AM