Travis County Commssioners Court
December 3, 2002
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.
Item 4
Now, we do have our county sheriff here with us. Call up item number 4. Which is to consider and take appropriate action regarding requests for exception to commissioners court prohibition of the taking home of vehicles outside Travis County. A, the sheriff's office, b, the constable precinct 5, c, constable precinct 3, and d, constable precinct 2. There are other elected officials who have requested exception that we have posted next week. To be honest, these are the ones that [inaudible] sort of blanket exceptions in my view, so I thought that we should schedule them first and give some indication of where the court is in-- where the court is inclined to go.
>> good morning.
>> before there is -- there has been sort of hovering some question about an individual's responsibility to take certain actions or not to comply with our arrest regulations. This issue has been looked at by the auditor and by the county attorney's office, and if we could get maybe a brief status report from them on where they are, we may want to incorporate that into our decisions today.
>> i'll just do a status and the legal parts barbara wilson has handled and can address. One of the things when you take home a vehicle, i.r.s., Under certain circumstances, considers that compensation and a benefit. And if that's true, then we need to treat it that way on our payroll system, and when we give employees a w-2, the accrued interest -- not interest, but income that i.r.s. Deems appropriate, we have to put on the employee's w-2. And so what we did this year is we -- you know, every so often send out questionnaires to make sure that our people are in compliance and that our payroll system is consistent with the usage that they have. Barbara wilson assisted charles vaughn in my department to put together the questionnaire. It was sent to everyone who we believe had a take-home vehicle. Those came back. Some of them were very complete, some were incomplete. We sent them back out and we've gotten them all back. So we believe that by Friday or Monday -- am I right, charles?
>> the 13th.
>> the 13th, we will be sending statements to every employee who has a take-home vehicle noting what their tax implication, if any, is based on the response to that survey. And barbara, i'll turn this over to you.
>> any legal standards we need to keep in mind?
>> there is nothing in the law that prohibits you from saying that people can take the vehicles out of the county or take them to stay overnight outside the county. The legal ramifications of doing that flow from other decisions you made include the fact because you are self-insured for all of the events that happen to the vehicles, like accidents and damage to our -- property damage, damage to other people's property and injury to people who would be either in our vehicle or a vehicle -- or other property that was damaged means that the more use there is for personal purposes, like going to and from home or carrying dependents in the car, will increase the risk that you are assuming under your self-insurance. It's legal in the sense that that's a legal ramification that will flow from other decisions you've made, but it's not one that prohibits you from making any decision you feel like making here. And the other issue is the issue related to compliance with the i.r.s. Provisions and the consideration of the use of the car as income in some circumstances. I delivered to your offices either last night or this morning a two-pager that goes over that in some detail, and I don't think it's that closely related to whatever you decide here. Whatever is going to -- [inaudible] is going to flow because the i.r.s. Is going to approach this, because it doesn't direct you to go one way or the other in terms of what you decide about out of county. It may direct people in the department to decide they don't want to take it home if the tax ramifications don't suit them in relation to the amount of benefit they feel they get out of it. But that's not an issue that you need to consider in making your decision.
>> well, that last statement you made, and I understand, according to what the auditor has stated, that you -- have there been a final response from the surveys to let the employees know that these vehicles will be considered under an income status? In other words, extra income added on to the w-2?
>> that will be mailed out either on the 13th or the 16th based on -- this month, based on the responses that we have gotten. Barbara is right, there's really two issues, and that is if you have a take-home vehicle, the i.r.s. Looks at it and determines whether any of that should be counted as income to you. That's really a separate issue. And the commissioners court nor our office doesn't have the right to say, well, you don't have to. I mean, we have to follow i.r.s. Regulations.
>> I understand that.
>> that's the one issue. The other issue is who you let take home a vehicle, what it costs, your policy issues, and the financial ramifications to the county that go along with that. So, I mean, we're talking about the same, but the i.r.s. Issue is kind of a separate issue.
>> yes, exactly. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I got a clear understanding as far as the i.r.s. Issue, the other risk factor issues that barbara brought up where the county, since we are self-insured, and then the liability situation that kind of takes us in under that risk factor. But i.r.s., Of course, is a different deal, and I want to know when we would be getting response from employees that are using take-home vehicle and out-of-county vehicles. You said that's going to be later this month.
>> right. We'll get back to them.
>> susan, is this different from what has been done in the past? I mean, have employees not known that there is some compensation with having a vehicle?
>> they have known this, but I think that what happens is things got a little bit lacks. And that is that the policies that you all passed are very clear that the auditor's office and the risk manager have to be informed of who has a vehicle and why. So what we were finding out is that we were not sure that we were getting that information. And so what we thought is, i.r.s. Had kind of tightened up some of its regulations and our people had gone to some training and we thought it's time to do a comprehensive survey to make sure our payroll records in fact were accurate. So that was what substantiated that. And a lot of times you send a survey to someone and they don't return it. It's just human nature. But in this case, it's just like filling out how many deductions you want. You have to file that because we have to, by law, deduct and give a w-2 to reflect that. So I think in answer to your question, this has always been the rule, but I think things have become somewhat lacks and that's why we decided we needed to revisit the issue and make sure that our payroll records were in compliance with all i.r.s. Regulations.
>> but this is not going to be a situation where the i.r.s. Comes back and retroactively says you all haven't been taking that out.
>> it should not. With the information that we have had, it's correct. I mean, we've been doing the correct thing. We are just, you know, verifying it to make sure that our records are correct. Just like we're getting ready to send out w-2's very shortly, and we sent a letter to everyone in the county saying this is the address we have in the payroll s-plt. If you have a -- system. If have you a different address, let us know because we're getting ready to send out w-2's and we want to make sure. It's a verification on payroll issues.
>> thank you.
>> any questions about i.r.s.? Or regs? Okay. What we did was to distribute through departments a list of persons with assigned vehicles to take home and a separate list of those who reside out of county. Right? And based on my recollection of what we did, it was basically to adopt a blanket prohibition, but to give departments an opportunity to look at their situation on a case-by-case basis and come back to the commissioners court before the effective date of January 1, 2003, so we could indicate whether we could come to agreement on certain vehicles or not. I understand that's what these departments have done. Okay. Sheriff's office is first.
>> thank you, your honor. I want to briefly -- we've given you -- we have a power point presentation and I wanted to kind of briefly go over what I felt were the original goals of the take-home policy. I wanted to remind us and also for education of new members of the court, folks who may not have been on the court in '96. That originally was to provide individual responsibilities to the officers for each of the vehicles, that there was their car, they were responsible for that car and responsible to enhance the life of the vehicle because they would be responsible for maintaining it. It also -- also important was the idea of being able to deploy new sources quickly. If we need to do call an officer, they were literally able to walk out and begin work. Having the vehicles in the neighborhood and the officers traveling to and from work, I feel, definitely has a deterrent to criminal activity because what courtrooms will tell you is law enforcement presence is the largest deterrent to criminal activity. Folks aren't stupid. They are not real bright, but they are not going to do something stupid when they think an officer is there. It allows officers enroute to and from work to take law enforcement activity. That doesn't mean when they come on a situation even if we're in our private vehicles we don't stop, but it's much more difficult, particularly with the traffic situation, it's dangerous if you don't have proper light bars and things to stop in the middle of the traffic. One of the other things also is that it increases by having the vehicles go home with the officers and housed with the officers it increases security of the vehicles. Our vehicles now have almost, with the new radio system, have almost as much value and the equipment in them as the vehicle itself. The equipment itself is around $18,000 with a fully equipped car with the cameras, the computers, the new radio system, everything is close to $18,000. I have asked the court to relook at applying this policy. The current prohibition that's supposed to take effect January 1st, and look at some of the impacts that it will have. One of the difficulties we have is where are we going to park -- if we say to officers you can't take these cars out of county, you can't park them at your home, then the question becomes where do you park them t reality is we either park them down at the central command, which is around this courthouse somewhere, east command or west command. East command has a little more parking. West command does not have much parking at all. And we weren't concerned about the parking when we purchased the property because of the fact we weren't intending to have it become a parking lot. The other very serious issue is the lack of security for the vehicles and the equipment when they are -- when it's parked there. We would wind up, quite frankly, needing to, particularly out east, we would wind up having to place fencing and we've said really what you need to have is a parking lot that is [inaudible], that is -- either has security personnel or monitored and some sort of limited access. The same way when those officers -- it's not as big a problem for the officers perhaps who are parking downtown, but officers parking at some of the remote locations in the middle of the night, the security for their personal vehicles while they are working. The -- probably the greatest loss is the fact of the accessibility of the vehicles for rapid deployment and response, and the idea that it's really not a good idea to cluster the vehicles in case there is a catastrophic loss whether it be a flood or an intentional act by someone to make your vehicles a very easy mark for someone. We would also feel it's the going to result in reduction of the maintenance of the vehicles. Presently the officers, most of the officers maintain their vehicles on their own time, and particularly if the vehicles are located in a central location, we can expect that not to occur. Which that coupled with the fact of officers having -- once they are placed in on call status, they are having to come all the way into the east command center to get their vehicle, we can see an increase of overtime when people are called in to work. It is not a frequent occurrence, but it does occur that we provide mutual aid to the surrounding counties, and obviously the officers we first call upon are the ones that live in the area that already have their vehicles there. It welcome back a reduction in law enforcement presence and a reduction in officers' ability to take law enforcement action to and from work. I would also talk about one of the additional issues we would like to point out to you is the fact that we get into a situation of where because of the cost of some of the equipment, some of the equipment that can easily be removed would wind up being transporting in personal vehicles and you get into an issue of whether or not they are transporting county equipment whether or not they are actually still on duty and fair labor standards act, and there is an issue for folks being able to obtain insurance for personal vehicles. To just kind of bring you up to date, we have 374 vehicles in the Travis County sheriff's office. That includes everything including buses and vans and, you know, facilities vehicles, all sorts of things. And 113 of those vehicles are not assigned for take home. 261 are assigned. Roughly 111 are parked within Travis County. You can see the breakdown there, 53 within five miles, 36 within 10, and 11 exceed the 15-mile limit which we have placed and they must be parked within locations within 15 miles of the Travis County border. And they have to be parked in a safe and suitable place. We have actually, looking at it, there are at least six, there's actually a seventh vehicle not assigned because of vacancy of the position, but in looking at things that I must admit I kind of looked at the list and said how did that person get a car. And we have -- we're going to reassign those vehicles to the unand I signed pool and look at whether or not it can result actually in a reduction of those four parked within Travis County, one within five miles and one within 10 miles. The next page is just an attempt to kind of give you an idea of where the vehicles are located. A great number of our vehicles, as you can see, are located in the little dip in Travis County that is Williamson county, up in the north, although we have quite a few folks who are in bastrop and hays. Just to give you an idea, the furthest point from the county line from downtown Austin is roughly 30 miles. What we've done is draw a circle around there to give you an idea of the distance of folks. Reality is is that by having a policy that requires these people to park their cars, some people are actually going to put more miles on their cars than they would by taking the vehicle home because they are going to have to bring it back to the command center. That's particularly true for people who deploy directly to their work station from home. We have had several times a year we have had incidences where something has occurred where deputies in the bordering counties are able to respond when deputies in Travis County are not able to get there. This is a couple of things we mentioned. Seems like we have an annual onion creek flood and depending which side of the creek people need to be attended to, that's often the deputies from bastrop county who come in to deal with that. On the western side of the county we've had -- last November we had bee creek and I could probably have listed seemed about like every creek along 71. 71 was covered with water numerous, numerous times, and we had people who had came up from hays and in from burnet county to assist. And then we had the Cedar Park tornadoes, people were able to come in from Williamson county and also hays county to help in those issues. In closing, what I would ask the court is to -- in order to allow to us continue and serve the citizens of Travis County, I feel in the best way, that you authorize each elected official to assess the feasibility and the advisability of allowing vehicles to be housed out of the county. We are continuing to look at in my department whether it makes -- whether we should allow people who live out of county, folks who are not subject to being on call, although all of our people, just about, are subject to recall, whether or not we should in some way restrict those folks. And we're also making sure that 15 miles is being strictly adhered to. I would be glad to answer any questions.
>> so the request is what?
>> the request is that we be allowed to continue our present 15-mile policy that we have at the sheriff's office for our emergency vehicles that -- for people that are required to be on call and subject to recall.
>> so that the court's decision on a decision to prohibited the taking of county vehicles out of county except for county purpose be waived as to the sheriff's office.
>> as to persons who are subject to being on call and recall.
>> now, how does the city of Austin manage to not even have assigned vehicles and still fulfill its law enforcement purpose?
>> I don't think they fulfill it as well. I think that what they do in the city of Austin is, it's kind of a pool vehicle situation. There has been numerous times that it has been recommended that the city of Austin go to a take-home sort of an assigned vehicle policy, and what has kept them from doing it is that initial sticker shock of when you have to buy the vehicles initially. I think that when you look at it and it's something that we do better than the city of Austin and because we provide officer presence in the neighborhoods, quite a few other places have gone to this. City of Round Rock has a take-home vehicle policy with their officers, and in fact they take them as far as hays county because one lives down the street from mr. Hamby. But the kind of way in which departments have stkpwopb, d.p.s. -- gone, d.p.s. Has assigned vehicles to officers. It's definitely the way folks feel is the best way to do law enforcement due to quick response and officer presence in the neighborhood and reduced maintenance of the vehicles.
>> your honor, I might add to that to answer your question, some of the things that the city of Austin also does differently is they [inaudible] cars, which means the car almost never literally turns off. They have a 24-hour shop with mechanics on duty because their cars need to be serviced quite often. When you are running a car 24/7, where Travis County went to a policy to get rid of that car within hopefully of three years, to recover some of the intrinsic value of it, city of Austin does not do that. They will run the car until it won't run anymore and then they have to get a new one. It's simply a policy issue of you will rack up three times the miles if you are running that car 24/7.
>> yes, sir.
>> what is the cost of a basic, fully-equipped patrol car?
>> fully equipped with all the cameras is around $38,000.
>> 38,000?
>> 38,000.
>> about 20 for the vehicle and about 18 for all the equipment.
>> now, what kind of a schedule do we have for that, christian? Or is it just all -- you need 14 cars, here's, you know, $387,000 for 14 cars. How do we pay for an automobile, a police automobile when we need one?
>> annually through the budget process. And identification is made of those vehicles that are, quote, unquote, eligible to be replaced. There's two categories, those that are law enforcement vehicles that are also called primary vehicles, and non-law enforcement vehicles that are called secondary vehicles. The law enforcement vehicles have a schedule of replacement that is much faster than the non-law enforcement. Law enforcement vehicles have a policy, I?m going on memory now, but I?m sure i'll be corrected if I?m wrong, of every three years, which I know is correct, and it's 60,000 or 70,000 miles. They are identified on a list and you go through the budget process. Then -- and years ago it used to be that the county borrowed resources through certificates of obligation. Now they are being acquired through general fund resources, current dollars. Then bids -- you go through the bid process. Usually about a year later when that vehicle that has been identified to be replaced actually is replaced. So in reality, they are replaced with more mileage than when they are first eligible. But if they've got 59,000 miles on them, for example, they are not on the list. Or if somebody in the sheriff's office inadvertently puts it on the list, somebody in the budget office add srert epbtly takes it off. And traditionally, in times when there are sufficient resources, then those -- you know, if it's meets the policy, it gets replaced. In the last seven or eight years, I think there's been two years where there was been an artificial cap placed on -- including last year, an artificial cap placed on the ability of a department to replace those vehicles not because they weren't eligible but because the resources weren't there. And I think what happens is the vehicles continue to be driven and then the central maintenance, vehicle maintenance department has assurances that should additional maintenance costs occur because we're keeping vehicles longer, then they will be able to have the resources to be able to fix those vehicles.
>> so -- but a person is responsible for the basic upkeep of the vehicle?
>> they are responsible for taking it in for the basic upkeep. They can take -- say like an oil change, they have several locations. The county pays for the maintenance of it. But we require -- what we tell officers is that they should report to duty ready to roll. Which means that they -- particular officers on a night shift, you will see them down at 10th and lamar, out on smith road taking care of their vehicle maintenance, quite frankly, on their own time. That's what I?m saying is that they take care of those responsibilities.
>> okay. So that's -- that's when they do that. I mean versus being on the clock, so to speak.
>> yes.
>> is a law enforcement's compensation part of the vehicle? I mean, does the vehicle come into play? Like if a.p.d. Makes $32,000 a year and Travis County makes 28,000, is there any amount of dollars that are given for compensation to the Travis County officer?
>> there's not a dollar amount that's spoken, although we get these forms from susan and find out there's been a dollar assessed to them, but often in discussions with the court about salaries, we are always somewhere 7% to 10% behind a.p.d. And one of the things that we always say is you are behind, but you do have a take-home vehicle. So I think in the officers' minds that is correct is part of the justification for the lag behind a.p.d. A lot of the things we use to recruit people.
>> I would like to go on record making a basic statement. I?m glad the election time is over because I think this was a much bigger deal because of that being the case because I think that -- I think that officers ought to have these automobiles. I think that all the points that you bring up are great points. And we would be foolish, I think, just in storing, like you said. I mean a.p.d. Probably has a jillion places they can put cars; whereas, we do not. And, you know, I will be looking at this thing strictly from, you know, the bottom line of is this part of the compensation, and I think it should be, because I think that I can, you know, look an officer eye to eye and say I?m willing to maintain this because I do think that it ought to be part of your compensation. But for anything -- for nothing else, I think that it's a good idea because of just from the morale standpoint. I mean, I can't imagine what it would be like trying to take the vehicles away. But I think it's a good policy and, for the record, you know, I would be very supportive of this.
>> thank you, commissioner.
>> so let me make sure I understand. How many do we have in law enforcement? How many officers?
>> about 250.
>> 250. And so do only law enforcement officers take cars out of county?
>> the exception -- the vast, vast bulk -- if somebody can hand me the list, I will glance at the list for you. The only exception to that, we have some folks who are -- the only folks that we have that are not in law enforcement, per se, we have three individuals that are in the corrections command staff who are subject to recall an often call who live two in bastrop and one in Williamson county.
>> are you asking they be allowed to continue to take those cars out of county also?
>> yes, sir. Because of the need --
>> but 250 law enforcement officers out of --
>> we have one officer who is assigned to -- excuse me. One officer who is assigned to internal affairs who is assigned -- she is a law enforcement officer, but she is part of the corrections career track who lives in bastrop county who is assigned to internal affairs.
>> how many cars taken out of county now? In the sheriff's office?
>> oh, 120 --
>> we have the number right here. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> so do we have people working at the east and west command stations 24 hours a day?
>> no, sir. They come up to show up, then they go out, there's not presence there. I mean, people will be in and out of east and west command, but as far as having somebody definitely there, at like 3:00 in the morning, if you went, would there definitely be someone there, the answer is no.
>> so you think county vehicles aren't safe at those locations?
>> I do not think it is safe enough, no, sir. I don't.
>> and we have j.p. Offices throughout the county, five of them.
>> yes, sir.
>> and constables in five road side [inaudible] officers, you don't think our vehicles are safe at those properties.
>> I don't think the vehicles are, the type of equipment -- some of this may need to be discussed in executive session, but the type of equipment that we have in those vehicles, no, I don't think that it is sufficient security for those vehicles, particularly if you have a large clustering that makes them more of a mark for someone who wants to do damage to them [multiple voices]
>> the fiscal impact of just taking out of county vehicles, christian.
>> I distributed an e-mail yesterday to a variety of individuals doing a very simple calculation, if you assume that -- that the 15-radius -- 15-mile radius outside of Travis County is the rule, half of them are 7 and a half, half are less than 7 and a half miles, you have a 7.5 million mid point, a round trip, that's 15 miles outside of Travis County, 120 vehicles, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, you get about 450,000 miles for the sheriff's office alone, traveled outside of Travis County, according to transportation natural resources, the fuel and maintenance is about 18 cents a mile. So that is -- that is 18 cents a mile times 450,000 miles is about -- a little over $80,000 a year annually. The -- the sheriff has identified that there are other costs, such as perhaps parking and -- and the maintenance that an individual officer might --
>> not [inaudible] answer to that question.
>> sheriff, how often are the -- the 120 taken out of county, how often are they called on duty for emergency reasons?
>> if -- quite frankly it depends on which ones you are talking about. If you are talking about --
>> that is my point. If we put the policy in place, we said on a case-by-case basis come in and justify. It seems to me that those who are called in routinely for emergency duty probably ought to have a car. I think at least we automatic to see that. The other -- we ought to see that. The other thing is how to waive the policy to the sheriff's department, they will have reasons just as good as sheriff's office. Law enforcement agencies nationwide have various policies, the city of Austin not only doesn't allow as far as know, to take the car into the county or city, you can take it home. These officers have the cars 24 hours a day, if you live in the county I buy the argument of law enforcement purpose. During the campaign, though, it was -- but our policy was passed before the election. The few residents who had an opportunity to learn about this, hear about it, seemed to think that it didn't make any sense. Now, on a case-by-case basis, I think it does make sense. I don't know that it makes sense, though, for us to do just a blanket deal. But at the same time if there's a motion to waive the policy as to the sheriff's office, [inaudible] beat this around. If that motion doesn't pass, we need the sheriff to justify it on a case-by-case basis, it's a money issue. In my view. And unfortunately the -- the information we are getting from the central appraisal district on money for next year ain't good. And it's getting worse and worse. And we need to try to save each afford every dollar that we have. If there's a motion to waive the policy, which had been in place, as to the sheriff's office, and this 120 car, let's hear it right now, get a vote, get this behind us.
>> judge, I have a couple of questions before you make the motion.
>> okay. And in that end, I was looking at this, sheriff, I was wondering why that -- I know parking was one of the issues, I was wondering why other than security purposes we could not utilize the satellite offices throughout the county. They look at it all over the county. Also the east command and west command center, which will be -- which will be parking parking, vandalism, however, there is vandalism everywhere, it just happens. There are county vehicles, for example, like satellite 1 for example, there are county vehicles left out there, blah blah blah blah. Of course my concern is why not -- we are looking at probably 24/7 separation and of course if it is a 24/7 operation, as far as using these particular vehicles, some out of county, go out of county on the weekends, I don't know if they come back -- I really don't know. But it just appears to me that -- that these particular, as far as parking is concerned, facilities can be utilized, maximized to the best ability, east command, west command, it's all sounds like for parking operations. Also the fact that this number of cars in -- going out of the county, 20, of course -- everyone may not be within -- within agreement, but all of them aren't utilized every day out at the county for emergency purposes and so just --
>> sir, they are not -- I?m sorry.
>> one I want to look at this for what it is. I kind of just don't want to give a blanket approach to endorse this, endorse that on a blanket scenario. I really feel that we can make improvements in that, even if the event of looking at maybe two vehicles for the 24 hour shift instead of three, having one -- in a -- in a stand ready mode as far as maintenance and operation, I understand that we -- that each particular officer takes their vehicle, to maintain, I don't know if we have county staff that can maintain these vehicles that's available for us to do it now. Such as t.n.r.
>> well, we don't.
>> maybe that's something that you need to look at. I don't know. The points is that should be -- even to reduce expenditures as far as purchasing automobiles, maybe a situation for two vehicles per 24 hour shift. I don't know. These are just some ideas. But I just really feel that we need to look at this for what it is. That is to I guess facilitate those vehicles and those particular officers that really are demanded and have the need to take these vehicles home I guess on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise it's kind of hard for me to support just a blanket approach, especially with the situation we are in right now. We are in some tough fiscal times as far as expending taxpayers money. You know, I [inaudible] a lot. Of course I think all of us look at this in that perspective. However, when it comes to implementing it, you know, the buck is going to stop right here. We are the ones that are going to have to live with those folks out there. Say hey taxpayers -- I know that you are an elected official, too. But the taxpayers [inaudible] ride me a lot. We don't want to increase -- we want our tax money spent wisely. How can you better save us money. I get that a lot. I have to respond. I'm going to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Those that are justified I don't have no problem with. But a blanket approach, I don't think that it's --
>> well, commissioner from a -- I think you will find that you will not save money by the fact that if you -- if you have a certain number of miles that these vehicles are going to be driven. These are deputies who patrol large areas and put a lot of miles on their vehicle during their shift. If you try to go to two vehicles for a 24 hour shift versus 3 vehicles for a 24 hour shift, you are going to wind up having to replace vehicles more often. The difficulty is that you would never know who it is, you don't know whether it's going to be a situation that occurs and you call in patrol officers that night, you don't know if it's going to be a situation where you call in the [inaudible] officers, which is quite frankly almost a daily occurrence or mental health deputies or a situation in the jail that's going to require quick response from the command level of the jail. You don't know what the emergency is going to be. If you could predict, look at history, what history shows you is all of those people at some time are going to be called in. The difficulty is that when you have -- whether you are placing the vehicles at satellite 1 or, you know, 2 or east or west command, the -- part of the difficulty is that now when you need to have quick deployment of officers, that they have to go from their homes to where the vehicle is and get in the vehicle and then go back out to wherever it may be, which takes them longer time to get there. We don't have the numbers that the city of Austin has on duty at any given time. And so we have -- when we have major emergencies we have to rely on being able to call in additional staff.
>> how often do we have to call in?
>> it's a daily occurrence. That somebody gets called in.
>> yeah.
>> a person, every day.
>> yes, sir.
>> and multiple [multiple voices]
>> multiples on some days.
>> 119 other cars there?
>> judge, you are right --
>> the other only corrections person, that's the emergency -- what's the emergency there?
>> if I get an emergency, I get in my car. If it's county business, I can do mileage reimbursement. Joe, we have equipment and vehicles that cost 50 to $100,000 that stay at the road offices overnight and it's been like that during the 13 years that i've been associated with county government. So the price of the vehicle, I don't know should drive this decision. It seems to me that folks --
>> it's the type of equipment.
>> -- reluctant to vandalize a sheriff's car.
>> I think that's incorrect.
>> than a piece of other equipment.
>> I think that's incorrect, judge.
>> how do other counties get this done, they don't have assigned vehicles to take home period. Out of county. But other counties do that.
>> most counties have gone to assigned vehicles for the sheriff's officers. Hays county does it, bastrop county, Williamson county. That's what most counties do.
>> but in our survey, some of them did, some of them don't. Some of them do, some of them don't. We are not saying don't have the vehicle take home, what's the law enforcement presence outs of county. Your presence is from time to time some of these officers are called in on an emergency basis. How many, how often?
>> the other part of it judge during the time from the point before we enter the county line, but definitely from point that they cross the county line, that these officers are available, if necessary, while they are in en route, east command, west command, downtown, wherever their duty station may be, that they are in a fully equipped vehicle that allows them to be able to take law enforcement action. We have a policy that allows them to be monitoring the radio. If they have a call that requires an officer in neefd assistance, no one is on duty available to go. Those officers respond to that call. That time period that -- that 15, 20 minutes each way, becomes time in which -- until they are actually at their duty station, they are not on the clock per se, but it gives that additional law enforcement presence in Travis County, you know, where if instead at the end of the shift, for example, the officer who works at -- at connally high school, takes his vehicle and parks it out at east command, the time he's en route back to Williamson county, 1/10th of a mile within Williamson county, he's not going to be, you know, as able to take action, I think there's a huge benefit to people that the fact that these officers --
>> called in, I can understand that. What I remember is an officer driving here from bastrop having an accident, causing the accident, Travis County repaired the county car, had to repair the other car, also.
>> uh-huh.
>> two cars, that officer was just routinely coming to work. An accident didn't even occur in Travis County. That's the --
>> judge, I'm sure that -- [multiple voices]
>> but it could have occurred in Travis County. I understand that you may have a circumstance where something like that happens. But that, you know, that is not a frequent occurrence for -- to -- that happens.
>> > but also, judge, under the example that you just gave from Williamson county, I think that goes back, though, to what we were asking, you know, make a case for that particular case. But it doesn't -- that would not apply to all of the cars that are going out of county. [multiple voices]
>> the situation does not apply to all --
>> it's not like it's -- everybody in corrections. It is the -- the two majors and the captains that are assigned to corrections.
>> we need every car we can get. What was clear from the 1100 cars that we own is that a whole lot of folk are signed cars to take home that shouldn't happen. Some of them have very little mileage annually. If you need a car doing your work, we ought to have pool vehicles doing work, you go use one based on the number of miles used annually in some of these areas it would help to say okay john doe, you use it in the among, you use it in the afternoon, still get the job done. The on -- unless we better manage this, we will be buying 1100 cars, then 1150, then 1200, seems so me that we ought to be working with a number substantially lower. In addition to furnishing the cars, we also maintain them. You want a windshield wiper, we pay for that. You need a new engine we pay for that. You have an automobile, we pay for the county car. And based on the number of accidents we had, and we cause, I don't think our people driving county vehicles I think driving their own. If they were, they would have insurance. If you look at -- if you look at the liability, you would see some of these, we would look at the liability claim, the number of accidents we cause ourselves is just too great to understand. Unfortunately the sheriff's office is the leader in that. And --
>> we also drive the most miles of anybody [multiple voices]
>> I have a couple of questions.
>> okay. I --
>> if the sheriff is going to be given a waiver, we may as well go ahead and do it. If the sheriff is not going to be given a waiver, then we need to give the sheriff additional time to come back on a case-by-case basis. I can live with whatever the majority wants to do. For me it's clear, though. You waive for the sheriff, you have got to waive for everybody else, but it does simplify us. I just tell the voters that ask me, I was outvoted and I can live with that. Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> I'm also going to signal where I'm headed like commissioner daugherty did related to law enforcement, I'm there. I'm convinced of it in terms of the greater good. I think also what is compelling for me is that a lot of the commute distances for people who live within Travis County are actually larger than some folks who live in Williamson county. I'm convinced related to the security issues, of those vehicles sitting even at a -- at a road and bridge office, I'm convinced. I also do consider this part of the compensation package. Whether that's been formalized or not, I can tell you when I take a look at the pop scale, that is how I figure in as being kind of like the float to get us to where it is. But that's just one person. The one piece of information that I still think is lacking is that we do have a lot of folks that are not law enforcement on this list. I cannot tell on some of these folks that when they are called in to report, are they going to what I will call a "normal workplace" or are they going to a crime scene, something like that. I'm convince understand they are being called out there, but I'm wholly unconvinced that when they are called in to their normal workplace represented to administration, anything related to corrections, I'm sorry, the workplace is the workplace. The same way that I come in here, this is my job. I have to get from my house to my place of work. And I just don't see it on anything on corrections, I don't see it on courthouse security, that's a set location. That is your place of work. I'm also having some difficulty on some of the internal affairs stuff, unless they are having to go, they go --
>> they go to the scene.
>> that's one off my list. I.t.s., I'm having a real hard one on i.t.s.
>> that's one of the people that has had the vehicle.
>> I'm thinking on i.t.s., Training, those are kinds of things that are not in the category that I would say --
>> in this training area, just to let you know, we are looking at pulling -- in fact we are going to pull the vehicle from both the sergeant and the lieutenant because they are from the corrections career track. The one that are allowed to have vehicles are actually deployed sometimes at patrol officers --
>> I would also highly urge you to take a second and third look at what's happened in administration, I know that you as part of your compensation package are specific daily assigned a vehicle by this commissioners court as parts of your compensation package. I would you remember to you hartly scrub anyone else that has a workplace to show up to. That's part of the job how you have to get yourself home from your place of -- to your place of work. I have huge questions on administration, corrections, courthouse security. Again i.t.s. And take a second look on training because those I think are not defendable. From my point of view.
>> what I had just add was that regardless of which way it goes, I think we need to have these reports in to the list manager. And then the -- to the auditor. But those need to be done as we need to have them done. How often was it -- does the report -- the risk manager -- how often does the reporting to the risk manager.
>> every quarter, charles says every quarter.
>> every quarter. So we need to have the information for that.
>> so your list leaves us at what number?
>> I don't know. Because I'm trying to go through here, but when you are ready for a motion, I will make a motion on -- on the sheriff's office.
>> I made a motion -- [multiple voices]
>> I have one more question. That is with the city of Austin, when -- when a police officer with the city of Austin comes to work, do they -- they come and they are assigned a car, when they get to work, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> well, I guess my point is why aren't we doing that? In other words, if we had vehicles --
>> because it's not the best way to do it. The city of Austin will tell you that the best way to do it, the way to have the most law enforcement presence in your community, the way to have your vehicles last the longest, we get almost four -- as christian was saying, schedule them for three years, it takes another year, we essentially get four years out of a patrol vehicle where the city of Austin is lucky to get about a year and a half, it's worth nothing when they get done. It's not the best way to do it.
>> I guess my point is, I don't really know that. I hear what you are saying. But I don't know how the county is operating, if they have to leave their home and then pick up a vehicle, take it out, bring it back, I don't really know. But I do know that we have several satellite support offices that could have vehicles, also we have, you know, places throughout the county, justice of the peace, constables office, parking spaces. It just appears, I don't really know, because i've -- I haven't done enough investigative research to let me know persons leaving their home, going to work, being assigned a vehicle, I don't really know what the financial ramifications of that would be. But I'm looking for cost savings. That's what it's all about.
>> and I'm trying to explain commissioners, I don't think you will find any cost savings here. In fact I think that you will have additional costs.
>> I hear what you are saying [multiple voices]
>> but I'm not truly convince but I am convinced of some things here from the community. Convinced to that and what I have to say as far as what they are telling me.
>> what I hear from the community, I have to stand for election, too, what I hear from the community is that they are glad to see the presence of law enforcement officers out there. When they have a deputy who stops and it happens I -- you know, I get the letters on just about a daily basis [multiple voices]
>> you are asking for a waiver as to a whole lot of other categories.
>> you are talking about everybody taking a car out of county.
>> because it is those people.
>> this may be a --
>> out of county residents haven't said anything to me about the Travis County residents being present in Williamson county or any other county. I'm learning things. But I have heard basically from residents that -- why county vehicles are outs -- are out of county. They are looking at is as a contractor, I'm looking at it as a contractor. How can I reduce costs to the taxpayers. If we have to do certain things, everybody is not going to agree with me at the way I reduce costs in government. Everybody is not going to agree with me. But that's all right. I want to do the best I can, though, as far as reducing costs to the county.
>> I'm -- okay. You and I have a disagreement because I think your proposal that the proposal of limiting the vehicles will cost more money. The $81,000 will not be saved. In fact it will be used up.
>> that's something that's suggested. I don't know, I haven't investigated enough to know. I'm putting a lot of stuff on the table hopefully to get the direction where we can save the taxpayers money. That's what I am trying to do here.
>> judge, let me start by agreeing with what you said initially, that is that we are getting increasingly bad news from the appraisal district in terms of lawsuits and litigation. That will most assuredly result in less tax revenue. If we wait until the end of this year, do nothing differently than we are doing now, through the next budget period, we will be in a crisis situation. So all of these things, I think that you are right to look at them seriously now. One of the things I think that just sitting here as an outsider, there's really a separation of issues. One is is it good for people to take their car home? Secondly, does that car have to go out of county? It seems to me if you.
>> ed a presence of law enforcement and quick deployment, the solution is that to be a law enforcement officer you need to be a residents of Travis County. Then you don't have that issue. Because when you live 15 miles out, there isn't quick deployment. And so that -- you know, I think there are two issues. Should you have a car, should you be able to respond, but the second issue should you then be allowed to live outside of Travis County and use that car? That's really the issue because you can say you ought to be able to drive a car. It is I think, you know, we have -- we have employees here, too, that are interested in wages and things like that. But it is disturbing that 120 people do take cars outside of Travis County and do not pay property taxes. And it is a cost factor. There's a lot of folk about what costs less, but there are no numbers on the table.
>> that --
>> now, the sheriff's request is for 100% of those taking cars outside of the county, law enforcement and others keep doing it. You want the policy waived as to all of them.
>> we have individuals that we have already identified that we are quite frankly they are not not going to have a vehicle at all. There may be some on the same list that commissioner Sonleitner.
>> not what you gave up today. Are you trying to put that together.
>> I have it. I have listened to commissioner Sonleitner -- I think that we may have some of the same ones.
>> okay. Of the 120, what number are you down to now?
>> well, there are actually -- I don't know that this other vehicle is listed, there are essentially seven folks that we have determined that are not going to have take home vehicles at all.
>> the training ones?
>> training was not included.
>> is that seven from the -- [multiple voices]
>> -- simmons -- two of the training ones, the training sergeant and lieutenant who are not law enforcement. The two who are not law enforcement officers at training. I'm trying to remember now what the other one was? I'm brain dead.
>> that's out of the 120?
>> sheriff?
>> I'm sorry.
>> was that out of the 120?
>> yes, sir.
>> so there's still 113 out of county.
>> your justification is 113, one hundred% are subject to being called in each and every day?
>> yes, sir.
>> and it makes sense for them to have their cars outs of county for that reason?
>> they are not called in every day. But they are subject to being called in every day, yes, sir.
>> commissioner Sonleitner has a motion.
>> I'm kind of tackling this from the bigger picture of the number of people who are assigned vehicles, whether they are in or outside of Travis County. And my motion would affect about 10% of those who have assigned vehicles. I would move that we authorize the waiver of the list that the sheriff has turned in with these 20 exceptions and defer -- well, basically no until we are convinced it's a yes. Defer all that are under the division of administration with the exception of sheriff frasier who is assigned a vehicle as part of her defined compensation package, anything that may be on this list related to corrections, courthouse security, i.t.s. And all training slots at this point in time unless we get further information that warrants a -- those. So I have got that as 20 vehicles in terms of -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 in administration, 7 in training and two in i.t.s. -- excuse me, i.t.s. Was also on that list and two in courthouse security.
>> who all are you referring to in administration?
>> I can read the names here, but they are listed in the sheriff's list here as --
>> well, the only thing that I would offer, I understand what you are saying as far as you lee your house and you drive to your workplace, but I don't believe that you are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, required to respond to crime scenes, hostage situations, barricade situations, in the middle of the night on weekends and holidays, I also don't believe that you monitor a police radio and effect traffic stops and conduct law enforcement action on your way to and from work. Even as administrators, we all carry out as peace officers, we carry out those duties and responsibilities and it's not only expected by the sheriff, but it's expected by our oath of office as peace officers.
>> the --
>> we can't just drive down the road and ignore things.
>> my motion is to get hyped the one that's I think are legitimate waivers and get moving on those. And then to defer a waiver on the 20 slots that I have listed, but I am more than happy to get more information that could convince me, but not today, of the worthiness of getting further waivers.
>> okay.
>> but this is just --
>> sounds like a reasonable start.
>> trying to get to a place --
>> you are pulling out those 20, your motion is to apply the waiver to 100?
>> apply the waiver to 100 and defer action on all administrative slots with the exception of the sheriff, anything that's there that is corrections, courthouse security, i.t.s. And all training slots for today.
>> all those add up to 20.
>> I counted them up, but it may be more because I don't know if there are other things that are embedded that I would call corrections, that are embedded someplace else.
>> so the 100 would be basic law enforcement.
>> yes, sir. It's law enforce. , it's swat, mental health, crime lab, victims services, c.i.d., Narcotics, all of the things if you watch law and order and c.s.i. Are the things that the special ops, canine.
>> is there a second to the motion.
>> I second.
>> commissioner daugherty seconds the motion. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show commissioner Sonleitner, daugherty voting in favor. Voting against show commissioner Davis, Gomez and yours truly. My request would be that the sheriff indicate to us by category hopefully by next week, exceptions to the Travis County policy so that we can determine which exceptions ought to be granted and which exceptions ought to be recognized. Further it's my understanding that the policy is in place effective January 1, 2003, this matter will be back on the court's agenda next week. Constable precinct 5. Test test test
>> and the request is to waive as to which cars?
>> well, we have four vehicles that the Travis County dog, used for law enforcement or other county purposes, I assume there is [inaudible] in the car for the dog.
>> that's correct.
>> second.
>> and that the canine exception be applied across the board. I'm assuming that we have more than one dog, don't we?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think the sheriff has two or three. Any more discussion of that motion.
>> just a quick clarification, judge. You were intending to include the canine within the sheriff's office within that exception?
>> all canines doing Travis County business.
>> we have one at the fire marshal's office or not. Katy is doing -- yes --
>> upon the death of the canine the exception expires. [ laughter ]
>> that's a little humor there. [ laughter ] [multiple voices]
>> at this point we need it. Any more discussion of the canine exception? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any other requested vehicles.
>> I was going to ask -- that was, now it's two, two on how many cars?
>> two out of what, 15.
>> 16.
>> 16 now. You all have been submitting your reports to the risk manager and the county auditor?
>> yes.
>> great.
>> and I would like to points out, too, that the particular car that's -- that's based out of dripping springs, that was the -- that was the first car out for -- for when the tornado went through the period false river valley -- pedernales river valley right there on the western county line. Emergency management was asking for cars to assess ground damage, that was the first Travis County unit out in that area. We were able to scramble him out.
>> he was able to come in from the back side and get to where needed.
>> in fairness to the other officials in my view, I would want the court to act on and -- in response to the sheriff's more specific request before having mine considered. I think whatever standards would be put in place ought to be applied across the board. So far I'm not sure that there are any standards.
>> if I could ask you, judge, on the contiguous jurisdiction question, which means as constable we have that con figure joys jurisdiction -- contiguous jurisdiction, where means within all counties, we are required to serve, to work within that other county surrounding Travis County. I'm wondering if that that makes a difference with the court or not.
>> I think that really depends on how we respond to the sheriff's more specific requests.
>> okay.
>> I will try my best to be fair. As to all vehicles. We are kind of operating in a vacuum with the most cars sort of hanging in limbo. My advice to actually view constable precinct 5 and constable precinct 2 would be to hold off on your request until we act on the sheriff's.
>> okay.
>> that's a light that I just saw. Because as to the department with the most cars, I think whatever standard we put if place, we really ought to try to be even handed --
>> I agree 100%. So we are here because it's on the agenda, but if we need to hold off on this, that's fine.
>> I know that you have been down here all day, but I think it would be fairer, you will get treated fairer, I think, if you wait until we try to put some standards in place as to the sheriff's office, it will be back on next week, it could be as early of that. But hopefully by Thursday or Friday this week, we can touch base with the sheriff's office and find out whether it will be back on the agenda or what?
>> judge, could I query a little bit further here. To try to get us to a place if this is -- if there is a compromise position that can be achieved or not. I mean whatever way it works, it works. I think we have raised some questions here, especially on the sheriff's list, is everybody assigned a car whether it's in county or out of county required to have a car. I think that we have raised legitimate questions there that need to be answered. I'm also wondering because what has been raised by the other departments that have come to see us. Travis County has a very unusual geography. I always found it unusual as a precinct 26 commission before the line changed that I had to go through 20 minutes of Williamson county to get back into Travis County. I am wondering if rather than it being a 15-mile limit if something that is, say, within move files -- within 5 miles, if that would be acceptable. Because a good portion of the folks that I saw within the sheriff's list are up in that Cedar Park, Leander, just barely over the line, that certainly would take in the exceptions that have been brought to us from precinct 5, 3 and 2 is whether a 5-mile over the line is acceptable where perhaps 15 is too much.
>> I don't think it ought to depend on the distance. I think it ought to depend on the purpose. If the sheriff -- I can't tell the sheriff how to run her department. But at the same time I don't know that it's fair to us to come in and ask to have virtually have all of the cars be exempt. And if we were to do it for the sheriff's office, we ought to do it for all of the others.
>> I wasn't saying exempt all of the cars in the sheriff's office, I was trying to get to a better place, I think what was trouble me.
>> I don't think it ought to be the distance, I think it ought to be the approximate sniewrp I think it ought to be the purpose and distance.
>> those were the directions we gave when we put the policy in place, we did that in September. And said it would be effective January 1. I'm open to exceptions, but to me an exception is not one hundred%, unless you can show -- 100% unless you can hoe --
>> I think I'm there. I, too, have had the opportunity to look at the information that we are having, that we are getting as to what our revenue is going to look like next year. There is no -- this is no chicken little observation. I think it's real. I think we need to really start implementing our policies and stop making exceptions or changing our mind about policies. I think we didn't enter them lightly. We did it with a lot of research, a lot of staff brought us information on which to base these policies. I'm taking this revenue shortage thing very, very seriously.
>> it boils down to whether having a car out of county serves a legitimate Travis County purpose and I'm willing to look at it on a case-by-case basis as the court voted in September. And I'm asking the sheriff to do that. I'm thinking that however we respond to requests of that nature is how we ought to respond to requests from the other officials. Elected and appointed.
>> judge --
>> at the same time we have asked elected and appointed officials who manage vehicles to look at each appeared every vehicle to decide whether they ought to be assigned. Some have been turned back in. At some point after we finish this out of county exercise. We need look at which ones are assigned, look at our policy, try to figure out how to refine it. Now, if we need -- if we need to have a thousand or 1100 cars, so be it. That just seems like a whole lot of cars to me. Our goal ought to be to make sure that each and every car purchased by the county is necessary. Now, if you travel around the corner for a loaf of bread for the county, you are entitled to mileage reimbursement. We are not saying use your personal vehicle for the county. You are entitled to mileage reimbursement if there is a county purchase there. But if you need to be assigned a vehicle, I think you ought to have one.
>> judge if I could just maybe as part of the thought process here, about two months ago, just a quick let you know the importance, about two months ago, the deputy that was in the dripping springs that lives in the dripping springs area responding to an emergency, school bus wreck out on 1826. Bad collision, several kids hurt, fairly bad. The -- the thing about it was that it was hit by a chemical truck. And there was chemical fertilizer that was thrown all over the area, the bus, some of the kids. And as parents and residents started to respond, they wanted to run into the accident scene to help the kids and this deputy, because his location was the second person on the scene, there was an officer on the other side, he came up from the back side and we were -- he was able at that point in time to contain the scene, which saved the life of many of the kids or all of the kids lived, but it also kept the residents from being contaminated by the chemicals thrown out. That's a quick story of the reality that happens out there and that -- the question that I would urge the court to ask is, I know we need to save money, I live in Travis County, have my entire life. I pay taxes, I think they are too high as they are, too. However, what is the -- what's worth one life? And with school bus load of kids, luckily it was not my son. He's on the same route. But if it had been mine, you know, there is no money that could be put on the life of a child. So any time we as police officers are out in the community and we respond in a situation like that, I don't think that we can put a value on that and so sure, it may cost an extra, I think, christian said 81,000 to have this out there. But you know what? Any life that is saved because of it is way far exceeds that $81,000. And we as elected officials owe that to our citizenry that we will go to all means whatsoever to protect everybody, regardless if you are a Travis County resident or wherever, we are in the people business. We should protect them in every way we can. You know, as best I can tell, we are all human beings. And so I don't know how you put a value on that. Or what. But I would urge the court to take that into consideration. The sheriff's office, if you ever monitor the police ro and I do every -- police radio, I do every day and every night, are continually in the business of helping other people. [ phone ringing ] and it's who knows when that is going to happen. You don't know when you are going to be called out. But when you are, it's a major situation and you are out there. We have all done it. And you all do it as commissioners. But how do you put a value on that other than we are in the people business. I would just encourage the court to sometimes, you know, it's just going to cost some money. But what's best for the people? Thank you.
>> okay.
>> real briefly because we have probably beat this thing to death, but I'm very willing to argue with anyone whenever it comes to comparing law enforcement with any other cuts. I will tell you before I ran for office I found out real clearly that the top three things that people want are law enforcement, e.m.s. And fire protection.
>> that's correct.
>> and I think what we are after here is that we are after sitting down with the sheriff and judiciously going through and finding some of those that we know probably aren't the case. I mean, where somebody is needed. And I'm certainly very willing to do that. For what you need, drew, I think that -- that you have said it eloquently. You know, it's like insurance. I mean, you know, we all pay for insurance, sometimes we never use insurance. It's the one time that you don't have it that you need it. I don't think that I can stand up -- can I stand up and defend everything that I can do for law enforcement. I think everybody would. What we are heading towards, there's no doubt that budget is going to hit us all between the eyes as you saw last week when you came up and asked for something. But I'm not going to cut short law enforcement. I don't think anyone up here is. What we are really trying to do is prove to the public that we are looking hard at everything. We know that there is some --
>> I fully understand that.
>> -- that's what we are after, that's what I am committed to do. I look forward to sitting down and working with everybody.
>> seems like if we are trying to be even handed here, judge, that we ought to not take any more motions today because I think wherever we land we are trying to be consistent for all of the offices. So --
>> that was my advice.
>> yeah.
>> my goal is to make Travis County safer. Not necessarily hays, bastrop, Williamson counties. And when I talk with residents, that's what they were saying. I don't know that we are doing that. But -- it will be back on next week.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
>> thank you for your patience.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM