Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Items 25 & 27
Item 25. Consider and take appropriate action on contract amendment of interlocal cooperation agreement between Travis County and the Pflugerville isd for 2004 through 2005 school year for law enforcement services to be provided by the Travis County sheriff's office.
>> judge, 27 would be the same type of questions that would be applicable to both of those items.
>> I guess the question is will it concern about the patrolling of precinct 1 sheriff -- I'm still getting a lot of complaints about a lot of things that are going on out there in the rural part of the community about not having enough presence of law enforcement actually doing patrol. I don't really know how the patrol -- the full time fte's, being hired by the different independent school district, the Pflugerville aisd, and what kind of impact that is having on the patrolling of the area in precinct 1. Now, I guess my question is are these particular full time sheriffs -- deputy sheriffs, are they also eligible to do patrolling in the precinct in the rural area?
>> Travis County sheriff's office. Per the contract, these deputies that are funded by the schools in their entirety are to patrol the school and school properties. The districts are paying for these officers, the vehicle and other needs. Per the contract they are, I guess, limited to that area. That does not preclude them from taking law enforcement action on the way to and from or were there to be some dire emergency nearby where they could leave the school to do that, but in essence, they are confined to the school properties, given the funding source being provided by the district.
>> I understand that. But my question is are they eligible to do the actual patrolling in the area, example, precinct 1, there's not enough patrolling out there in the area of law enforcement. So that is a big concern of mine. I'm not trying to take anything from the schools, of course they are funding it. According to what they do with as far as dealing with delinquent behavior among the students, for example, reducing the violence and things that go on in the school campus and the educational aspect, those are all well and good. However, what I'm trying to impress is I'm getting complaints about crime, property crime, that go on in day time hours now. It used to be night, but now it's day time hours and I'm getting those complaints now.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>> we do not assign deputies according to precinct lines. The lines have changed through the years. But as an example, east, which in our patrol jurisdiction quadrants, covers everything from 183 eastward down 35 all the way to the south part of the county. You have 88 deputies assigned to that area, the east command area. Comparing that to west command area, which today is predominantly precinct 3, there used to be 2 and 3, we have 78 deputies assigned to that area. So again, we have the majority of -- we have 10 additional deputies assigned to the eastern half of Travis County. Part of what enabled that to occur was the fact that in March of this year the court chose to assist us through the challenge grant of adding additional deputies. The majority of those deputies, nine compared to six, went to eastern Travis County. And so those have been operation nal now for probably on their own right around a month to add more in that area. Again, we do not assign them by precinct. Part of that is because, for example, for instance, Commissioner Sonleitner's precinct 2 is smaller in geographical boundaries as compared again to what it once was.
>> I hear what you said, and I recall us looking at getting those particular additional officers in that area. And, of course, -- in fact, it was supposed to be northeast and southeast Travis County, which includes precinct 4. And it's supposed to be an additional nine. And of course they do serve in precinct 2. But my question is still that the increased -- the increased presence of law enforcement in those precincts, because I'm still getting complaints from those areas, there's still a lot of property crime in those areas, and my concern is looking at the officers that are serving the schools at this point, which is probably well needed. I don't really know. But I do know that it's not enough officers that are currently acting as far as patrolling and providing safety in those particular areas. It still seems to be a problem. We're not getting that where we're supposed to go. So that's my question to you and that's my question to the sheriff's office, is the f.t.e.'s assigned to the particular precincts for patrol? So that's the question I'm posing to you. And will there be additional ones that are going? And are those isd's eligible to actually do patrol out in the community other than at the site of those campuses?
>> again, I guess to answer your question, my nonlegal opinion, according to the contract that we have, is that they are not eligible to do routine patrol outside of the confines of the contract which covers the schools for which the school district is providing payment.
>> if I can interject. Legally, technically, these officers remain tawlt under the -- at all times under the command of the sheriff. And therefore if they were needed elsewhere, then the sheriff could pull them and floi them otherwise because it would be illegal to enter into a contract that did not allow that. So the contract specifically says that, but I think that, of course, the expectation of the school district, I'm sure, and the sheriff's office, is that these people will be -- except in the case of some sort of emergency, this they will be deployed as the contract contemplates, and that is that most of the time that they'll be spending time with the school district in one of those schools.
>> let me go one step further. These were originally in Pflugerville and in del valle and were part of grant funds. That's how we got school-based resource officers in the schools to begin with. But unfortunately, as we've had with many federal grants, at some point that grant came to an end and we had to give a very severe message to our school districts, if you do not pay for these, we no longer have the luxury to pay for your school resource officers once the grant ends. And therefore if you choose to keep these officers, you can pass through that money and keep them, otherwise when this grant ends, those f.t.e.'s were going away. And I'm very pleased that Pflugerville and del valle gutted up and said, do you know what, we do think these folks are valuable and so they're paying for those folks. If they were not paying for them, that would be three less f.t.e.'s on the Pflugerville grant and three less f.t.e.'s on del valle. And this is really no different than some of the other pass-through dollars that we get from hills of Lakeway where they specifically contract for services. And if they do not provide that contract, we wouldn't have that f.t.e. So on this particular -- Commissioner, I think you raised some very legitimate questions about how is the law enforcement gig going in all of our precincts. We all have concerns about that, but specifically on 25 and 27, these are the school districts coming forward and saying, we choose to pay for these officers to still remain in our school, and that's the time they contracted for, and if they did not pay these dollars, these f.t.e.'s would not be in our budget.
>> and Commissioner, thank you for those comments, but my main concern was these particular f.t.e.'s, sheriff's f.t.e.'s are available for deployment out in the field. That's my concern. Because they're at a school setting, then it does not mean they cannot be deployed if needed, even though the contractual terms that they have receipt now, that's according to legal. And that was the thing that was confusing me. And again, there's a lot of safety concerns out there in the precinct. There's been a big increase in crime in my precinct and maybe across all over the county. And to have an availability of resources to look into these crimes of something that I have owned up to those restrictions will do that. So if these are available in particular types of situations where they can be deployed, then the contract that they have in the corporation agreement we're going under would not prohibit us from using these resources. That's my point. That's the whole point that I'm trying to allude to. So again, I just wanted to say that again i'll be watching it very closely, especially with these new ones that you if just put out in the field in precinct 1 and also 4 east of i-35, these nine patrol officers, we'll be looking at this very close because I'm still getting a lot of complaints that it's not enough safety means to the public when it comes to public safety. And then the property crimes have just escalated. So I'm just bringing that before you and letting you know that we're watching it real close.
>> and at the sheriff's office we certainly appreciate your concerns and would stress for yourself or anyone to make sure that those are communicated to our command areas so they can address any concerns that your citizens might have. I'd like to add on top of what Commissioner Sonleitner said, one of the advantages to these contracts that may address some of your concerns as well, were it not for these contracts, resources that normally patrol the precincts would have to be pulled to address crime in the schools themselves. We have had an incident where one school district was not able to provide funding, and unfortunately, that means that we do have to respond to that school. So in this case they are paying for the services that are rendered at their schools compared to situations where the county would have to respond nonetheless. So we have been very pleased that these districts -- some of them we've had for over a decade now. We were able to use grant funds to help get it jumpstarted. The program has been very successful, on some citizen viewpoint, certainly with parents as well as school district representatives that have brought it forward. While it's not on the court's agenda today, we will hopefully end negotiations very quickly and have another deputy at the Lake Travis school district where they have really seen the need for it and are choosing to fund this on their own.
>> let me ask this then. If patrol officers that normally would maybe be patrolling in an area are pulled into Lake Travis, we already got them in Pflugerville. Let's say that every school district around the surrounding county would like to see the same program, how would we compensate the patrolling of the areas whereby we're losing persons to these particular school districts as full time f.t.e.'s? And I know they're paying them.
>> they were added on just for the districts. These are not being pulled from our patrol numbers. They're add-ons. And if they pay for them, they're added. If they don't pay for them, they're deducted, but they are not deducted from the full-time strength of the law enforcement bureau.
>> well, what I'm looking at, and from what I'm looking at this thing, it appears that the patrolling in my particular precinct and the complaints I'm getting, the folks are complaining and raising a bunch of heck about it. And if this is not the case then, are these really add-ons or are they not? I don't really know. I'd like an answer on that because I'm hearing what the Commissioner is saying, but I need to look at the real numbers. And if the numbers are suggesting that we're adding on full-time f.t.e.'s because the isd's are paying for them, that's one thing. But if it's taking away from the patrol then of our precincts, then that's another thing.
>> your statement to begin with was correct. These are new and additional -- in this case they're continuations of prior contracts. So they are -- in the case of Pflugerville this is a renewal of a situation we already have. At del valle it's a change in the contract, but it's simply a renewal of a program that we've had for years. As Commissioner Sonleitner pointed out, these were grant funded before. So these are not additional f.t.e.'s from what we currently have.
>> they're not additional?
>> did you they were additional in the beginning. The grant funding paid for these initially. Grant funding went away. So the school districts have put on notice, either you pay for these or you lose them. So they said we'll pay for them.
>> would the Lake Travis be add-ons or be from existing staff, staff in the sheriff's department's now?
>> they would be additional f.t.e.'s.
>> brand new.
>> brand new.
>> we need to get some character in this because I definitely don't want law enforcement diminishing in numbers out there in the field when we're getting so many complaints out in the precincts about property crimes and other crimes out there in the rural part of the county. That was my basic concern.
>> move approval of item 25.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move approval of 27. All in favor? Passes by unanimous vote.
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: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:50 PM