Travis County Commissioners Court
August 31, 2004
Item 26
Number 26 at 10:30. 26 is to consider and take appropriate action on the
following items related to the jail operations study. A is jail operations
study final draft report. B, physical plant redevelopment concepts and c,
next steps for implementation of study recommendations.
>> good morning, mike trimble, criminal justice coordinator
with criminal justice planning. And as soon as we can get other folks in here,
I know I知 probably not on the pop popularity list right now because of all
the backup I gave you on this item. But environmental is after me. In your
binder clipped to the inside of it, and it may have been separated for you,
but we do have the cover memo and some of the other backup items in addition
to the report itself, which is really the bulk of the binder. On July 29th,
we had done a presentation on the final draft report of the jail operations
study and we went through some of the different sections, presented some of
the key findings and key recommendations as well as an overview of some of
the physical plant redevelopment concepts and some of the financial impact
analysis. What we're doing today is bringing back the report. We've gone back
and done some of the final editing, and some of the key changes to that is
you have a more complete version of the staffing analysis report that's in
your backup as opposed to what you've got on the 29th. And also you have the
financial impact analysis that has been revised somewhat to match that expanded
report. Otherwise most of the -- all of the key findings recommendation and
information that was presented on the 29th and in that presentation is also
in your backup should be the same. What we're doing today is bringing this
report back to you for your consideration, and for hopefully approval. The
team is recommending approval of the final draft report.
>> so by approving the report, we are approving what?
>> we're approving the different sections of the report that
were completed according to staffing analysis, the physical plant needs assessment,
the financial impact analysis, all the different components of the report.
Also what findings and recommendations are included in the report. Obviously
a lot more work needs to be done on doing more of the follow-up analysis and
study on the recommendations, but at least what was initially developed in
the analysis.
>> I move that we formally receive the report. That is not
quite the same as approving all the recommendations in it. I mean, I think
it's a good report. I think that if we formally receive it, it may be about
the best that we can do today. Basically we will be working our way through
the various recommendations over the next few months, I take it.
>> yes.
>> and we'll talk more about that in item c.
>> okay. Any more discussion of that? It is basically under
a, to receive the final draft report, which we typically do when there is
a voluminous report that has multiple recommendations as this one. Discussion
of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B?
>> as part of the report there was a section done called
physical plant redevelopment concept. And that's also in your backup. And
I want to kind of go over a little bit what was included in that. And if you
remember in our presentation that was done on the 29th, we went over a couple
of concepts. We went over four concepts actually that were developed out of
the work that the team had done in coordination with the consultant. And just
to kind of go over real quick again what was included in each of those, before
I do that, I actually have some graphic handouts. I知 sorry I didn't have
the big boards that they had when they initially developed this. Let me hand
this out to you. What you're getting right now is just the pictures of the
concepts that are included actually in the report itself. I want to make it
for easy reference.
>> thank you. As you look at the pictures themselves, the
graphics themselves, i'll just briefly talk about some of the features of
each of the concepts. Concept c-1 again was basically the baseline concept
that the team developed. And it was considering some of the basic assumptions
that the team used in developing the concept, namely that there were some
-- the things that needed to be addressed was commission of jail standards,
we currently have 572 beds. And it was assumed that we would have to address
the various bdz and deal with those in an additional capacity. Also if you
remember from the physical plant needs assessment, there were several buildings
that were listed in poor condition that would need to be addressed in the
near future. And those again include several of the temporary structures that
are located out at the del valle site. So with some of those assumptions in
mind, item c-1 seeks to maintain the existing building configuration. In other
words, there's not going to be much done with the way the buildings, where
they lie, where they're situated in the complex itself. What it will look
to do is to just replace those beds that need to be replaced in those structures
that I mentioned and also to build some additional capacity that's needed
not only for the variance beds that need to be exais draesed, but also the
additional capacity as determined from the population projections that were
done as well. The buildings where they are right now would basically be replaced.
Additional capacity, if you look at the graphic again, there would be some
additional construction around -- in the center of the complex. We would also
maintain and use all those other buildings that have useful life cycle left.
In concept c-2, we go a little bit further, we maintain most of the buildings
with useful life cycle. Those buildings that need to be replaced in the short-term,
especially the temporary structures, are actually replaced and additional
capacity is constructed in a more consolidated, mall type design, which is
listed on your c-2 graphic there. Again, we configure some of the new construction
around the existing structure that still has useful life cycle left in them.
Concept c-2-a is basically the same concept as c-2. Here the team looked at
options for delaying portion of the capital out lay by phasing in the construction
on the c-2 concept. Building a certain number of beds in one phase and then
doing the shell for the second phase. In concept c-3, we go to complete replacement
of all existing bed space. This would be construction of a more consolidated
structure on the del valle site, and what we would have to do is deal with
the issue of what to do with those buildings that still have useful life cycle
left in them.
>> is this the one we've done don dubbed the tornado scenario?
>> absolutely.
>> and to note the consultant felt strongly that this is
kind of the ideal construction or design of the facility that you would have
if, again, if you did have the tornado come out there. A much more consolidated.
You would realize some operational efficiencies, fewer staff needed, better
efficiencies and utility costs and things like that.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... You do realize some cost -- decreased costs compared
to c-2. However, when you go out further, 10, 20 years, when you finish construction,
you actually end up with more costs because of the way you have to structure
the debt to do that. Concept c-3, again, this is kinds of your ideal concept.
Operationally. Just because you will have the most operational efficiencies
and you actually have compared to the other scenarios the most reduction in
staff. As you build those replacement beds, more consolidated designs. It
does raise other issues with the much larger capital outlay required to get
that type of construction and also it leaves unresolved issues of what to
do with the buildings we have at the site that still have remaining life cycle
left in them. I did also rehash the cost running amount 30 years on page 3
of your memo. I just want to note this is a cumulative 30-year total. In the
report we do have some costs by year, which as you can see the costs, you
know, if you run them out 30 years, the concept c-1 is a higher total cost.
That's mainly because of increased operating cost or the operating costs you
would have if you did not go with the c-2 or c-3 concept. And that's kind
of the tradeoff there. Definitely higher capital costs with concept c-2 and
3. You are looking at capitol costs of 265 million approximately under c-3
compared to 190 million in c-1. 224 million is -- given all the concepts we
used in these calculations.
>> do you know what page the annual costs are listed on?
>> of the report itself?
>> right. I知 having a hard time dealing with a 30-year cumulative
cost. That total is mind boggling.
>> i'll be 79 years old.
>> yeah, some of the annual costs are listed on page 16 of
the report titled options for meeting capacity beds.
>> page 16?
>> yes.
>> where is the sheriff's office on the recommendations?
The four options listed or does the sheriff have a fifth option?
>> well, I could come up with more and more options. I think
the more of this facility we can replace the better, but I think what is the
best approach is to be able to replace the temporary buildings that we have
that are so incredibly ineffective as far as running and build for the capacity
[indiscernible] that we need to take care of still utilizing our existing
buildings such as h.s.d. In 1, 2 and 3. So I think it's probably concept spell
2 is probably what works best given just numbers.
>> I also want to note that was the concept recommended by
the consultant and the planning team as well who developed these concepts.
>> that's the one that provides the phasing in approach utilizing
what we have there that's usable, but I would really like to see those older
ones just removed.
>> they need to go away. I mean they are very, very inefficient.
They are very expensive to upkeep. And because of the smallness of the buildings,
they are the most staff intensive both as far as transportation within the
facility itself and ability as far as to be able to get economies of scale.
And they are the hardest to supervise.
>> I would like to see those totally removed because that
way we're not tempted to go and use them again, and still try to I think what
I would like to see is for us to move forward, to be more efficient. I don't
want us to have that as a backup, fall-back position to keep using inefficient
buildings.
>> you know, Commissioner, I have in my office a lock from
the old Travis County jail that a federal judge ordered the sheriffs to --
duane bailey to cut off when they closed the old Travis County jail and one
of the reasons was to keep us from ever going back. And I can almost bet that
if we had had that somebody at least would have suggested that we continue
to use it.
>> as long as the space is there we'll keep using it.
>> I think that's the thing to impress upon folks is all
of these scenarios are built around the idea and demand by jail standards
that we have variance beds and we have been given the ability to work around
those variance beds and they have been very gracious in terms of letting us
have those variance beds I think much longer --
>> for 10 years plus.
>> much longer than were intended. And I appreciate them
working with us to be able to plan, but a lot of these beds are simply to
get back in -- I don't want to use the word compliance, because we are in
absolute compliance with jail standards, but it is to rebuild beds that the
state has been very gracious and allowed us to do in a different way, and
we need to do them in the way that they say they must be done. And there's
a very, I think, moderate crime rate that is predicted here in terms of just
with the growth that will be expected in this community by 2017, what would
be expected in terms of just new capacity. And I can tell you I read those
reports every morning about what's going on with our jail population, and
it's creeping up again. And I appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to
get those numbers down, but those numbers are going up just with the sheer
numbers of people that live in this community and what's going on with the
economy. There are certain kinds of things that are just hitting our jail
system. So a good chunk of this is just we got to get back to where we are
today and not one new bed. It's just re-creating that bed in a way that jail
standards says is the more appropriate way to do it.
>> the other thing, though, is I think that before I feel
really comfortable about approaching any of these is I would really need to
have an aassurance that some of the changes, the procedural changes that have
taken place are institutionalized and let's not say, well, we're going to
have additional new beds. Let's just for get about the improvements and the
procedures. I would like to have assurances that those new procedures will
remain in place from here on out because I think we still need to make sure
that -- that we control the population of the jail, that those people who
really need to be there are there, and those who do not need to not be there.
And because if we don't maintain our control on the improvements that have
been made, this scenario will keep on going. And we build it and we fill it.
And sometimes with people who don't belong there. And so those need to work
hand in hand for me.
>> well, I completely agree with you, Commissioner, but as
i've pointed out, the person who has the absolute least control over the jail
population is the sheriff. And what we have found is we have gone through
the jail overcrowding task force efforts is that the solution lies much more
with the court process and that doesn't just mean the judges and the d.a.
And it also means the criminal defense attorneys and pretrial folks, probation,
everybody has to really work in concert.
>> right.
>> and I certainly would hope that, you know, a year from
now when I look back to see what's up in Travis County, it's not a situation
of where all those efforts have fallen by the way side because I agree with
you, if we don't continue the efforts we've done, if people say, oh, well
now we have plenty jail space, it's the old phrase, if you build it they will
come. This isn't a field of dreams, this isn't a baseball park, we're talking
about jail beds. And there is some truth to that. And we've done a very good
job, I think, of doing some education of the judges. We recently had a lengthy
discussion about the weekender program. And sometimes it's because all of
a sudden the spotlight shines on it because of one individual. But the judges
begin to understand what are the consequences when they all decide that they
are going to give people weekends on the same weekend.
>> right.
>> so there are some conversations going on, and I feel confident
the efforts will continue, but the pressure has to continue to come. And quite
frankly, it has to continue to come from this body because I will say I知
as -- I can scream as loud and long as anyone, but until this court [indiscernible]
some of the first meetings judge Biscoe went to, all of a sudden, oops, everybody
paid some attention. So pressure has to continue to be there whether you apply
it through the budget mechanism or whenever or public pressure. It has to
be there for folks to continue their efforts and to always look for new efforts.
>> I want to echo what Margaret just said about we have to
get the efficiencies that are promised here because the least expensive part
of this whole equation is the capital costs. The most expensive part of this
equation is the operational piece, the ongoing expenditures. Pwa linda powell
working with time got together of what I had requested of can you sort of
capture what were the capital costs to date for tcso facilities, but this
is not down to the penny, but what I was amazed by was between 1977 and 2001,
for del valle and downtown, excluding central booking, it was $70 million.
That's a lot of money. But that's less than one year's budget for the Travis
County sheriff's office.
>> correct.
>> the largest amount of her budget is for corrections. So,
you know, spending on capital over -- from '77 to 2001 is less than one year's
operating budget of the sheriff's office. We've got to have those efficiencies
that we've been promised. When somebody says secured corridors because we
can use a different kind of manpower or control how people move within the
campus, we've got to have that that's a real thing and not something that
was a cool idea but it was put aside. That's why if we get rid of all those
things out there on the outer portion of the campus, that stuff absolutely
is a buy-in to a bad way to move people within the campus, and I知 concerned
about having our own officers kind of out there on the perimeter in places
and not within, you know, a core area where if something does happen, help
is a whole lot closer than being out in those outer buildings.
>> you are very correct.
>> it's a maximum security. I think when that property was
first purchased and it was supposed to be minimum security. And I think that's
why there was this campus approach to it, but things have changed. The population
has grown. Things have changed in Travis County. So I mean I can at least
face that now and say this is not minimum security. This is maximum security.
And so that's why I think some of those buildings need to go and let's not
pretend that this is anything else but maximum security.
>> well, and one of the things that needs to kind of keep
in mind as you go through this process is that as you make decisions, and
I say you meaning the county as a whole, as decisions are made, that sometimes
a decision is made and I learn to hate the term value engineering. I mean
it just became one of those words just kind of like reclassifications that,
you know, I wanted to take off --
>> a matrix.
>> cut out of the equation and the dictionary of county government.
But one of the things that happens so often is that when you make those decisions,
they have -- they will save you a little bit of money, but they will cost
you a lot of money, and we see that in some of the physical aspects as far
as a.c. And heating plants, and we also certainly see it as far as staffing,
but yes, the idea of truly secured anchor doors was abandoned somewhat for
the value engineering part of things. And there are staffing implications
to it. And so I -- as the facilities are planned, it really needs to be looking
at what is the ultimate operational efficiency, and there certainly are ways
to take the same number of inmates and operate it, you know, design the facility
so that you get the maximum, you know, for your buck of officers, you know,
maximizing where you can potentially use security coordinators and also maximizing
the supervision aspects of the sergeants and the lieutenants being able to
look over these folks and making sure the job is being done properly.
>> when do we need to land on one of the options and why?
>> I feel that we -- there needs to be some money in this
year's budget. I think there was some set aside in reserve and to go forward
with the planning aspects. Probably -- we haven't gotten the date yet, at
least I haven't, do you know December, November, david when we'll have to
go --
>> [inaudible].
>> November. We'll have to be back to the jail commission
and I think jail commission expects to see some -- a written plan of what
Travis County is going to do regarding those 572 variance beds.
>> do we know how much money is left from what we budgeted?
For the jail operation study?
>> [inaudible].
>> I suggest we take two more weeks and intend to on September
14th to land on one of the options or come up with another one. Under b. We
have four to look at, and the consultants recommended c-2, and the sheriff
believes that of the ones on the table, c-2 makes most sense. Is that right?
>> that's correct.
>> what staff needs to do basically is for us to let them
know which one we plan to move on in terms of further study, and if we choose
one, that will give us an opportunity to put together some sort of plan, even
if it's sketchy, to share with the state jail commission at its November meeting.
Which we promised more than a year ago, right?
>> yes, sir. And I would hope we will be firmer than sketchy,
but --
>> judge --
>> we've got -- we've got the consultant's that says 2, the
sheriff that says 2, michael trimball that says 2. Is there anyone else that
needs to weigh in on this other than 2? I'll wait for the 14th.
>> there was one other issue as I look at the map. When we
were talking about doing some other stuff out there the last time, it was
it '98.
>> '97 was when we had the bond election.
>> a previous Commissioners court before you got here, judge,
and we made a commitment that these fields would remain open. And so it appears
that given the plan and all of the different alternatives, they all include
the ball field. So I would assume that until we make a motion to close the
ball field, they will continue in operation.
>> the ballfields that remain in operation are the ones that
are over close to the -- somewhat I would call the work release center. The
youth ballfields have all been relocated.
>> those are gone, but these still remain for the adults.
>> they have some of these on here that actually might be
a [indiscernible], but that's about all there is.
>> so when I see field on the drawing of concept c-2, I do
see fields here, right?
>> yes, sir. Those are the fields.
>> those are still there?
>> yes. The smaller ones are not there anymore. The ones
that are --
>> the little league.
>> the little league is gone to southeast metro park.
>> just where the t.n.r. Tournament was.
>> and we still have some concession stands there and they
are being utilized by the public.
>> okay. So if they are not here, the ones under academy,
why are they on the drawings?
>> [inaudible] that's part of your open space on the property.
But that's required for impervious cover. So they are still showing them from
an old site plan whether the little league fields are in place, but the green
space is still needed.
>> see why we need two weeks? Can someone indicate exactly
what we are dealing with? If they are green fields, some of these ballfields
are gone. If we can get what the situation is so we'll know.
>> just the previous Commissioners court voted, felt they
would remain until the Commissioners court voted to do away with them.
>> the other thing is if in fact we seem to be focusing on
c-2, we probably ought to spend a little more time on it between now and September
14th to know exactly everything that it entails. I kind of looked at all of
them and there is a lot of information there. So if we focus on c-2, we really
ought to be comfortable. The other thing is costing it out, the -- we ought
to have a better idea of fiscal impact on the county annually from an operational
and capital investment perspective. The other thing is that if we gradually
phase out the old buildings there now, but we use the ones that have existing
life, I assume that in c-2 in time even the ones with existing life, the longer
they are used, the closer they get to being phased out also. Right?
>> that's correct, sir. You will notice on c-2 there's a
place where it says future [inaudible] with the idea being you begin to kind
of work counterclockwise, I believe it was, and eliminate those buildings
because, yes, they will have reached their -- past their useful life under
normal circumstance and you have to remember most of these buildings have
been overused because of the fact of having additional people in them. Design
a building for 300 and put 600 in it, you wear it out.
>> that was that multi-colored one-pager that the consultants
gave. The consultants also gave us a larger depicts of c-2, right?
>> yes.
>> we still have that? Yeah, I think so. I think we can get
that.
>> maybe we can reproduce that. For those of us who do wear
glasses and those of us who do not but should, this is a challenge to see
this. If we had larger version, it would help.
>> I知 the only one up here that doesn't.
>> i'll send for my reading glasses, one of of my weaker
old pair.
>> that makes sense why you want two weeks. Because 2 is
what we want to study. I was thinking we were spending two more weeks to come
back and ask questions, but what we're really doing is we're all homing in
on 2 and then come up with the questions --
>> 2 [indiscernible]. And understanding.
>> that's the reason I said -- [multiple voices]
>> you thought I was just --
>> I thought maybe we were fixing to have some more thrown
at us or we needed to look -- said 1 shouldn't even be on there. You will
never get 3 passed.
>> I discarded 1 and 3 a long time ago.
>> any objection? That's to spend two weeks working on c-2.
>> right.
>> no objection, we'll do that and have c-2 back on on the
14th of September. In terms of c-3, next steps, staff did recommend specific
steps for us to start doing, and do we need to add anything to those? Basically
in c on page 3 what you said is in our view here are the next steps we should
take.
>> right. And what I did is I worked with, you know, the
folks on the jail operations team and the sheriff as well to look at kind
of some of the things that we needed to do. And some of the considerations
also is that -- obviously we're going to have a new sheriff coming online
at the first of the year so we tried to allow for their input in all this
as well. I think the thought was to move forward on some of the recommendations
at least to flush them out to see what the implications of each of them, what
will it take to implement them. Work with the sheriff's office and the jail
and I want to note the sheriff's office is in process of looking at those
to get a realistic picture how to implement some of these things.
>> whether to implement them.
>> it seems to me under the recommendations that are good
and may be implemented without additional investment of resources by the county,
I mean seems to me we ought to go ahead and figure out a way to implement
those. Otherwise let's take them off the table.
>> judge, we have been. We have already implemented some
of the recommendations. It's just the fact that -- part of the process, I
mean, I view the sheriff's office and myself as kind of the customer of the
study, and we are looking at them to to see whether or not all of the recommendations
make sense because, quite frankly, I don't think some of them do. But that's
okay because that's what you are going to have when you have a study. Certainly
the things that we can do without cost that make sense, we're going ahead
and going forward with. And then the ones that appear to have costs we'll
work with p.b.o. And justice and public safety to do some costing and come
to the court to look to see where we should go from there.
>> are we able to get a list of the recommendations that
have been implemented? And a list of the ones that we intend to implement
and the ones that frankly require additional resources to --
>> that's part of the process. We certainly can give you
the ones we've already implemented. For example, there was a recommendation
had to do with classification to do some things with the classification forum
in an electronic form so it could be shared easily with folks. There are some
of those sort of things that have already been done and we can certainly get
to the court -- [telephone ringing] -- a list of what we've already done and
very shortly we'll be getting to you in conjunction with justice and public
safety the other two components.
>> christian, do we know how much of the jail operation study
reserve we still have available? Or should we get the answer later? [telephone
ringing] do we know? We'll just get the answer later.
>> it was never a reserve, it was an ear mark against the
allocated reserve. So you used what was needed to implement the study.
>> does that mean something is left?
>> no.
>> is there anything in next year's as an ear mark of a remark.
>> the answer to the Commissioner's question is yes. The
answer to the sheriff's question is no.
>> [inaudible].
>> however, you don't get to find out how much.
>> later.
>> later.
>> anything else on this item today?
>> thank you very much.
>> move approval of c, which is basically for us to approve
the outline of steps by staff.
>> second.
>> and on the 14th we can get further clarification of what's
being done on c.
>> certainly.
>> what's planned to be done I guess in '05, that would help.
Okay. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all very much. We appreciate the work of the
entire committee as well as the consultants.
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: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:01 AM