Travis County Commissioners Court
June 14, 2005
Item 14
Number 14 is to k. Afternoon rand take appropriate action on, a, request to Texas commission on jail standards, b, cost for housing inmates out of county, c, cost for leasing modular building system, and d, cost of benefit -- cost and benefit of adding a visiting judge's courtroom. Good morning.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. This is a -- kind of a continuing story that we started off with a couple of weeks ago related to our increased population, and at the work session I briefed the court that we've seen pretty much an explosion in our population over the last couple of months. We are for June averaging 2,754 inmates, which is an even crease of about 4 -- an increase of about 440 inmates over this time last year. We actually had a kind of a traditional christmas. December was fairly low, and in tracking about like we had the previous year. And then all of a sudden in January it got a little higher, February got a little higher, and then we really saw the -- it hit us real quickly in may, and then it hasn't stopped and June hasn't gotten any slower. In fact, you know, we're hitting record numbers. And not really record because the record was 2002 when we were doing 2800 consistently. So we only have so many options that we can put in place to deal with this explosion. And i'll go through those real quickly. Like I say, I did kind of go over some of them a couple weeks ago when we met, but one of the options would be to add variance beds. They increase the number that we have now. As you all are aware, we have 572 variance beds. Those, as you also know, have -- you know, we've had various beds since '92. We've had them in the 1200 number range and then, you know, pared them down over the years. In 2003 when we did have a decrease in our population, we -- we turned back 167. But here we are again with pretty much it looks like we're heading into the same inmate numbers that we had in 2002 when we had over 700 variance beds. I have contacted the jail standards folks, and the staff is supportive of us to go to the commission in August, but, you know, I have no idea what the actual, you know, jail commission will say. And, of course, that's the earliest that we can go to the -- appear before the jail commission because they have quarterly meetings. The next meeting is not until August 4th, so i'll be working with jail standards folks to try to get on their agenda. If that's something that you want to pursue, it does have staffing consequences to it and right now we're addressing those staffing consequences with working staff on overtime. As we had been for the last few months anyway because of the -- when we had gotten our numbers down to the tune of 2300, back in '03, then we had five buildings close. But we haven't had five buildings close in quite a long time, probably since December. So we've been staffing those buildings with overtime. Where we would add additional variance beds in one area in building 2, it would not have a staffing implication, but it would in building 3, which is one of our female buildings, and it would in building 1. We have really seen our female population increase to the tune of having to open an additional building for them. And which severely limits then our options for -- of where we can depop our male inmates to when we have real busy weekends because we normally use those buildings for the males. Don't really know why the female population has gone up so high, but it -- last couple of weekends we've been up in the neighborhood of 380, and the buildings that we normally designate for female inmates allows us to have 292. And so we've had about 100 extra female inmates over the last month or so. So that's one of the option, and it absolutely does come with a price tag. Whether we get additional staff, we'll still have to staff those areas on overtime or we get additional staff. Either way going to be a cost. Another option is, of course, to go out of county. I think I attached a chart that came from mike henby. Yes, I did. It's a chart in your package which is titled overtime versus out-of-county comparison. And what he illustrates is that if you have a corrections officer on overtime on a post watching 21 inmates, you are actually breaking even. If you have those 21 inmates out of county, once you get over that number, you're not going to really see any savings. The -- and what I would propose if I went to the jail commission to propose additional variance beds, I知 looking at 200 of them. Now, I知 not necessarily saying right now I need to send 200 inmates out of county, but I need to send at least -- from what our population is right now, I would have to ''send at least 100 right now. Because that then gets me down into the high 2600s which we can manage, but that's really, really difficult to do. And if my staff is watching, they are probably yelling at me to say something like 150, not 100. Now, we currently only have the one contract with limestone. They are $40 a day. They provide all transportation, which is a very good contract. I've sent some -- a contract from frio county to cyd's office and they are working on getting that before you all probably I guess next Tuesday it will go before you. I really do need to call limestone. I had a note to do that and I forgot to do this this morning to see what kind of room they had. Last time we did call them, they were in a position to take 80 people at the time. Now, that's been probably three or four weeks since i've talked to them. I don't know what their situation is now. It was rumored that the state system is actually outrenting some beds too and I don't know where all they are renting beds. The frio county contract, it's a longer trip, but they too provide transportation. It's $37 a day. So that contract should come before you all's approval probably I think next Tuesday.
>> how far is the frio county location from here?
>> it's south of san antonio, and somebody told me that --
>> [inaudible].
>> that's correct. That's correct.
>> did you find that -- broken down into an example of you got the amount of money per inmate -- per day, rather, and also the -- why is it five months breakdown instead of -- I don't understand why the five months.
>> I put the five months in there, Commissioner, because I think our population is going to continue to remain this high for the next five months. That will get us down into November, December. And traditionally -- and even like I said, even this last December, we did see a drop. We only did about, you know, 2280, this was great. That was wonderful last December. So I知 just counting on a population decreasing. Because traditionally and it normally does around November and December. That's why I use the five months. So thanks for pointing that out. I didn't really explain it. It's -- it's just what I think i'll need to get through this calendar year.
>> right. I understand.
>> I have a weird question for you. Pretty typical for me. We have a whole bunch of folks and I appreciate the feedback i've been getting from ms. Hale and the district judges about what's going on with our weekender program because literally there's no room at the inn. If we do get our -- certainly frio or limestone, would we have the ability to offer up to our weekenders that really need the weekender program, hi, give $40 a day, you are on the bus and go get your time taken care of as opposed to they are having to figure out some work release things or it's stretching out. People that truly do want to dispense with their obligations, but they want to do it on the weekend and we don't have a weekend program right now. It's very difficult. Is that a possibility that we could also clear some of those folks out?
>> let me make sure I understand your question.
>> somebody wants to voluntarily bay the per diem to get on the bus to go do their weekend duty in another county. Is that something we've thought about? Tp-rgs.
>> no, I haven't.
>> I think we could identity. Didn't we --
>> it has to do with the judges can make it a condition of getting that. That's one of those questions we've always had is we really didn't need to get state law changed. It was to put everything in the sheriff's office hands about being able to require the payment. But the judges can.
>> the court -- or the court -- right n sentencing someone to an alternative sentence, they can impose fees and restitution and -- to repay for their confinement. They also have the option of doing a confinement fee, which is $25 a day. It has to be after the sentence, you know, any day after the sentence and stuff like that. So there are a couple options that the court could do if they saw fit to imposing fees. You know. I mean --
>> the folks that truly do want to dispose of their situation.
>> they still get creditor the day -- credit for the day.
>> that's correct. We're doing as much community service as is requested of us. In other words, if a nonprofit or our own parks or whatever, people have come in over the weekends to work at the -- what's the thing on decker lane?
>> expo?
>> thank you. That thing. We'll give them the weekenders and they will take them out there and work them cleaning up and doing things like that. And they get credit. They just don't spend the night. You are right. But if they show up and report, yes, we give them credit. And I know that's not the best thing to do and I know even some of the county judges aren't sentencing people at all and I can understand that absolutely. And they believe those people need to spend time in jail and we take them in and they are part of the 2754 that we have or whatever the number is. So I understand, but absolutely I知 in a situation where I just barely have room for what I have and I definitely can't house the weekenders. So I don't even think there's very many get sentenced to the program.
>> how much money do we have in this year's budget for out of county? How much money do we have left between now an September 30th, not including money in the allocated reserve unless it's earmarked for the jail overcrowding problem.
>> there is no appropriation for out of county housing in the budget this year.
>> how much in the sheriff's budget? We did have an amount earmarked for overtime. But have we spent that?
>> we are going to -- the sheriff's budget right now is projected to be well over the overtime budget by -- in fact, they have already [inaudible] the overtime budget.
>> so the answer is zero?
>> yes. In fact, we are projecting them to be over that budget to this point in time given the rise in population.
>> how much money do we have in allocated reserve?
>> I have no idea. I'll have to get back with you on that.
>> I can get it this afternoon. One question is how much do we have in allocated reserve. The second is how much do we have in allocated reserve that does not have a sort of specific, semi-firm ear mark. So that is what I would call truly discretionary. And I just thought of a third question, and that is how many discretionary earmarks do we have that we really have a lot more flexibility. If we were to prioritize, we may well conclude let's delay this until after October 1, use this money for a more important purpose, i.e., that fund out of county.
>> to clarify what bill said and answer your questions, we are currently projecting the sheriff's budget to be $960,000 over its permanent appropriation.
>> how much?
>> $960,000. And that is based on the assumptions of the inmates today and that is substantially different than what we projected in mid-may and substantially different than what we projected in December. That will have a substantial bearing on our '06 budget discussions and '05 even go fund balance. To answer your question.
>> but does that figure include an additional allocation for the jail population through the end of the fiscal year?
>> yes, that is -- in essence, we are saying the sheriff's office cannot live within its budget this year.
>> but this $960,000, though, is pretty much a deficit or something we found another way.
>> yes.
>> but for out of county, for overtime or what? You see what I知 saying?
>> the bulk of -- about $50,000 of that we assume will be needed for out of county housing -- $350,000. The rest is primarily related to the population we have in hand here. For food and groceries, we had to open four buildings not built boo the system. We had utilities costs heading into the summer costs. For that it's probably a couple hundred thousand dollars. And medical services related to basically the same situation. I mean it's just really relieved of that. As recently as three months ago, there was a hope that the -- it would be possible to stay within budget. The sheriff has -- took some steps at that point in time to hold that. This 960,000 is based on the premise of saving at least $300,000 of discretionary funds that existed holding down all discretionary spend to go minimum levels through the rest of the year.
>> now, to answer your question, as of today, there's $2.2 million remaining in the allocated reserve. Leroy and ellis and I went over this morning what we see as potential expenditures against that, and we are predicting a half a million dollars will be approved by the Commissioners court based on a variety of earmarks and/or issues that you deal with every Tuesday between now and September 30th. That would leave a million seven in allocated reserve.
>> if you had to use a million bucks for the sheriff, it would take it down to seven. Is that what you are saying?
>> there's funds available within the county's various pockets to handle the sheriff's deficit, assuming this inmate explosion does not continue to explode. The more it explodes, the more that it's going to push out every other optional opportunity from a financial standpoint, and I知 not even sure that we told you in mid-may that we believe we could come forward with a preliminary budge the at 2% above effective tax. Right now I知 not sure that's possible.
>> let me just mention one they think. There may be a misunderstanding about whether population growth. In that assumption, is that an assumption of the normal seasonal growth that would occur through July, August and September that -- of about 100 more inmates on top of what we have in hand right now. But those folks will have to go out of county. There's just no other way.
>> can we see all of those assumptions in writing between now and next Tuesday?
>> yes.
>> what are the facts on the visiting judges? Cost and benefit.
>> the only reason why I proposed it and I hope somebody from court -- hey, deborah, court administration, our d.a.'s office shows up. Is -- in looking at our population, and we've done another analysis on last month to this month and I had shown you the comparison of April to April, and we believe what's driving our population is the high level of felons and that has to be addressed in district court. We did our next analysis of may, April to may, and it shows us exactly the same thing. In fact, and I won't go into too much detail, but i'll just let you know that the average length of stay in those high degree felons actually went down again, another 11 days. That's good news. What it says is that the d.a. Is just pushing this as hard as they can to get all these cases done, but what it also shows is there's an increase in the number of people that are being arrested with those types of charges. So even though they are hearing the cases and getting the cases through as quickly as they can, the numbers are just staggering. There's just so many more of them. And those are the cases that take such a long time to dispose of that -- and I知 not even going to say this right, but what I think is we need to get a visiting judge in and then staff it with more prosecution and -- prosecutors and court people and clerks and whatever it takes and give them their full caseload, level, whatever you call that. And have them work on cases and dispose of cases -- and I know, you know-aoe.
>> who is putting together the written cost benefit analysis?
>> a study that was done or I believe had been presented to the court --
>> July '04?
>> and it's titled August 2004, and I do not know who the author of this is.
>> did we not get permission from state legislature for a new criminal court? It seems to me we ought to have numbers okay, when that cranks up, what's it going to take, people, et cetera, and if we are talking about phaoeufing up the implement taeugs rate through we'll call it a visiting judge which then converts over to the seated criminal district court come January 2007 I think is when it all comes on board. Starting it a year early.
>> thank you. That's basically all I was proposing.
>> is that [inaudible]?
>> that was the 1.6. It's in your backup.
>> 1.6 plus startup.
>> but I think that we need mike t.r.e.m.b.l.e. To get with the appropriate persons and look at these various options and get recommendation next week on -- what we ought to do. Maybe we ought to a combination, maybe we ought to do one. If you are going to spend a million dollars between now taken end of the fiscal year, the question is what's the best way to spend it. I would look at all the options. I don't really know that we can afford to do all of them unless -- we've got money to work with, I think. But the question is what's the best way to use it between now and the end of the fiscal year.
>> yes, sir. Sure.
>> david, isn't your -- isn't c the -- I mean if you are looking at the choices I mean as far as just bottom line.
>> that's the problem. Bottom line is not just the only consideration here. We are wearing out our staff with overtime and it takes awhile to staff up if you decide to make those people permanent employees. If we go with leased modular buildings, you are then limiting your options related to the reconstruction of the del valle site, and as we've seen too many times, temporary buildings have a way of becoming long-term kinds of buildings. So we are going to have some impacts on the potential live construction site on some things that we're right now in discussions with jail standards on and I知 equally concerned about what's going on with sending a message to jail standards of gee, not only are we not going to give them back tourbgs we want to take them back and more. But I seriously am looking at the inmates going out of county because it will take some pressure off of our staff, it will take the numbers down there, and it will not take away any of our options related the a live construction site. And we've got to get the numbers down. And it gives us the most flexibility.
>> and I would like to echo what Commissioner Sonleitner said. Our staff is being run -- they are exhausted. And we keep asking them to do more and do more and do more, and we have officers that are want to go take vacation, but they are committed to the agency, they are a company person, and they go and work the overtime and it's not about the money. It's they are committed to serving the citizens here in Travis County. And we do need to take into consideration we're wearing them out.
>> sheriff, I couldn't agree more with you. If you just look at a, I mean overtime would not be my choice. I mean overtime costs you more than hiring 21 people. About 50%. So I知 not saying wear your staff out, I agree with you. We've worn them out for a long time. It's amazing you start talking about overtime and comparing them to 21 f.t.e.s and there's a 50% difference. And then when you get back to option c, the questions that I have -- if you are talking about 192 beds and your personnel costs are 2894 versus the personnel costs for if you are adding 200 beds, I mean something -- I guess david, we just need to meet so you can walk plea through that, but I couldn't figure that out looking at this. I couldn't agree more that staff is not where we need to go. But you are talking about a million four. This thing is not going to be fixed next Wednesday. This trend has been coming at us for a number of months. And I don't think we have -- of korgs, if you try to do something with a courtroom, you just sign up for a million eight to do that. So I mean from a cost standpoint, and plus, I mean just the length of time that it takes to do that. We may not have any choice other than -- I mean if we really want to predicate this on what are you going to do with staff, just bite the bullet and go out of county is the only short-term fix because, a, I mean not only do you wear staff out, but it costs you 50% more.
>> I agree. You know, I just felt obligated to give you a number of options to look at. And there are short-term fixes and out of county is the best absolutely. But I believe there is a long-term fix and I think the court really addresses that and I know it's a lot of money, but I think we've really proofen what's driving our population and this fix -- nothing else in here is going to fix our population. Well, it's not going to tpebgs it, it's going to help it.
>> but I think we need to see a document that not only -- that compares the options. And that takes into account the money as well as other public policy considerations. And we need to -- the different affected departments to participate in that. That way I think we would be in a much better position to make a decision next Tuesday.
>> I agree with what the judge is saying there. Especially -- let me ask this question. You made a statement earlier that we have to go before the jail standards commission, I think you said August 4th.
>> yes, sir.
>> since that is the case, is there a time line as far as what we need to do to make sure that we are in compliance and what we take before the jail standards commission is acceptable to them? That's a pretty, you know, I think severe fogs for us to be in where whatever we come up with is accepted if we're going to order a point of what we're trying to do here before the jail standards commission. So I just want to make sure whatever these different proposals are, the question is would they be acceptable before the jail standards commission as far as what we're looking at today and if we try to fine tune this thing leading to August which is still a part of the budget cycle.
>> yes, sir. I can't even approach jail standards unless y'all give me the authority to do so.
>> I understand.
>> with the variance. So brandon wood, the gentleman who was here last week, has said he would work with me on that request. And then I would have to appear before each of you and show you, you know, what the ramifications were of the request. And if you'll don't want to go down that road, then I won't go down that road. But if we do add those 200 beds, then it comes with a lot of staffing implications and, like the shave said, we're, you know, going to --
>> but I guess my point though is that I would like to make sure that we get -- don't be slapped on the knuckles or hands because we're out of jail compliance.
>> I don't want to either, Commissioner.
>> that is what our goal is.
>> absolutely.
>> some of this stuff here will get us to the point where we can get [inaudible] and also working in conjunction with that, we look at the jail population, that's why I brought up this five-month deal and I wanted to know why five months, if we go out of county, you suggested that this is kind of the peak period and the peak period is starting to decline as far as inmate decrease by November, end of the year. And so if that's the case, it still would be good to see what those kind of projections are if we come to the fall part of the year.
>> yes, sir, we can give you those numbers. We can give you the numbers and show you the cost -- well, i'll show you the cost of 100 and 200 inmates if we went out of county.
>> I would like a comparison. I feel uncomfortable asking more more variance at this point. I know we need to go short thermoand let's address it that way and let's stay within our budgets. Our overall county budget. And i'll wait for the comparison.
>> because I did the projection on today's population, but i'll look at bill dairyberry shoulder and his numbers look kind of high.
>> as we pull together our analysis for next week, I appreciate it major that you said, well, here's the realistic thing, it's five months. The reality is with leftover -- what's left over in this fiscal year is three months, approximately. I appreciate you giving me the heads up it doesn't end October 1, but we are in a new fiscal year and can build in whatever we need to do October 1. I would really appreciate it if you could focus on the cost between now and September 30 because that's really the focal point relating to our ending fund balance.
>> you bet. We'll do that.
>> I realize it's [inaudible].
>> can we engage a little more maybe, have it on next Tuesday, plan to take action then?
>> absolutely.
>> thank you all.
>> now, casey pen here is here. 13 is consider and take appropriate action regarding fees to patients for starflight services. There's really a $500 increase for out of county, right?
>> right.
>> in-county remains the same.
>> currently we're thought recommending any in-county increases, although we are assessing that with p.b.o. And the auditor's office and maybe talking with you about that during our work session for the '06 budget.
>> this is for out of county.
>> out of county.
>> and we are still below what the private carriers are doing and related to the transport guys, it's high guys, fuel. That one was really --
>> but the key is we're still below. We need to look. Let's just make sure we are competitive. I mean, I don't care if it's 50 cents. Let's get -- we can say we're lower.
>> and this did go to the e.m.s. Committee. There is one other thing related to the definition of county. It's really county of residence fee. We actually had situations where Travis County folk who happen to be out of county were charged an out of county fee and there were people who were out of county residents because their incident occurred within Travis County got charged like they were an in-county resident. I think what we always had intended is that it's really your county of residence determines which. And actually it works to our financial advantage ever so slightly for us to flip that around.
>> you'll be able to implement that up?
>> I think we're looking at July 1st implementation.
>> okay. Motion by Commissioner Sonleitner to approve the recommendation.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:10 PM