Travis County Commissioners Court
August 2, 2005
Item 29
29, consider and take appropriate action on the request for additional f.t.e.s in the sheriff's office in f.y. '05.
>> good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
>> david, sheriff's office correction pwour row and sheriff greg hamilton and bill campbell from our office and bill dairy barry from p.b.o. This is a conversation that started a long time ago when our population really started to spike a couple months back and we approached the court with a number of different options. And you all have acted on a number of those and we appreciate that very much and we do have close to 70 inmates housed out of county in frio, and we have also -- you all have done some things with the court to expedite cases through the system and those things were greatly needed. We also made a request at that time to add a number of f.t.e.s to our bureau. And p.b.o. Has made the recommendation for f.y. '06. And what we're here today to discuss is the possibility of bringing those folks on just as quickly as possible because every day of course that goes by we're running post on overtime. And although we know it will be a challenge to recruit and get all those folks in, we're prepared to make that effort and have a lot of different strategies ready to put in place related to hiring and doing background checks and getting cover classes together and doing all those things. And bill campbell and bill dairyberry have worked up a plan and so I’ll turn it over to the bills and let the bills talk to you all.
>> well, in the memorandum that we sent out yesterday morning, I apologize for being a little slow, but I had to do some tkr-ring that I have to do annually on Friday. We just basically recommended that we ask the court that they -- that the court approve doing -- excuse me. I have a little stutter problem here. Doing the -- adding the 42 f.t.e.s that are recommended in the f.y. '06 preliminary budget as outlined in the preliminary budget document immediately. With an agreement from the sheriff's office, and I believe they are comfortable with this agreement, of saying within the projected spending level that is built into the f.y. '06 budget, which is currently about $815,000 above their amended budget. I talked about this, of course, at some length in the -- in this memo. There are certainly good and sound reasons why they are over budget and it's reasonable why they are asking for the 42 f.t.e.s. They've got 400 folks more than they did last year and they have five buildings open more than they did last year at this time. So with that, p.b.o. Supports what the option b of the memorandum.
>> is this going to get us exactly where we think we were headed in the fiscal '06 budget, but by starting things now, we're going to shave hopefully off a month of what our intended end point is anyway.
>> right.
>> about 42 f.t.e.s cost how much?
>> in this fiscal year, it probably will be in the range of 70 to $100,000 depending on how things work. There are a number of queueing issues related to cobra classes and other things. And frankly just finding the folks to bring in. This is something that they have done in the past certainly and -- and certainly they have in place strategies that will probably allow this to be absorbed within the overage that is projected right now for f.y. '06 which is $815,000 above their amended budget.
>> what's the annualized cost of 42?
>> it's in the preliminary budget. It's in the range of a couple million dollars.
>> and it's already in the budget.
>> it's already included in the recommended preliminary budget. I can look real quickly here. Correction staffing is $1.8 million in the preliminary budget. And then there are many other dollars related to operating expenditures because of the inmate population, out of county expenditures and reserves and for the October -- month of October, first month of October in '06. But the bottom line number is about $1.8 million for these 42 positions.
>> how many of the 42 would you be able to bring on board before October 1?
>> well, I don't really have a good sense of how many we could, but we want the opportunity to bring as many as we can on board.
>> my point is that revenue department -- I’d rather it go through the budget process. I realize the urgency -- I guess I would be disinclined to authorize 42 if under only hire 30. I would authorize 30 and during the budget process discussion the other 12. There is a reason we have the budget process. At the same time, if our emergencies beyond our control we're here to respond to them. But I guess it would be a little excessive, I guess, to authorize -- it's in the preliminary budget, it doesn't mean we will approve it. Now, we seldom take out of the preliminary budget, but at the same time we put this in because we figured it would take a big number one way or the other.
>> yes, sir.
>> there are several other factors I think we need to discuss and look at. A lot of them involve departments outside the sheriff's office. There is no pressure if there is no pressure. See what I’m saying?
>> yes, sir.
>> so it's easy to continue the status quo unless we pressure ourselves to do better and ourselves is not just the sheriff's office, it's really Commissioners court and all of the departments that deal with the justice and public safety. You know, you are on the receiving ends much inmates, but a lot of decisions are made before we get to the receiving pointed that are under the control of other officials. I’m just thinking once we do this, I don't know that we really retain the ability to apply the pressure even by way of argument that we really need to apply at some point. I mean the numbers have -- we lamented we were at 2600, today we're close to 2750. If we don't insist on doing better, there's 2850, 2950.
>> well, I guess the -- your question as far as how many of these 42 can we hire by October 1st. There's -- I don't think anybody at this table can give you an exact number due to the process. And there are people that are being eliminated during this process. But I can tell you that my staff is willing to work as hard as possible to make sure that we are able to bring those 42 on by October the 1st without cutting corners.
>> what if we authorize hiring 20 and for you to come back -- will you hire just 20 or see that you will hire them pretty soon, come back and see us.
>> if that's what we have to take, that's what we have to take. But we are hurting and we are needing more staff on. And at the same time while we're waiting on staff, we're continuously paying the overtime and we are stressing out the -- our corrections officers there. So if that's what you give us is 20, we'll take 20.
>> just my recommendation. The other thing I recall is that we authorize the [inaudible] office four people, that cost was just under $400,000, right?
>> if I understand, it was actually five positions and the annualized number is $323,000, in that range. And that is also in the preliminary budget.
>> there are a whole lot of pieces, and the action that we took before when the 42 was there, I felt real comfortable because it's in the preliminary budget so we don't have to find the funding. All we have to do is do it. I also had in mind doing it during the budget process. See what I’m saying? I’m not convinced we ought to wait until after the budget process to start hiring here, but it does seem to me that if I authorize the full 42 when you can authorize 20 and if you get those hired, then we talk about the next 22.
>> let me weigh in a little bit on that. When you are finished.
>> judge, if I may jump in. To commit to staying within 815,000, we took a look --
>> they kind of jumped in ahead.
>> we have 11 people in the hiring pool now. We are investigating 10 more at the moment. Which gives us 21. Our h.r. People then said we believe we'll have another 10 at least. And that puts us up to 31. And at that point, before p.b.o. And bill and leroy and I got together, we went ahead and said, okay, go ahead for the full 42 because they think they can do it. We know we have 11 in hand as we speak. There are 10 expected as of next week. For a total of 21. Then h.r., I believe they had have at least another 10 by tend of August which is how we arrived at the number and how we agreed on the dollars that we thought we could support.
>> let me ask a question a slightly different way. Are you going to wait until the end of August to try and get more people in or would you not want to think about a strategy and say you are going to have 21, get those 21 going and let's fill up a second class that might have a slightly staggered start, maybe a week or two behind. It seems counseleder productive when you've got 21 bodies ready to rock and roll, get them moving as opposed to do you want to try to fill it up more and waste a week or two or until the end of August. Four weeks, like get these other guys out the gate and then we can still bring it back up when you guys are ready to talk about more people.
>> we can do it however you all want to do it.
>> judge, that issue on the training --
>> let's let Commissioner Davis have his say. He's been jumping in. Then you.
>> thank you, judge. I guess I’m trying to look at what you are suggesting as far as the training mechanism, the time lines on that, what you have geared as far as your correction officers or basic recruitment initiative there, academy that you have going there. There is a time line when you said you would like to get that started. Then you look at the other deal where you have your training, other aspect of the f.t.e., which is another aspect of that. And I’m trying to see how we can migrate those persons that you hire into these situations that you already have geared up. Now, since that is something that you have said that you can do in a time frame, I guess November or whenever it is when all this is supposed to come to fruition and conclusion. My question is can any of those dates be staggered or do you have to have the full class starting in September, a full class finishing when they are supposed to finish to have these 42 f.t.e.s ready to start the process?
>> well, I think that was what major sylvester was about to speak on. He's been working on that.
>> what I’m hearing is that yes, we need 42 f.t.e.s, but how will we migrate these after you screened and whatever you do, how can we get these into that mechanism that you already got set up to ensure that the proper training is rendered to these correction officers that we're trying to get employed. So somebody give me a little better feel for what we're talking about even with what the judge has suggested, infiltrate that also in the discussion and what Commissioner Sonleitner is saying because what I’m trying to do, I’m trying to get to the whole number and especially h.r. Has said, hey, you're up to 31 now, we're talking 42 so we're short about 11 folks. I’m just trying to get that piece together so can you help me out.
>> yes, sir. Major sylvester is about to speak to that.
>> I’ve already worked the arrangements out with the academy staff. We have one class supposed to start in early September for officers already online that are bumped up against the one-year deadline for training. We have another class starting in October 24th that has officers assigned to that that are also bumped against a deadline for one year to have training out of the way. We've integrated a schedule and put into place to stagger acad knees to accommodate any new hires. We can go as early as last week in August, last week of this month, first week in September start an alternate class with these 20 people waiting. We've got the instructors, the curriculum, we're just waiting on Commissioners court approval for the funds to start moving ahead with the new hires.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> …to is certain extent you are correct, however, actually what occurs during this interim is that the people who are avoiding overtime are now going to be trained, so there is a bit of an impact. They believe they can manage this and we do too. Within the expected overtures that we've been working with in the sheriff's office for the last year, last month or so.
>> but we can expect to keep spending overtime?
>> absolutely. Absolutely.
>> but not at the level.
>> no, that is incorrect. We will probably spend slightly more overtime.
>> that's a different thing if that's what you're saying.
>> only until the class is complete.
>> there's an overlap.
>> if it's complete we have additional people coming online that we're paying at straight time rather than time and a half. So the sooner we hire those people and they come online, the sooner we break out of the overtime cycle.
>> but the number of inmates typically starts going down in October and November.
>> that's correct.
>> there are a lot of other factors that we've got to consider here. We've got to factor in during the budget counselors and mental health need and the sheriff's office too and the jail. It ain't like the pie keeps growing because the need does. The pie remains the same size, right. And what we have to do, I think, is put all those needs out there and deal with them as best we can. This is a priority, though. But if you spend all the money here, then there's nothing left for the other needs here, even if they're not in a preliminary budget. So the other thing is that there are other issues for other departments. They have to wait for the budget provides to deal with. I’m thinking that a 21 person head start is good enough, and we have to start applying the pressure not only to get the numbers down in October, November, December because they go down historically anyway, but to get them down dramatically to get ourselves breathing room and put in place other proms and services that we think may produce a better result next summer. So I’m trying to deal with this urgent need, but at the same time be visionary and hopeful and optimistic also.
>> and we've got 21 people ready to rock-n-roll. Go. And we have a long list of budget hearings and y'all kind of are finishing act. And we will know on Friday the 19th everything in terms of the needs and priorities and desires, etcetera, of the sheriff's office and we will also know where everybody else is at. So I feel comfortable, you've got 21, get them out the door. In 17 days we will be there in terms of being able to make some appropriate decisions and markup is like a week away after that. We've got to get there, y'all. We're going to get there.
>> I respect your motion and it is a good start; however, I’m looking at the way I’m trying to get this thing is seven weeks are gone. It's still going to take the same amount of time whether you bring all those people who started on the same time or how you stagger them in. Seven weeks is going to take to get these corrections officers. In the meantime, if we do not get the 42 in place it is going to take that time. It appears that there are slots available and I think they will have more latitude. And I’m still hearing 31. So I feel that 11 more slots or 11 more positions can be addressed, so I’m still supporting the 42. I wish we could get the 42 right off the top, but it's the will of the court that decides these things. So it's not that I’m not supporting what you're saying, if that's what it boils down to I will support that, but I’d like to make a substitute motion and start with the 42 corrections officers right now for the sheriff to start looking at and start filling these slots. That would be my substitute.
>> is there a second to the substitute motion?
>> I’ll second it.
>> is there a discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion signify by raising your right hand? Commissioners Daugherty and Davis. Those who are disbens? Commission -- against? Commissioner Sonleitner and judge Biscoe. We're back to the original motion of 21 people. Any more discussion? All in favor of that motion? Show Commissioner -- show an noose yas stick and unanimous that's yas stick and unanimous vote.
>> appreciate it.
>> judge, with that motion, is it possible that the sheriff's office can let us know exactly where they are in the process as far as the numbers are concerned. Because if they come here two weeks from now and say, hey, we've got 42 folks out here that really are ready to rock-n-roll and fill these slots, the corrections office says if that's the case, then we need to release things at a time. If this is what we were talking about at this time, this would what I would like to look at.
>> you know you keep talking about the seven week cobra class, but then it's also four more weeks of ftl training.
>> yeah. Believe me, I hadn't forgotten that.
>> why don't we do this then, three weeks from today have this back on the court's agenda as well as an overtime report showing what we spent between now and three weeks.
>> can we make it --
>> this bill may be able to generate that for us.
>> we can do it as you wish.
>> and phil is not in pbo, who stands in for it? Travis County.
>> and in three weeks we will also have completed all of our budget hearings and we will have completed our session with the sheriff, so that would be an appropriate time to come on back because we may need to move quicker.
>> that's even better, Commissioner Davis.
>> I will be back by the 19th.
>> david, let me ask you, you just said something about 70 that we said. Why is it that -- didn't we okay 100?
>> (indiscernible).
>> lord, no, please, Commissioner. No, no.
>> I know there was 100.
>> we haven't been able to identify 100 that we believe are appropriate to send down there to minimize our problems. I’ll give you an example, the other day we had an additional 30 and almost one of them got kicked back by medical because we don't want to send people that have severe medical problems. And so it's just real difficult finding what we believe -- meeting our own criteria. Frio is is very meaningful. They're willing to take just anybody that we want to send them, but we're being real careful in who we select. So we're up to about 70. We are trying to identify some more so we can get to the 100, but we're not there yet, Commissioner. We're being very selective.
>> so you ted they'll take anybody.
>> that's correct, but I’m not comfortable with sending them just anybody. You're not? Why wouldn't I want to send somebody that's going to need some medical need?
>> because we pay for the medical.
>> oh, we pay for it?
>> it's not included. [ laughter ]
>> I want to see those records.
>> nice try. [ laughter ]
>> there's other issues I can talk to you in private about.
>> I’m still learning from that. I figured out 100.
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:
Wednesday, August 2, 2005 10:01 AM