Travis County Commissioners Court
July 11, 2006
Item 16
Number 16 is to consider and take appropriate action on the interlocal agreement with the city of Austin for operation of the Travis County central booking facility.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. I'm carol colburn, interim criminal justice coordinator. And here with me today is mike trimble, consultant to the county on the negotiations with the central booking interlocal or with the city of Austin. And mike is going to give the court a status report on the interlocal revision.
>> mike trimble, ntg management consultant. Adds you recall in April we had presented a report to the Commissioners court on recommendations for changes to the central booking interlocal agreement, working it out with the city of Austin. Since that time we have met again with the city of Austin on several occasions to actually try to develop the provisions for a draft interlocal agreement, and in your backup materials I think you have a copy of that draft agreement. And I'll go through some of the key changes that are in that. First off, based on the recommendations that were made to you back in April, some of the key changes that were made were implementing a cost model, and that's included in your central booking agreement as exhibit a, and that outlines the cost model basically as we had described it previously starting with the direct budget cost for the central booking facility making an adjustment for city costs for magistration, identification services, getting to an adjusted cost, then having a multiplier which is based upon the percentage of city bookings for the prior year, actual data, which gets us to the amount to be paid. Also included, I'll go over some of the provisions that are included in the exhibit in a little bit as far as some of the other changes that were made. But that's one of the additions to the key interlocal agreement. Some of the provisions around the cost model was that the city and county will share budgeted cost data by may 15th of the existing year. Reimbursement is based upon projected costs as of July first so we can have that information available for certification of revenue mainly to hit that time line. Any increases above five percent for either city or county are subject to negotiation. In other words, if we see increasing costs on our side and we need to go back to the table to talk about those and likewise from their side we have the ability to do that under this agreement. And if we are unable to reach agreement on that, the increase would be five percent after the next year. Also the coordinating committee has been added to the interlocal agreement, which would provide a committee made up of all the city and county stakeholder departments and entities that are involved in central booking operations and they would actually oversee the operations, meet monthly to discuss any issues on coordination or operations and make recommendations to the Commissioners court and city council for any changes that need to be made or improvements that need to be made within the processes that are governed by the interlocal agreement. There also is performance data that is added to the interlocal agreement under exhibit b that's in your backup materials and that outlines some of the data that was identified in our recommendations in April. And as part of that, really the initiative here is that we need to start getting in the habit of gathering some of this information that has not been shared on a regular basis. Once we do that in the first year, the coordinating committee would review that data and then determine if any additional performance targets can be made. As you can note in the exhibit, one performance target does exist for the positive identification turnaround time from the city of Austin to Travis County starting with two hours in the first term, one and a half hours in the first renewal term and then two hours subsequently. I'm sorry, one hour subsequently.
>> we also have the creation of an intake control officer post. This is a post that would be created in the sheriff's office for the purpose of supervising prisoners during property search and inventory. This also is part of the reimbursement that the city would make to us, and there would be a direct reimbursement of 25%, in addition to this being included in the direct budgeted costs in the central booking interlocal -- central booking costs in the sheriff's office. And that's part of the provisions that you'll note in exhibit a. Magistration courtroom activities will be given priority and the city will seek to implement standardized procedures for conducting magistrate procedures for consistency in the process between the city and county between magistration and the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office may relief a.p.d. Officers if prisoners are being held at the hospital, but this does not shift any of the medical responsibility or cost responsibility to the county. And this is something that was presented previously that we were working on. This did get worked out to where it was determined that the sheriff's office could assign somebody without relinquishing the liability for medical costs.
>> will to may.
>> it's may. If it works based on availability of resources and based on what the city is requesting, the sheriff has the option to assign somebody.
>> okay.
>> the sheriff's office need not take fingerprint information or photographs from the arrested persons. City and county will jointly plan and fund any future space modifications for the central booking facility, and that's an enhancement to the language there for space.
>> michael, very quickly going back to the one previously related to the mug shots, did we get into -- is it within the last year or within that calendar year because it was the kind of thing of we wanted to try to avoid if possible that somebody would have to do the quick math of, oh, is this nine months as opposed to if it happened within that same calendar year it would be very easy to know that something was relevant or out of data or whatever.
>> and based on -- and we looked at that. And based on discussion with the county attorney's office, we determined that leaving it kind of open to having the prior year -- the flexibility for the sheriff's office to review how recent they have that information on file, so, for example, if they have information on file that was taken in December and then it's January, well, they have pretty recent information, so it was determined that to have the flexibility determined if they do have actual recent information or not, it wouldn't be too much to make that calculation, they would be able to tell pretty readily and it gives them the flexibility.
>> okay.
>> the county will have discretion to obtain its own mugshot system as long as it is compatible with the city information systems as well. And some of the other provisions that were developed in our continuing discussions with the city as we were trying to work out some of the provisions are the following: the interlocal has an initial tirm for fy '07 and it will have four renewal terms equating to a five-year agreement for the interlocal. Magistration services are to be provided on a 24-hour, seven-day basis. And the city budget costs have been adjusted to allow for additional judges and clerk staff needed to operate on this schedule, and that is included in the budgeted costs that you have from the city, and I actually have some updated information I'll provide you in a minute. At this time no increase in county costs are anticipated related to the 24/7 magistration initiative; however, I footnote that because I have had some discussions with pretrial services and cscd and they just want to make sure that we'll be monitoring this over the first year to see if in fact any additional resources are needed. And I'll mention more about that as an action item that we need to follow up on. The cost model, if you'll notice in exhibit a as well, has language regarding the cost of pretrial services. What it includes is outside of the cost molds itself since pretrial services aren't included in the cost model. They would be phased in at the reimbursed cost at 10 percent spoke the first period, 20 percent for the second, 30 percent for the third and 50% for the fourth. That's because the presiel trial services in central booking are premagistration and some are post magistration, so we felt we were just in going for 50% of the costs going back to the city, but probably not much more than that. And there's a limit on that based on discussions with the city is that 50% plus 10% of any additional increase in costs of pretrial services under the terms of the agreement.
>> help me understand the one line there. It says 50% of fy 2007 costs. Why would we lk in to something four years from now and costs that are four years old. Wouldn't it be 50% of that fiscal year's costs?
>> this is a provision that the city had requested just to I guess protect themselves from a massive increase in the pretrial costs. We figured 10% was reasonable to set as a ceiling. One of the things -- I know this concern had been raised initially with our team as well -- is that based on the provisions that any substantial increase in costs can be subject to negotiation. We have a provision for that as well. This would be part of that negotiation process if we really do see substantial increase in costs that would make that 10% perhaps -- that we've gone past that.
>> were there any other levels of personnel costs that somebody decided to freeze at some moment in time. That's where we wind up having troubles the first time the central booking thing was done is that the city was allowed to go ahead and give their Austin police officers raises, but they were not appreciative of the fact that similar raises were being given to our Travis County sheriff's officers. And there was a disconnect when all of a sudden the numbers -- they were like wanting to be setting their costs to some moment frozen in time that didn't exist. So why would we on one particular set of employees cap at a frozen moment in time that will only be at that particular moment in time and not do it for other persons? I'm just wondering why that particular exception in terms of we're uncomfortable with costs. Well, welcome to life. We're all uncomfortable with all of these costs. It doesn't seem likely that we would freeze something of ours that we know health insurance costs will go up. Probably there's your 10% right there over a four-year period.
>> right. Because of our negotiations -- and I'll tell you some of the background on that. This cost for pretrial services was put on the table pretty late in the game, so part of working this out with the city was to try to kind of have a no surprises approach with them to say that, yes -- and they have conceded the fact that these are reasonable costs that need to be included in there even though they were put on in the fourth quarter so to speak as far as our negotiations go. And this was part of that negotiations that we understand these are reasonable costs, but we would like to just have some type of anticipation of what those costs are going to be. So they put that out as a proposal. So initially we said that sounded reasonable. However, we can always go back and explore that with them. One of the things that I will note is that it's going to be a couple of weeks before the city can actually go to the council for presentation of the interlocal on their side. We do have time before then.
>> they don't meet until the 27th. I don't understand why for only one particular set of employees when we've already got them on board to say first year there's zero reimbursement, and to do a very modest phasing it in, that is really where the allowance is being given is on the faces-in. We're not asking for 50% up front. You get five years before we're even at 50%. So it just seems unusual that we would cap something out there when I can tell you just on health insurance costs it will go up a certain amount next year and guaranteed times five, five years. That doesn't make any sense. Because we're not talking about freezing any of the lieutenant's costs, we're not talking about freezing the cost of a judge. We ought to not go there for any particular set so that it doesn't come up that there's some segment of the cost that's being treated any differently. It ought to be out there that it's current costs and then you don't get people going, what happened back in 2007? Why that particular year that it got frozen in time? Frozen in time doesn't work.
>> Karen, I agree, but here is what has happened and exactly what michael said. Why pretrial costs were not part of the central booking is a lot of people looking at everybody going, why wasn't that in there? And obviously -- and I don't know, maybe the city didn't even realize it. If you're not in that central booking business, even though they have -- they're pretty sharp over there. They were going the other way, I guarantee you they would have picked it up. But given where we've gotten this thing to at this stage and that 24/7 was such a big part of the need that we had, I think michael has felt that you've got to -- let's face it. Like it or not, you've got to kind of drag them along and get them to a point where you think that you can negotiate with them. Now, the one thing that I'm surprised at here, michael, is the way this thing reads, it doesn't show that this is 10 percent the first year and then the next year it's 20% on top of the 10% because eventually what we're trying to do is get some sort -- I'm looking for some sort of a percentage, a multiplier, whatever that multiplier is that the city picks up percentagewise out of what it costs to run a central booking system. And maybe that's -- maybe that is 50% at that time. I do think that it's something that we need to be very careful with and I'll agree with Karen, to lock in the 2007 versus making it commiserate with whatever it is at the time, because we're looking at what 2011 or whatever, and I think that it ought to be that percentage of whatever it is that year because otherwise this thing will be eaten up. Let's put it this way, if the city were writing this, the city would probably write it that way, and it's not something that I would argue against because it is fair. And I think that we need to go back and say, high, guys, we're willing to let you phase this thing in and we understand that it kind of came late in the game. But come on. In 2011 when we're looking to ratchet up your percentage of what the cost really is, let's wait and see what the cost is in 2011.
>> I'm fine with it nothing for the first year, 10, 20, 30, 50, it takes five years to ratchet is in, but it's that last sentence that they are capped at 50% of '07 plus 10%. If we have bad things happen on health insurance, that could happen in the second renewal period. And we think we're going to get 50%? No.
>> why don't we drop that 50% of the yearly cost. -- to 50% of the yearly cost. And to our understanding is that '07 is the first year. But the first renewal period is '08, right? So instead of first renewal period, what if we say 10% of the costs for fy '08. Then fy 09 and then 2010 and 11. And after that you're concluding sentence is that picks up 50%. So this would be consistent with everything. I don't know that I ever -- that we ever thought we would lock in at the 2007 costs because we're moving backwards. We would be sitting there in 2011 or 2012 looking back at 2007.
>> it doesn't make sense.
>> let's run that at them. And I would put the fiscal years in there instead of --
>> it sounds like if we get rid of the not to exceed number, that gets us to where we need to be, paying 50% of the amount for that year, paying 30% of the amount for that third renewal. That's where we're headed on this.
>> and that's practical asking.
>> just one other quick little one going right up above it. Help me understand the precision of language under city budgeted costs. This is under the 24/7 magistration. City budgeted costs have been adjusted to allow for additional judges and staff. Activation of this provision is contingent upon availability of funds. What does that mean?
>> actually, I'm glad you brought that up because those provisions are not going to be in the revised draft that you're going to be getting. What had happened on that was, just to let you know, is there was some discussion about concern that we don't have any budget to prove yet, but the point was made from our attorney's side is that, yeah, there hasn't been a budget approved for anything. So we really don't need that language to specify for any specific provisions. So those actual pieces of language have been removed.
>> it was beginning to sound like we were going to have 24/7 magistration and the county had to do this piece and the city could have a funding out clause and we'd still be at 24/7 magistration.
>> it was like this is causing more questions than answers, so it will be removed. Okay. So magistration services will be provided on 24/7 basis. We do have language that we will be monitoring the performance of this. We're going to street it as a pilot program basically under the provision, and that the coordinating committee would review this and make any recommendations based on the 24/7 initiative to Commissioners court and city council at the end of the first term. Again, no increase in county costs other than what I noted was indicated by pretrial. County to hold down -- to hold arrestees for transfer -- arrestees for transfer to court during the week when dac court operates. That refers to during the business week. As you know, that court operates on a Monday through Friday basis. What we've done is we've added language that says sheriff's office has agreed to hold over those folks for transfer to the dac court during the business week. On the weekend those folks will be released to appear in dac court. And the city also assumes any liability with this process of holding folks over and transferring them to dac court.
>> yes. If you changed that language -- if you basically say that we will hold them -- if you just simply say when dac court operates, therefore if some future decision is made that they're going to operate on the weekends, you don't have to have a change in the interlocal because it already addresses it. It just says that the sheriff's office will transfer them when the dac court is operating.
>> but we'd rather doing it during the week, wouldn't we? We do it five days a week. If we do it seven, that's providing additional services.
>> it's getting them out of there.
>> to the dac court.
>> on the rta's they get released.
>> they will be released to the dac court during the week. On the weekend they will readback rehe leased, won't they?
>> if the dac isn't in operation, then the rta, released to appear, is normally handled.
>> they would be released and told show up Monday morning at the dac court. What I'm saying is to hold and transfer is a two-step -- two steps of work. To release is one. So during the week we're holding them and I guess when the dac gets ready, we're transferring them over there.
>> they come pick them up. City marshals come pick them up. This is not any work on our behalf whavment this says is if they do decide to meet during the weekend, we don't have to have a change in the sprol because we only talk about what we do during Monday through Friday and we don't address Saturday, Sunday.
>> there will be changes made in the interlocal by them and by us. And we need to hold something back. To be fair, we need to anticipate they may request some additional things in the future. We may want some additional things too. I'd rather leave that at five days.
>> we have language in there that says -- they're basically saying that we're going to try to look at the way we operate our dac court system. One of the issues is we get people 24/7. They operate business hours basically during the week. That's why we have the time if we get somebody in Friday morning one a.m., okay, we'll hold those folks over because your marshals are going to come in the morning and pick those folks up. We get somebody Friday afternoon we're not going to see another city marshal to pick them up until Monday. That's why we have the times in there to say this is reasonable, this is not as far as kind of holding folks over for a substantial amount of time.
>> so they have the dac court staffed at a level to ensure operations five days a week, even if one person is on vacation or sick? Is there more than one person operating the dac court?
>> well, they have the dac court judge and then they have the court administrator, basically the person who overzs the court and then they have additional dac staff.
>> if they're on vacation a week, somebody else comes in and the court keeps operating?
>> that's a good question. From what I understand now is they operate now during the week, Monday through Friday.
>> we assume that that happens. We haven't been told that, hey, guess what, dac is not operating this week. We haven't heard that, have we?
>> what I know is people get sick, they take vacations, and normally there's a relief factor I guess which explains why we had multiple judges at different levels. My only question was about to be what happens if we get notice on Tuesday that in fact the dac court will not operate Wednesday, Thursday, Friday because the judge is at training. So what do we do? Do we release these individuals during that time or do we treat it like the weekend. Is that in the agreement?
>> I understand where you're going with that.
>> that's why we will hold them over for transfer when they are operating, whether that is during the week or a weekend. It doesn't make any difference. It speaks to the holdover for transfer occurs when they are operating. When they're not they get the rta. What we really want them to understand is if there's any kink that they have with regards to being able to receive their folks that we are rta ago them.
>> we're not holding them over.
>> is this our language or theirs?
>> this is both our language. This is just something we discussed. One thing I do need to make note of is there is also language in there that may cover this, which is the sheriff's office does retain the ability, the discretion to manage their population, which means that if they need to release folks they do. So under that provision, if that court is closed and they're not going to pick people up, the sheriff's office has discretion to not pick people up that we say we're going to hold folks. What is expected today from us?
>> today I think just to receive the changes that have been made to the interlocal agreement. There are going to be a couple of outstanding items that we need to get done. And then we need to talk about the next steps.
>> well, let's ask them. Let's ask them then. Part of the court, excluding the county judge, wants to know if you will provide the service Saturday and Sunday if the court is operating. If they want it in the contract, it doesn't bother me to put it in. Next?
>> okay. Now with regards to fiscal impact. Now I will give you some revised cost numbers I apologize they did not make it into your backup, but the numbers were updated recently. They reflect the most recent numbers we've gotten from the city of Austin and the county budget. And compared to the numbers that you had gotten before, you'll see some slight increases in the budget costs for central booking magistration. The magistrate support and planning and analysis. We also had a 30,000-dollar increase in our preliminary budget for the central booking costs, and all that basically results in that we had mentioned in the backup materials that the reimbursement amount would be 4,582,673, which would be 172,000 above what we had received for fy '06. That changes to 4,589,912, which is a 179,000-dollar increase over what we received in fy '06. So a slight change in what we saw before.
>> michael, this morning the Commissioners court approved the actual costs related to health insurance. Do we have those numbers figured? In you have a line here, 2 gift thousand for wage and benefit increases outside of pops.
>> I'll defer to bill.
>> the county is paying a whole lot more for health insurance.
>> I'm not sure that I can answer that question. Let me just do a quick test. If you want I can do it in the next few minutes and then come back. I'm sure it's more than adequate. I would think so. Because the budget --
>> we don't have to do the calculation right now.
>> I can rough it real quickly here.
>> yes, it should be more than adequate because just the civilian portion of it would be in about a quarter of that number. But I will verify it.
>> thank you.
>> so basically the request is that we do a tentative approval of this, then you meet with the city, at least one more time to discuss these changes.
>> those would be the next steps. And a couple of the other items that have been brought up to bring in front of the city, just so you're aware of them, is the pretrial services, I can mentioned that they were concerned about some of the impacts of doing 24/7 magistration and they were looking to have possible language change in the interlocal agreement with regards to reviewing the 27/7 magistration and then considering any additional resources, and sheriff's office also had a change that they were looking at with regards to the intake control officer, some clarification on the responsibility of the officers to remain with prisoners. And so I think we wanted to present those as well to the city as we take all of this, talk with the city and see if we can work out what the language is and bring it back to the court for final approval.
>> you'll let us know when you think it's ready for final approval?
>> I may. My contract's up, so that may be --
>> ms. Colburn will?
>> yeah.
>> does the city council have to approve this or the city manager?
>> I believe the city manager, yeah.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] detailed kind of a way. If nothing else, the 24 7 that we have gotten the city to do is a big step at least from central bookinging, moving in the right direction. I appreciate it.
>> my pleasure. If I can be of additional service, I would love to do it.
>> thanks, michael.
>> 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:
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:47 AM