Travis County Commissioners Court
August 12, 2008
Item 10
10 is consider and take appropriate action on request to increase the hourly contribution by the Travis County sheriff and constables.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. In late July the efficiency committee came to the court with some recommendations. One of them was to increase the off duty officers' hourly rate for the vehicles from 15 to $20 an hour. At that time I neglected to get court action on that and so we're just here today to ask for court direction on that.
>> well, the first question would be is five dollars enough. And if five dollars -- I mean I guess we've got some folks that might be able to address that, but pretty amazing you could have any pushback from us for five dollars, but where we are with budget is that would we lose business? I'd like to see what the true cost to the county of using a county vehicle. And if five dollars is right, well then so be it. But if five dollars is not enough, I would like to know that.
>> with that, I guess if you -- if you are looking for maybe getting additional money depending on the breakdown which you are suggesting, let me ask this question, let's say that there's a construction situation out there on the road. Or the vehicle can be used maybe at a retail center or whatever. The user, the person that the -- the vendor, the people that are actually hiring the services of this off duty -- well, on duty parole person, but the unit itself, have they been actually -- anybody ever talked to them and said, hey, there would be an increase? They are the ones that have to pay the increase, is that correct?
>> yes.
>> whether it's txdot or whether it's whoever, they will have to pay the increase.
>> right.
>> since you asked that question, Commissioner, I have no problem with that, but as far as getting that cost from these persons that are actually doing like a txdot and stuff like that, have they been canvassed enough to see if we could -- you know, if you wanted additional money out of that, just see what the breakdown is, there may be a need to add more or leave as it. I don't know because I don't know what these persons out there, as of txdot, those merchants or whoever is using the services of that person, they are also using a vehicle. What would that really be? And I guess I need to hear from somebody just as you, but --
>> stacy has a different perspective. Chief deputy, precinct 3.
>> hello, how are you doing?
>> I guess what other point we ought to get clarified is that based on that a.g. Opinion, this court cannot require a certain amount, but the peace officers can agree to make a contribution?
>> it's not the peace officers, it's the -- at this time merchants or the agencies, contributors, the folks who -- contractors, the folks who secure is services of these off duty peace officers and their vehicles in connection with their projects, whatever those are.
>> let me attempt to answer Commissioner Davis' question about the road projects. Or pardon me.
>> I'll get back to that legal question because -- I'll get back to that.
>> I'm sorry, sir.
>> go ahead.
>> the -- txdot has safety officers or personnel on each of these job sites. They determine the number of units that's being requested of off-duty peace officers to control traffic and block off ramps on these job sites. The contractors are required by txdot to have the peace officers out there so it's not -- you know, you think, well, they are working for private sector. Really in a roundabout way they are working for and paid for the guys of txdot. And it's a public safety issue. The -- the bulk of the major toll road projects have been done in the urban area have been completed, the number of jobs being done right now because of the high price of -- obviously asphalt and diesel have skyrocketed so txdot is scaling back to just must-do projects at the current level. We feel that it's best just to stay the course right now at $15 an hour. H. A.p.d. Is talking about going from six to ten. Williamson county is at 12 as of yesterday they are sticking at 12, considering maybe going to 15 because we're already at 15. The bottom line is on these construction jobs, which are pure public safety issues, done under the guise of txdot, is it's $4 an hour an item a car. You know, at $4 a gallon. Most of these cars are not moving very much. On the flip side, with what our off-duty subdivision patrols, again, that's a public safety issue, in response to these communities and m.u.d.s that hire us to do these patrols, and the sheriff is not having to send an officer into those subdivisions when our deputies are there, they are there to respond to calls on silent alarms and stuff, they are writing traffic tickets and doing traffic enforcement which results in some revenue to both the state and county.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> the 15-dollar rate was adequate to cover the fuel and maintenance costs associated with that vehicle. Now, have we run the numbers to verify that? No, we have not. But based on the information that we have in our discussions in the efficiency committee with the sheriff's office folks, they've told us that it is more than enough. And again this increased rate is a result of those discussions during the committee meetings. The auditor provided some information yesterday that the revenue for 2008 is down compared to previous years, and I think that's arlt of some of these contracts being completed or being cancelled through or some of the other. But the revenue according to the auditor's office is down for 2008. I provided in the backup some information and I specifically only used the sheriff's revenue, not the constables in hopes of taking kind of a conservative approach of what the revenue is currently forecasted to be and then any additional revenue that might be generated only related to the sheriff's office.
>> let me say that the five dollar increase would generate for the sheriff's office?
>> for the sheriff's office only, anticipating -- and these are just numbers that I ran real enough numbers, approximately an increase of $70,000 a year for the sheriff's office and that again does not include the constables.
>> and just to clarify that when you say it's a donation line item, it's because it is charged to the entity that is renting the security services. Tso collects it and then donates it to the general fund. It's not a donation per se, it just sounds like one because he's very cooperatively transferring it. Is that correct?
>> there are some legal issues -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. There are some legal issues and there was an ag opinion. It was on facts different than the kind of situations that we're talking about, but I would suggest that if we're going to go into those legal issues that we do that in executive session.
>> let's say the court requests a certain contribution, but some of the elected officials believe the new request should be followed. Some believe if they're in an effort to maximize revenue generated, they should stay at the current rate. Do those elected officials have that authority? That is an executive session question also.
>> I think that would be an executive session question also, June.
>> thanks for that question, judge. That's another good one.
>> I can wait. 10 years ago I was impatient. Today I can wait. Any other questions of mr. Roaz? Then why don't we plan to take this item up in executive session under consultation with legal counsel, which will be this afternoon, I'm sure, and then when we come out of executive session, we'll take any appropriate action.
>> thank you.
>> no, 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, August 12, 2008 1:37 PM