Travis County Commissioners Court
September 22, 2009,
Item 29
>> item 29, consider ab take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
>> judge, I believe regard being the budget amendments, the discussion item in particular d-1 and d-2, were there anything -- any questions regarding the amendments and transfers other than that discussion item.
>> move that we approve t-1, 2 and 3.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now, the discussion items really involve the constable precinct 3 and after a conversation with chief deputy constable suits yesterday, that $30,000 at one time represented six.
and if precinct 3 requests today is for three cameras the same as the county sheriff has.
but those will cost more than 15,000.
they would be more in the 17,500 range, right?
>>
>> [inaudible] yes, sir.
17-5.
>> before there was some question about what kind of camera to use and I understand the affected parties would have a meeting and at the end of the meeting I guess consensus was reached for the county to -- county-wide, purchase the same camera system in the future.
and so precinct 3 is seeing that instead of six we really need three of these immediately.
and getting the same cameras that the sheriff has is okay.
don't let me put words in your mouth.
i'm trying to repeat what I think I heard you say.
>> yes, sir.
>> ms.
grimes.
>> I was just here to answer any questions.
>> so -- so the question really is what difference would getting these today make to you?
>> as opposed to maybe later.
these have to be ordered, I best one thing.
>> yes, sir.
>> and delivery takes how long?
>> I talked to lieutenant mills yesterday.
they have an order of 72 or 120 cameras out?
>> 72.
>> lieutenant mills with the sheriff's department?
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> and we have two cars that were in the process of -- we're in the process of outfitting right now out at east satellite and another one that's still on the dealer.
but that -- we could go ahead and order and they would give -- loan us three until our came in so we could go ahead and outfit our cars and get them on the road in this next month.
>> go ahead, judge.
>> go ahead.
>> I guess would this be -- since we are looking at the complete array, let's look at the total picture, the total amount of cameras that we're looking for whereby it be the constable or whereby it be the sheriff, we're basically talking about standardizing and centralizing instead of piecemealing with all the different sorts of cameras this particular law enforcement situation has one set of cameras opposed to some other law enforcement with the county has something that's not the same or similar.
would -- and I understand what the request
>> [indiscernible] is to bring in, under d-2 look at three cameras instead of the six we were originally looking at, however, the same type of cameras the sheriff would be looking at as far as their particular vehicles.
the question then becomes then you are saying you need this expeditiously, the court -- in an expeditious manner, dealing with the vendor, would -- is the vendor willing -- how would that work on a separate order that would come up under the total order of the number of cameras that the county is basically trying to fulfill law enforcement's need?
>> we've already ordered the 72 for the sheriff's office so they are on order and should be delivered in the next couple of weeks, and then they have to go to the process of going to the radio shop and being installed.
>> next two weeks?
>> I would say next two, four weeks though should be coming in.
these new ones for the constable, we'll go ahead and order those, but the sheriff has agreed to go ahead because they have new vehicles waiting right now, of course, sheriff does too, but they are willing to let them have the first three come in so they can get them up and running.
>> okay.
>> we had a meeting, it's probably been two weeks ago with all of us talking about compatibility issues and trying to get us all on the same equipment, not only from just a contract management and infrastructure mechanism, but just so that everybody has the same system and if they did need to interchange, it would be much more easy, and in the long run it would cost us less.
one thing that's -- the cameras, these cameras that we're buying now have a five-year warranty as opposed to the other six, they only had like a two-year warranty.
so there is some more value that we're getting.
we're getting a three year longer warranty on this equipment so that's valuable to us.
>> so -- so the total amount of cameras being ordered -- will be ordered is now 75.
>> we've already ordered the 72 so they are ordered.
>> well, I'm just saying with the inclusion.
>> we're going to order three more.
>> with the inclusion of these, the add-ons --
>> and my staff just told me precinct 2 is looking for a replacement and we need to have a conversation with them about getting on board with the new panasonics.
we can't just change everything out at once, we don't have the funding and some of them are still working, but we're moving towards that.
>> I understand that.
and my final question is this.
since these cameras have to be installed, and, of course, i.t.s.
probably having to be the overseer as far as the technical aspect of them, will they be ready for the operational part of what they need to do when the cameras come in, if they are coming in within two weeks?
in other words, is everybody ready to get rolling with this?
>> yes, sir.
>> the goal, Commissioner, judge, the goal was to try to have a discussion regarding county-wide standardization of equipment.
>> right.
i understand.
>> and as cyd pointed out from a maintenance standpoint, from a maintenance agreement standpoint, it reduces the number of maintenance agreements.
it allows for greater flexibility should a camera go down to switch them out and to get those units back on the street as quickly as possible.
so standardization across the county is really the goal and I think everyone was in agreement that that made sense.
there is a question regarding the cameras.
because of the standard packages that are purchased with the constables' vehicles, cameras are not included in that standard package, and so if there is a policy decision to include cameras as a part of that standard package, then what we would have to do is go back, number one, and adjust the fiscal 10 vehicle purchases accordingly as far as the price is concerned.
but then we would also have to begin the process of changing these other cameras out such as the one in constable 2.
so it really is a policy question for the Commissioners court regarding your desire to have that a part of the standard package that is typically included.
and so just throw that out to you as a part of the discussion, that it is a policy issue.
>> well, even within that policy, though, even if the court would determine a new direction as far as a policy, standardizing the one thing, however, switching out for a whole package deal of cameras coming -- or being part of the package where we get new vehicles in here is totally something else.
and, of course, there is a cost associated with that, with that new policy, if that was what the court was willing to do.
so there's a cost association with that.
i don't right now know what that is, that cost would be, in fact, but I do know we need to basically look at standardizing so we wouldn't have bits and pieces scattered all over the place as far as making purchases of equipment such as cameras.
>> well, we've identified $30,000 in the precinct 3 salary savings budget.
is what the backup says, right?
>> correct.
>> now, if we -- we are not posted for the policy issue.
>> no.
>> however, if we approve this, we have added three cameras to precinct 3's vehicles.
>> right.
>> now, I personally believe that based on what's happened during the last, I guess 18, 24 months, if you are out there doing law enforcement-type work, you are better with a camera in your car.
if you are going to have it on.
there's a long and short of it.
but I agree that that is a question, but we do have some cameras in vehicles already.
>> yes, sir, and these -- these three particular cameras would replace three vhs cameras that we got in 2003 on a grant.
what we're trying to do -- what we're trying to avoid here is putting six-year-old cameras that are at the end of their life span into 2009 cars that right now the way the vehicle replacement policy is, we're expected to drive them eight years.
>> my own view is that just because you have a vehicle, that camera ought to be in there.
but if you have a vehicle and you are out during the day driving around either serving civil papers or criminal warrants or doing traffic, other things that may cause you to need a camera, then those vehicles ought to have a camera in them.
and so at some point when we address the policy, we really ought to land on specific -- specifically how we implement it.
and that would be what I would urge.
so if you are a supervisor not in the field doing field work, I'm not sure that I agree you ought to have a camera.
but if you are a supervisor and you are doing the field-type work too, then the camera ought to be in the vehicle.
>> and judge, just kind of recalling my days at constable, when you are a peace officer and you come across some kind of situation that needs attention, you are -- you are obligated to stop and try to take care of that situation.
now, even in the civil area when you have evictions, those can get volatile.
and I would think that if you have these cameras, you are going have them on.
and so it doesn't have to be a criminal situation, it can be a civil.
and people's emotions get really over the top.
and so those need to be done very carefully as well.
i think it just kind of makes sense -- they've made the effort to find the money in their own budget to do this, and so I think it's protection for all sides.
>> in terms of total number of cameras, these cameras would replace.
>> this is a status quo until all the policy can be shaked out and the committees can meet and other things.
>> now, I know the fleet committee and others are working through some issues and hopefully we'll have probably a work session discussion of all those issues sometime soon, but sometime soon is probably within the next four to six weeks.
>> we actually have a vehicle replacement discussion specifically to constables that we plan to bring to the Commissioners court next week.
and then if we want to have a larger discussion in a workshop or work session, we can certainly do that, or if you would prefer, we can hold on that presentation until we do a work session and have more time to spend on the issue.
it's your call.
however you want to do it, judge.
>> I think we ought to have full discussion at some point.
we sort of -- we've discussed this in bits and pieces.
>> right.
>> I think sometime soon, as soon as we can put the information together, we ought to try to sit down and have a full discussion of all the issues, and in my view if we were to post it may be with at most one other item for a work session discussion, it's likely to be a lot more productive.
>> okay.
>> but if we could have that discussion the first part of next fiscal year, four, five, six weeks away, I think we would be better off.
it's kind of been coming up.
they are not going away so I guess we may as well sit down and try to discuss them in a comprehensive manner as soon as possible.
>> if it's okay with the court, we'll just hold off on doing any kind of presentation until we schedule and I'll get with melissa to schedule it on the work session.
>> that's what I suggest, and mike joyce and others who have been working on this.
>> what did we do with the cameras that have been replaced?
what happened to them?
>> are we talking about the vhs cameras?
>> whatever cameras they are, we ended up exchanging them for new cameras, what do we do with the old ones?
>> we auction them off.
>> just so you'll know, the vhs cameras, as chief stated earlier, six, seven, eight years old.
by the time we take them out, we are having to piecemeal them together from other cameras from other vehicles.
we hold on to our parts until we can get that camera replaced with another one, and currently it's been proofing that digital is the way to go.
they are a lot more easier and we had a discussion with p.b.o.
and purchasing and everybody.
we need to standardize and this is what we're doing.
there's other cameras cheaper, more expensive, so forth and so on, but the emphasis here is unified system.
it's very across the board with more warranty systems.
we're probably never going to agree on everything, but we are going to agree we're going to work together to make this happen.
>> it makes sense to us that we come up with a standard and, of course, this is -- this is a step in that direction to standardize.
for the purchase of cameras.
>> and you're right, Commissioner Davis, and the only caveat is about every five years, that long, technology changes.
>> it does.
>> but if we get into a pattern to where we're getting leading edge stuff then we move towards that.
it's not always going to have these cameras because of the way technology changes, but we're on the right path.
>> may I ask -- go ahead.
>> I just had a question on purchasings.
with the standardization, is there any opportunity for volume discounts on purchasing?
>> yes.
yeah, and laurie and the office has done a really good job on the data cards that we first saw the prices like $1,200 for a data card and everyone has to have one or two, and we were able to get that down to I think about $700, almost half.
so there is an advantage to that.
>> as far as the request today, buying three cameras as well as putting $10,000 toward light bars, my understanding is that neither of those items are part of the standard package for constable's vehicles currently.
aim correct about that?
>> as we understand it, that is correct.
>> so it would not be maintaining the status quo in terms of policy to replace what you have now with digital cameras.
that still cameras and light bars are not part of the standardized package for constables' vehicles currentlyly.
>> the d-2 request is the request regarding the light bars.
the digital cameras, if we pull out the older units and send them to surplus to go to auction and replace them with the digital cameras, if it's the court's desire to do that, then it's what we would recommend is that we do the standardized, the new panasonic solution and that the funding be made available for that.
d-2 regarding the light bars, you know, that's a whole other --
>> I understand that's been withdrawn.
>> no, it was reduced down to 5,000.
>> so what --
>> okay, then I thought based on our conversation yesterday you were interested in three cameras.
>> yes.
>> the same as the sheriff.
i do think that on the rest of that we ought to hold off until after our discussion.
>> on the light bars?
>> not to cut you off.
i came in with the understanding that we should replace the three cameras and with the same camera that the sheriff uses.
and the other part to this should be delayed until after our full discussion.
and I thought we were in agreement on that yesterday.
>> I'll agree to that.
that's fine.
>> let me ask with regard to -- since cameras are not standard equipment, at least in terms of what our current standard is for constables' vehicles, I recognize on an ad hoc basis cameras have been added to certain vehicles.
and do you -- stacy, you had done some research at one point how many cameras are out there on constables' vehicles total.
can you refresh my memory?
>> oh, it was probably --
>> and all of those that we're speaking of are vhs currently, correct?
>> except for the six that we have.
i did find out that precinct 1 has about four operational vhs cameras.
precinct 2 probably has about 15 to 18.
we've got six digital and nine older units and two of those we just use for parts.
>> so my concern here today in voting to replace current vhs with digital is that we really haven't priced the -- the full cost of changing our current standard for constables' vehicles over to cameras and that those cameras should be digital.
if there are 20-some-odd -- 25 vhs and we're replacing three of those with digital, it stand to reason that the remaining cameras, the constables will come and ask that they all be transferred to digital as well.
that is a price tag that we haven't determined.
>> well, we worked on a grant proposal this summer that was withdrawn, part of the give and take, and we had -- had specced 36 cameras for grant.
>> the question is how do you do it.
i wouldn't recommend doing all of them at one time.
but if in the matter of policy if you are doing work in the field you need a camera, then we would phase in implementation of the same camera system-wide.
>> just as these cameras are being requested to replace the old vhs, we would look at it the same way.
if it's a part of the policy that cameras will be installed in certain constable vehicles, as they are recycled -- or cycled through and replaced, then we would just include that cost as a part of the package and move forward with -- as we replace them.
we would do much like we're doing where the sheriff's office now which is cycling them through as those vehicles are being replaced.
>> I think we keep using the word "standardization" and I think we may have some varying views on what standardization we're talking about here.
i see actually three areas of standardization we may be hitting on.
one is standardization of equipment.
i think that's obvious.
the second, though, is standardization of vehicle packages, which I think -- I know that there has been discussion about going through the vehicle users committee to establish what the standardized package is, to -- we already have a standardized package.
to decide whether that's an appropriate standardized package.
and I think that that is the appropriate place for that to happen instead of on an ad hoc basis.
then there's a third area of standardization that I think is kind of the girl in the corner of the room which is I understand there is not agreement among the constables that video equipment and light bars is a necessary -- is necessary equipment for their law enforcement vehicles.
so I think that that begs an issue of standardization with regard to what type of law enforcement and therefore what type of equipment is necessary for the law enforcement vehicles.
i was surprised to find that constable 3 is doing d.w.i.
stops.
i thought that that was unusual for a constable's office.
and so I think it's time to also have a discussion about a standard understanding, a standardized understanding of the level of law enforcement that constables are doing and how it fits into the larger picture of law enforcement generally.
and I understand that our executive manager of criminal justice planning had suggested a -- a subcommittee of the community justice council to address that third question of standard -- standardization.
>> come up under the format, though, of maybe what the judge suggested as a work session as far as all of these particular -- because it's really -- and you are right, we definitely don't want to piecemeal stuff.
>> well, I think the video tail is wagging the law enforcement dog.
>> what now?
>> the video tail is wagging the law enforcement dog, and one example of that is my understanding on the chain of custody on the video -- on the video record at the constables is not what we normally see in the chan of custody at the sheriff's department and a.p.d.
i think that begs the issue that larger third issue of standardization that I think we need to look at.
>> the -- as far and chain of custody is concerned, Commissioner, the goal will ultimately be, and we discussioned this back to 11th, the goal will be the constables will download to a central server much like the sheriff is able to do that.
working out the low gist text of making that happen and having an interim ability to burn the footed age to a d.v.d.
is kind of a stop gap, an interim step, if you will, to get to that in the ultimate.
but that was kind of the idea that we talked about on the 11th was how do we provide for access to that footage by the other agencies, the d.a., the county attorney, et cetera, from the constables, much like how the sheriff is just able to electronically pass that file.
and so this was a part of that conversation.
>> and I guess -- but I guess back to the origin, when constable came in, constable precinct 3 constables came in and basically were requesting the purchase of cameras with this savings that they have, and bar light and all this other equipment, but the question then begged the question what kind of cameras are you talking about.
and they were not the same type of cameras that we had just went through the sheriff's office to get.
so at that point I thought that it would be better to look at this as a standardized situation, but just basically dealing with just the cameras.
now but this has expanded to other categories as far as within standardization, but as far as the origin is -- as far as meeting the standard for cameras for our law enforcement is still, in my in, the pop of the pyramid.
and all these other things I think we could look at and I thought the judge brought up a good suggestion in work session and new policies.
but at least we'll be dealing with the same vendor as far as our cameras are concerned.
this is really what I really wanted to see happen.
and that's the whole point, in fact, I want to see this happen.
so this is a major step in that direction.
>> two comments.
p.b.o.
would recommend whatever action you take today be considered ad hoc and not policy and basis.
that the replacement of these three that's being recommended be an ad hoc decision and you fund those, and that any future replacements be deferred until you have the full policy decision in the work session.
and I'm not clear as to what that 30,000 number is for the three -- three cameras.
>> it was for six.
the 30,000 was for six cameras.
>> I know, but what is the amount you are asking the court to approve today is this.
>> 17,454.
>> 17-4 --
>> or just round it to 17,500.
>> our planning and budget office indicates there is 30,000 available.
i'm relying on their number.
>> that's correct.
and the remainder will fall to the ending fund balance.
>> we saved money.
>> now, when we come back in four, five or six weeks, we will need legal to give us an opinion on exactly what authority the Commissioners court has versus the constables as they carry out their duties and responsibilities as authorized by law.
correct?
>> we can do that, judge.
>> now, my hope was to simplify this matter just by looking at three cameras today.
let's go back to that.
and I move that we authorize them.
>> second.
>> same as is sheriff's.
and we understand that to be slightly less than the $17,500 which will be paid for from salary savings from the constable 3's budget.
>> second.
>> that was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
>> just be clear, judge, that is d-1 only.
>> d-1 only.
>> and the amount is 17,500.
>> 17,500.
>> cyd said a little less, but up to, how is that?
>> as far as the transfer, if we transfer 17,500, we would need an amount.
>> my motion was 17 a hundred.
>> okay.
that's fine.
that's what I'm asking.
>> [laughter]
>> the longer we discuss some of these items the more confusing they become.
discussion of that motion?
>> briefly, I'm going to -- because I believe that we can't really -- we could call it ad hoc but it won't be ad hoc.
i think it's premature.
i think we really would be better to take this through the vehicle users committee anthra newly created committee of the community justice council before we headache this decision.
because I think this decision will create at least a perception of an obligation, a perception of a policy moving forward.
so for the reason -- for that reason that I believe it's premature.
>> so the total number of cameras that the constables have is what?
what's to total of those figures you gave a few minutes ago.
>> 30.
>> for all of them, all constables, five of them.
>> the request that we had this summer when we were working on a grant proposal was 36 total.
this would leave 33.
>> those will be replacement.
so 36 was for replacement cameras?
the request?
>> and ours -- in our case, it was --
>> my question is what's the total number of cameras the constables have today?
>> about 30.
>> so 30 ad hoc decisions we've already made.
i'm assuming the court approved purchase of those cameras.
>> yes, we brought that before the court in 2002 for the precinct 1 cameras and in 2003 for the precinct 2 and precinct 3 cameras.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Gomez, Huber and your truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Eckhardt against against it.
>> judge, I just want to reiterate I do have an order right now for a replacement order for precinct 2 and I'll talk to them whether they can move to the panasonic and work with p.b.o.
on how much money.
>> let me clarify on that --
>> that is not on our agenda.
don't clarify it today.
>> yes, sir.
>> we'll put it on next week for clarification.
if the precinct 2 is looking at it.
if they are looking at this discussion, they may want to hold off.
let's go to something real easy, four or five easy ones.
>> something that we need to also get the the budget amendments a-1 through 9.
you took objection t-1 through 3.
>> move approval of the remaining budget amendments.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
now, we did -- I did tell the sheriff that we would try to call up the central booking item at 11:00.
we missed that by 40 minutes.
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, September 22, 2009 1:30 PM
