Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 10, 2010,
Item 19
19 is to discuss revenue and budget issues with adult probation, cscd, and constable precinct 2 to develop the fiscal year 2011 travis county budget.
>> do you want me?
>> let's have a quick overview. That may help. Is that okay? Then we'll hear from both of them.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners, rodney rhodes, executive manager, planning and budget. As we continue with our budget hearing requests, we have two items before you today. One is the request from cscd for transitional beds and dr. Nagy is here from cscd to go through that. The second is constable 2 as it relates to a request for various pay that they are not able to internally fund as we have stipulated as part of the budget rules for fiscal year '11. And this is the second round of discussions and we have additional discussions coming up this thursday with three other departments. With that i'll turn it over to dr. Nagy.
>> thank you, judge biscoe, commissioners, for the opportunity to talk about our budget request for temporary housing. Wesh requesting approval of 89,425 annually to fund temporary housing for a high need probationners. Historically contracted with burkes with some money that we have had available to do this in the past. However, that funding has declined rapidly since 2006 and we are now not in a position to fund temporary housing. Historically this is not considered to be a responsibility of probation services, to provide housing for probationners, but our judges have relied on this and have asked that we direct funding in that area. However, i can tell you that i asked other probation directors, 121 of them, and each and every one said that they did not utilize probation funding for housing, temporary housing, and that that was considered a community responsibility. So just that little tidbit of information because i'm sure you're interested in whether or not this is something that probation departments typically do. The probationners that are served by burkes are those that have significant needs. About 50% of them are mentally ill. They do -- they have difficulty meeting their basic needs and they have no income because they don't have a house, they have difficulty qualifying for entitlements such as ssi or getting community services such as mental health care. So we're requesting some funding for that. I have lila oshack, who has been working on this for the past several years who can give you more information, such as the number of beds served and any other questions you may have programmatically about this request.
>> okay.
>> we're looking at serving approximately 36 probationers in the course of a year. They would each be housed for approximately 90 days. Again as dr. Nagy stated, this is a very high risk, high need population. They may be people who are waiting in jail until a bed is available for them. The other option is they're out on the street, which increases their risk and the community's risk. So providing a stable housing environment where they can access available community services i think would be preferable to the alternative, which is continuing to contribute to the homeless population in travis county and jail overcrowding. These are folks who cycle in and out of the jail if they don't have stable housing.
>> so what happens to these individuals after the 90-day transitional housing stay?
>> once they're identified as homeless, the probation officer they're assigned to begins working on a permanent supportive housing plan for them. The 90 days is necessary to make that plan happen. If they are --
>> that is supposed to occur before they're released is my understanding. Isn't that plan begun while they're in state jail?
>> these are not state jail offenders predominantly. These are people who are ordered by the courts on to probation who have a variety of issues that they need to contend with, housing being one of them. Some of them have started the ssi application process. That is a very long, cumbersome process. They may have been arrested during the middle of that process, at which time the process stops. So we hook them back up with legal aid to help further their acceptance into receiving s.s.i. Benefits. The probation officer works with them to get a m.a.p. Card, but again you need an address in order to access health services. If they don't have an address they can't access the services they need. So that's what the 90 days provides.
>> so if we provide the 90 days of housing, probation department does have staff available to work with these persons.
>> yes. All the case management functions are done by the probation officer. So this is not an additional drain on travis county health and human services staff. All the services that they would be accessing will be done through referral by the probation officer. The other thing i would like to mention is the county does have an existing contract with burke's, which was modified in june to include providing housing services for any county program or department. So this would enable probation to access that existing contract. You would need to think about expanding the amount of money or enhancing the amount of money available for that contract because it is very limited right now.
>> but we know of instances where our judges sentence -- ordered some of these folks from jail to this housing.
>> that's correct.
>> so our problem is without this housing available some of these persons would remain in the county jail.
>> will remain in the county jail or upon release from the county jail are going to go live on the street. And they're going to immediately get rearrested and be back in the county jail.
>> well, -- yes, sir. Commissioner davis.
>> maybe i haven't gotten a good grasp on what the judge -- he asked a question earlier and maybe i didn't get a good grasp on your response. And that is the 90 days that these persons receive assistance in the s.s.i. Completed or if it's getting the type of assistance that they need in this particular setting, after that is received and the 90 days expire, are they released accordingly all at once or do they come in on a case-by-case basis or is it always -- is it always a full house?
>> pretty much. We generally have a waiting list.
>> a waiting list, okay. So the 90 days, how and what type of tracking is afforded to make sure that the recidivism or this person is not back -- is going right back through the same cycle again.
>> as i said, all of these individuals are being supervised by probation officers. So they're very familiar with what their offense is, what their needs are. And they come up with a supervision plan that includes meeting housing needs. It identifies more permanent supportive housing options for that probationner, where maybe they got a job, they now have some revenue coming in so they can pay a portion of a lease amount and so they can be moved into permanent supportive housing. Burke's also operates some permanent supporting housing leases where a probationner would pay a reduced lease amount. They might have a roommate or two in an apartment.
>> because of the high need individuals, they are specialized mental health case workers for the most part. It would be a specialized caseload. So there's a small ratio of offenders to officers.
>> are they out of town? I would assume they're local.
>> that's correct.
>> and i guess as far as residents of travis county, are there any cases whereby they have immediate family here, an example within austin. And they're on probation. And they have immediate families.
>> yes. For a mentally ill person, very often the family has expended all of their resources, including all of their patience, in working with their family member who is mentally ill. So going back to the family often is not an option for a mentally ill person. So we need to find other housing options for them. And the probation officers are able to do that.
>> and typically for these individuals who it's ordered by the court, there's been a presentence investigation report done in which all alternative housing options have been looked at. And so there is a clear need for this particular person to get temporary housing.
>> what's the maximum capacity of burke's that we are contracted?
>> i believe they can accommodate up to 50 individuals.
>> how many?
>> 50.
>> but we're only asking for nine.
>> pardon me?
>> we're asking for nine slots.
>> okay. But there is a waiting list currently and they can accommodate 50.
>> there's a waiting list for probationers who want to access slots at burke's. I can't speak for if they have a waiting list for all of their slots because they serve multiple things, not just probation. Coming out of state jail, for example, that's another population.
>> all right. Has there been any assessment done as far as looking at the cost of -- even as a backlog, persons waiting to become a part of some of the settings that burke's have, who we have a contract with right now for the probationners, have there been a cost associated with the length of the wait while they are incarcerated before they can get to the burke's situation since there is a waiting -- a waiting timeline? Is there -- in other words, what is actually costing also the taxpayers while they're waiting to be assisted in that type of setting that you mentioned with burke's.
>> i don't know. I think that's probably a question for planning and budget. They would need to look at what the average daily cost is that they use for people in the county jail, and then we could provide information on what the waiting period time is for probationners.
>> that would be something that i would like to see. And i guess whoever is the department that needs -- i guess they could probably give me those numbers. But it would be good to see that the length of time they have been incarcerated while awaiting to become served in this particular situation.
>> yeah.
>> i do know it varies a lot, judge. You have to look at some sort of average probably.
>> i do know that the average number of days a mentally ill client stays in jail is 49, so they stay in jail longer than regular --
>> 49.
>> 49 days. The mentally ill. However, i don't know that those are specifically individuals that are -- that would otherwise be homeless. So i don't have that number.
>> the average cost that we used in the past is $55 a day per inmate.
>> $55 per day? That's about 49 days.
>> and the cost per day at burke's is what?
>> it is between 35 and $25 a day, depending on what the needs of the individual is. If there are a very high risk mentally ill person, they require more one on one interaction with the staff there, so the cost may be a little bit higher. But it would be an average cost around 30 bucks a day probably.
>> so the question is whether to put this on the markup, budget markup for court consideration later on.
>> may i ask, though, in anticipation of that, i think there's no doubt that there's a need for this because it's an inappropriate placement for someone who is otherwise eligible for probation. But i question whether the appropriate budget is the cscd budget or whether -- i know a significant portion of our housing efforts are either in criminal justice planning or health and human services, which seems to be the more appropriate place than in probation service. So i just wanted to hear your response to that.
>> as i said earlier, the criminal justice planning contract would be an appropriate place. I think to put this additional funding, as long as it was earmarked for probation.
>> and the only reason why i raise that and i think i'm probably speaking to the choir as far as these folks sitting in front of us is that we really do want whatever this is, whatever we choose to do with this, we want our efforts to be part of an integrated effort on housing -- the specific housing issues of individuals who are cycling out of the criminal system, whether it's the misdemeanor or the felony system.
>> so we would be fine if it went to criminal justice planning, but kimberly pierce is here to answer any of your questions that you might have about that.
>> does that object or if we say place it with you, that's fine.
>> that's completely fine with us.
>> make sure roger agrees.
>> i'll make sure of that.
>> [ laughter ]
>> our precinct 2 constable has a request too. This will be part of the markup process.
>> thank y'all.
>> the constable's request is fairly straightforward, as are the reasons for that. Just a quick summary would be good.
>> thank you.
>> good morning. I'm constable (indiscernible). My street deputy george morales and to his right is my office manager, bryan curtis. We're here to respectfully request funding for fy '11 budget to cover additional skill-based pay and career ladder pay. I'm asking the means to allow precinct 2 deputies to advance their careers with travis county. This would allow me to retain highly skilled, experienced and motivated employees. The reasons for the budget request, there's disparity between what this office receives for skill base and career ladder pay in comparison to the other precincts. This was created prior to the administration before i came into this new administration, and there's no room for growth with this current funding. The revenue will more than justify the additional funding, and we are asking only for the minimum amount needed to fairly compensate our deputies. The average salary per deputy as you see on the handout you have there, below are the average salary per precinct for non-tcso pops. It includes all positions within law enforcement for constable 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. And again, just a career ladder. And if you can see there that we're about 3,000 below everybody else. And under skill based pay we're just above precinct 1. If luke at the handout in the backup material that i handed out to you, we're just -- just above $1,500 there in that. And the revenue numbers to hit our hce numbers for fy '10, we have to generate 3,100,000 in actual quick books revenue and we will hit this number. Our ht number for revenue -- borne revenue is proposed to be increased by $63,000 for fy '11. This will require a minimum of 315,000 in additional quick books revenue.
>> when we say quick books revenue, what does that mean?
>> actually money brought in.
>> actual revenue, judge.
>> cash that's disbursed among the county entities.
>> okay.
>> and this would take our average revenue per deputy to $162,619. Again, that's per deputy. And if you look at the chart that was handed out in -- the revenue chart in quick books, as of june we -- our criminal line item has been completed as of june. And also for fy '09 our numbers were 2,637,703. For '10, 2,714,154. And what is proposed for fy '11 is 3,415,000. The actual amount. And for career ladder request, the switch from classified pay to pops left our salary line items maxed out. Leaving no room for advancement or promotions. These two deputies are currently being denied opportunities to advance due to the lack of funding available. And pbo is asking that we find the funding for advancement internally. We cannot continue to cannibalize from our other line items and continue to function effectively. We brought in some very experienced and knowledgeable deputies. We did do that and this type of staff is a bit more expensive. We do realize that. However, this allows us to hit the ground running and produce the highest revenue ever than in past years. The skill based request, precinct it has the second highest deputy staffing level of all the con tables office. Precinct two has the second highest revenue level of the constable's office and precinct two has the lowest skill based budget per deputy. And several of the other officers have doubled in some cases about tripled the skit base paid budget per deputy. Even with the requested adjustment, precinct two will still have the fourth lowest skill based pay per deputy. Our revenue compared to other precincts, the constable's office in travis county has $63,333,000 in skill base pay funding. That presing average is 76,470 in revenue generated per deputy year to date. And in precinct two our average is 129,000, 245 in revenue generated per deputy year to date. Yet our skill based funding is just over half of what that precinct is receiving. Again, precinct two is now being asked to generate 162,619,000 per deputy. That is an additional $300,374 per deputy for fy 11, therefore i respectfully request the approval of funding for skill based and ladder -- career ladder pay.
>> and how much are you requesting?
>> we're requesting actually --
>> $55,709.
>> 55709.
>> so speak to us a little bit about how the disparity in skill based pay occurred.
>> well, coming off of skill-based pay on to the pops, there was a certain amount of money on the budget already allocated. And by getting off of the skill-based pay, coming on the pops scale, i had retained deputies from the prior administration who were at a certain level. What happened was the skill-based pay, those deputies were paid at higher levels in comparison to other deputies, where those deputies would have a tr dition national deputy in pops be able to get the career ladder and the base pay, that was not allowed to happen in that type of a system. Coming into pops, now trying to place everybody where they belong, it was not possible. That's why when we came in last year and asked for the additional 15,000, just to accommodate what we had, that's what we had to do.
>> how do you mean it wasn't possible? That there weren't equivalent positions on the pops scale to what the deputies were making under the skill-based pay?
>> well, we had the ones that were left that were at that level. But the ones that we brought in, we did not bring a year one deputies. We brought in senior deputies and higher deputies and we paid them at that level.
>> you put them on the pops pay scale appropriate with their experience.
>> with their experience. And that's where we maxed out. And the thing is that what it allowed us to do is to be able to obtain these levels that we're doing, and when it comes to revenue generating, and again like i said, to hit the ground running. And that's what we're doing. We're out there checking every bush and doing whatever we can to bring in revenue. But yet we have highly skilled deputies who are out there and doing a great job, but i do have three who are -- that i need to bring up, but they're also looking at going to other places. One, parks and wildlife and the other to round rock and it just -- i would love to retain these types of deputies. Because they do a great and outstanding job.
>> so pbo's position is that the commissioners court directed deputies to generate internal departmental funding through reallocations, etcetera, but is there any disagreement about precinct two's inability to fund these requests internally?
>> no, there's no disagreement that they do not have the funds internally to fund this add pay. As we -- as pbo met with the constable and his staff back in june 25th, we indicated to them that when you take the fy '08 budgeted revenue and then you add what we added in the fy '11 preliminary budget of 165,000 plus, for their three f.t.e.'s that we went from one time to ongoing, that they're still on their projected revenue for fy '11 a little bit short. Now, we were willing -- they're making tremendous gains and we were willing to put those in on an ongoing basis because we believe during '11 they'll at least meet that revenue projection that we have laid out for them. But at this point they're still a little bit short. So that is basically the court authorized guidelines, budget guidelines for fy '11 that required not only these type pay adjustments, but career ladders for all of the departments that have career ladders, that they would be internally funded. So the constable was correct when he stated pbo's position that we asked them to internally fund it because under the guidelines, we did not have the authority to make a recommendation to fund these.
>> but if they doubled their revenue, they still would not have internal funding unless their budget has increased.
>> that's correct. Rest new when you go back to '08 and you add the 165,000 that we added to their fy 11 preliminary budget, they're still short about $53,000 from meeting the whole 165,000 that we included.
>> 53,000 or 5507?
>> 53,384.
>> if you take the budget for fy '08, which was $705,000 of revenue, and you add what we added for the fy 11 of 165,925, you would have total needed budget of 870,925 for fy 11, and the auditor's office projection for fy '11 is 817,541 for a difference of that 53,000.
>> explain to me how we tie the revenue generating --
>> the expenditure budget?
>> yeah.
>> the process has been, and the court has approved guidelines that authorize in the event that a department has -- can get the auditor's office to certify the revenue that would totally cover the cost of additional f.t.e.'s, that pbo has the authority to put those into the preliminary budget. And so we did calculations, we see the trends. They are making tremendous progress. And these are positions that constable two had these three f.t.e.'s, two warrant deputies and one other f.t.e. That have been funded on a one-time basis in fy '10, '09 probably one time. Because they were attempting to get up to the revenue that had been certified previously for them.
>> to add the three people.
>> we added --
>> additional revenue to add three people.
>> we added three people ongoing to constable's two's budget for the fy '11 preliminary budget.
>> so right now they generate enough revenue to cover how much of the 55,000? Any?
>> well, they're -- they are not generating -- if you go back to fy '08 before we got into the recession, they are not generating based upon what we've put in on the expenditure side, they're not breaking even yet. They're still about 53,000 short.
>> so they're not -- based on the criteria for bringing in these additional three f.t.e., they haven't actually yet met the criteria for the additional three f.t.e.'s.
>> that's correct.
>> and part of this could be explained by having hired extremely qualified individuals and bringing them up -- bringing them on at a higher experience level in order to hire them. Would that be a fair explanation, con table?
>> yes.
>> i mean there was an option to hire folks at a lower level, but in order to pull in the folks that you -- that you desired, you needed to pull them into the higher pots so you haven't actually met the criteria for the new f.t.e. Yet because you hired people who were arguably overqualified for the position? I have people overqualified for their positions in my office too. I am always looking for people who are overqualified. That's not a hint.
>> and i think too the constable's office is correct. The reason they've been able to get as close as they've been able to is based upon the experience of the people that they hired. There's no question.
>> right.
>> but i think at the same time i want to be mindful of the fact that sometimes we hire folks who are overqualified with the knowledge that we won't be able to pay them what they're worth in the job that we've offered them or at least not be able to pay them what they're worth until some future event occurs, like the revenue stream -- the revenue stream that we expected for the justification of the three f.t.e.'s.
>> let's add it to the budget markup list.
>> it will be on it.
>> thank y'all.
>> now, the parking item is pack on, number 17. Are the consultants here. I see staff. Consultants are here. No? Okay. We can easily do the main part of -- mr. Reeferseed, were you are here on the other item?
>> i wanted to ask about the term on income generation. Is that tickets and fines?
>> that's all revenue. I don't think they said income generation. I think they said revenue, right? Revenue just mean money that they collect. Period.
>> the deputies come up with that much money. From what i can tell you're saying per deputy they have a budgeted amount. And i'm just looking at that.
>> that's a whole lot of money, but pbo believes they ought to generate more.
>> but that's how they generate, through tickets and fines. I was wondering if it included fines.
>> it includes all revenue.
>> okay.
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 10, 2010, 2010 1:30 PM
