Go ahead and get started. It's 1.30 and this is the Public Safety Committee meeting of the Council. I'm Vice Chair, Council Member Stennett. Council Member Henson is absent today and we wish her the best and a speedy return. First item on our agenda is the approval of the summary. Do I have a motion from the committee? I got a motion and a second. Any discussion, corrections, additions, deletions? All right. All in favor say aye. All opposed. That passes. Next up on our agenda is a presentation that came from the council, a request for community corrections, staffing level, and inmate officer ratio committee. Before we hear from the administration, we've also had a request from the union to also make a 15-minute presentation to the committee. This was not part of our packet, unfortunately, so it will have to be by motion of the committee. Is there a motion to allow? We can allow that. Second. We've got a motion by Councilman Ellinger, second by Councilman Scutchfield. Any discussion on that presentation? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Mr. Ballard, would you like to go first or would you like to follow the union? It's a pleasure to the council. Well, since you're on our agenda, we'll leave the pleasure in your hands if you'd like to go ahead and go, and then we'll hear from the union. That's fine. Does all the committee have a copy of the presentation? Okay, good. There you go. And Mr. Ballard's presentation begins on page four of our packet today. And welcome, sir. We have a technical glitch. Our video person doesn't have ours. Could I borrow one of your presentations? Absolutely. And I don't know if there's other copies in the back or not. But. Well, good afternoon. and I'm trying to fight a cold myself, so if my voice cracks, it's probably because I'm trying to fight this cold. I'm Rodney Ballard. I'm your director. And we've been asked to come here today to talk to you about staffing at the Division of Community Corrections. One of the things I wanted to educate the council on is that the workload at the detention center never changes. no matter what's going on in the outside world we still have to feed 4 000 meals we still have to do laundry we still have medicine to be handed out medical calls sick call dentist doctor's appointments our daily routine doesn't stop so in our industry there's no slow time there's no lack in the workload it's there every day each and every day some facts your building's been located there since 2000. It still has 1,266 beds, the same number of beds it had when it opened up. We offer dental service, medical service, food service, visitation, recreation, court transport, discipline and grievance, and complaints, and keep separates on the inmate population. Staffing analysis can be done several ways. You can do a relief factor. NIC has several different models, but what I chose to do for you today was to give you a snapshot of what the detention looked like in FY 2009. We've added no new beds. We've not increased technology that would reduce our manpower. So I want to give you an idea of the next slide, if we can turn it. Thank you. As you can see, thanks to your leadership over the last 18 months, we have been able to put a lieutenant and a captain on each shift, both in custody and in intake. I came to you early on and told you that on the weekends we had folks as low as the lowest rank as sergeant running it, and you were able to support me with your budget and gave me the positions to fill as lieutenants. And we've been able to do that. But if you look there in 2009, officers alone, we had 298. Today we have 263. Nothing's changed. Workload hasn't went away. We're just working our folks harder and smarter to get the job done. So just looking at officers, we're approximately 35 officers short, based on 2009. We've been in communication with our CAO, Sally Hamilton, and we realize that over the last four years, not only in the Commonwealth of Kentucky but across the country, some would call it a recession, some might even call it a depression, where we unfunded some positions. And we understand at the division at my level that you can't replace them all with one swoop in. You can't replace everybody if you even wanted to do it. So we've been in communications with our CAO on a plan on how we can move forward a few at a time, and we begin that discussion for the FY15 budget. Supervisor-wise, we are probably as good as we've been in years. So really the shortness, as we see now, is at the entry level. There's two things at the entry level you need to know. When I first met you all, we were 58 officers short. The number one reason for leaving was too much overtime. I told my boss then that was some truth but just an excuse to leave. Now our numbers are up closer to whether they should be fully staffed, and our turnover is roughly about 23%. Some of them are leaving for many different reasons, and I have some numbers I'll share with you here in a minute. Since my tenure with you, we've terminated 20 officers. We have transferred to public safety, 11. We've had officers leave for either medical conditions on their own or for their family, 16. We've had six retire, 11 relocate, new jobs or more money, 22, disliked the job, 11, went to other jails, 6. So in terminations, almost 24% of our turnover has been from terminations. To give you an idea, if you chose and you had the luxury of filling all 35 positions, you would actually cause a second effect. And that would be those men and women that are using the overtime to support their family budgets would be eliminated. With the overtime being eliminated, those folks, too, would now be short of income. So it's going to take a two-pronged approach, in my opinion. One is increasing our staffing levels. Two, increasing the entry level of our employees at the entry level. I had my staff pull out some numbers for me just to give me an idea. A husband and wife, two children, and they get their health insurance through LFUCG. His or her take-home at the end of two weeks is $618. So if you hire all 35, a bunch would leave because they're using the overtime to live by. So in my opinion, it's a two-pronged test. We've got to work both on getting up to full complement of staff and entry-level positions. The second thing he asked me to talk to you about is the inmate-to-officer ratio. There is no industry standards in the country that dictates that. Some get it confused with the physical plant. Yes, there's a Kentucky administrative regulation that says only 70 inmates in a housing unit. But that's for construction purposes, not for officer-inmate ratio. I use the example of a hospital. So the patient-nursing ratio would be higher in an ICU ward than it would be on a general floor. Not that all the patients in the hospital aren't sick and they need attention. It's just the most serious patients are in ICU. In community corrections, we're the same way. We need to put the most manpower for the inmates who are the most dangerous, the least behaved, at the same ratio. So our staffing is determined by the number of inmates, the type of classification, and the housing unit design. Some steps we've already taken to make the jail safer. Staff came to me early on this year, actually into last year, and GG is a housing unit that houses a step down from our maximum security unit, and was having issues there. We made that a two-man unit to increase safety. In addition, in the FY15 budget, we're going to try to do the same thing in unit HH, II, and EE. And that's strictly based on the image's behavior. An example. If you had 80 Otis the Town drunks and you went to 81, I think you would agree with me it doesn't justify having a second officer in that housing unit. But there are other housing units in our facility that house more dangerous inmates that do justify having additional officers in there for officer safety. We base all this on incident mapping, where we track incidents that occur each and every day in the jail for staffing purposes. And that's how we came up with those additional housing units. So at that point, I'll be glad to entertain any questions you might have of me. All right, committee, if anyone has any questions or comments, log in, and we'll take them one at a time. Anybody? Councilor Marsati. Chair, I'm sorry I'm late. I apologize. I apologize that I missed your presentation. And you might have gone over it, and if you have, please bear with me. I know when we all met, I guess it was at the FOP hall, I think it was in October, there were some concerns about safety as far as the transporting of prisoners and vests, and there was also the concern, again, of the, and you probably have hit this, and I apologize, as far as staffing. So I'm assuming you probably have hit the staffing. Am I correct? So we can move on to that. But what about the transporting of prisoners? There was a concern about wearing the vests, the safety vests at that point. I communicate with you and communicate with the president of the union. Last week, before last month, we met with a representative from Gulls and looked at carry vests. Those are the vests that go over the top of your clothes versus underneath your clothes. If you have wore a vest underneath your clothes, they have to be fitted. It means you've got to take your shirt off, put it on, tuck it in your pants, button everything back up. It's very hard to take on and off if you like. The ones we looked at and got prices from Gulls are the carriers, and they go over the top of your clothes, like I'm wearing today, much like a pullover vest with sleeves. It would pull over. It's a bulletproof vest. It has corrections on the back. It has deputy on the front. We priced 10 of them for the FY15 budget, and they'll be issued out to those people that are transporting the inmates to the hospital. So you're going to go ahead and go forward with that. I'm going to submit it in my FY15 budget. It's about $4,200, and that will be a part of my budget presentation. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Stand fast. Anyone else on the committee have a question on this presentation? Councilman Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Rodney. Are you absolutely full at this point? You see 1,266 beds. Where are you now in terms of occupancy? This morning we had 1,220-something inmates. But you have to remember, of those 1,220, I probably have 175 paying customers. When I first came to you, one of the things that we looked at with the administration was increasing our revenues. So of that 1,200, and we've been as high as 1,350, of that, probably 175, 200 are paying customers. We've been shipping out inmates on a regular basis to keep that number down. If our population maintained a significant amount, over 1,300, for an extended period of time, I would probably go back to my director, or excuse me, commissioner, and talk about reducing the paying customers to make more room for the other inmates. And what about your overtime now? What are you spending on overtime? Overtime, we are not doing very well. We're probably at 30% right now. Our overtime was cut about $140,000 from last year. So overtime is still an issue in the division. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Chair. And this is not a committee I normally sit on, so I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I had a question. I know one of the things that you went over was the current two officer posts. Yes, ma'am. And you and I spoke probably about a month ago. How many, you know, these are the ones that obviously currently have two officers in the post. How many do we have that only have one officer? Well, we've got one, two, three, four, 16. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. When you mentioned increasing the salaries or hourly wages for entry-level staff, is that what you meant? Or do you mean the number of entry-level staff? It's a combination of both. If you bless me with giving me 35 brand-new people today, there is another group of men and women who are used to working overtime, and just conservatively 10 hours a week, that's $400 a pay period, they would lose $800 a month. They would be in the same shape of the people that are leaving us today because they're not making enough money. So it's going to take a combination of both. Increase our staffing as funding becomes available. When the CBA gets renewed, trying to work on the entry level for those two positions at the bottom. And so what is the current entry level? $1,434 an hour. And what would you like to see it increased to? You know, I haven't had that conversation with my boss or the CAO. I think what would be important would be look at what the current wages are in our community. That's what I was going to ask you. Many of you know I came from the Department of Corrections. I can tell you everywhere we had a prison that was located towards an urban area, we had this issue. Because I compete with Lowe's. A young man went to work for Lowe's last week. Excuse me, Toyota making $18 an hour working down there. Another one went to Lowe's. So I'm competing with the community for jobs. I think the economy is improving in our community. Jobs are becoming available. Remember, the job the men and women do at the division is a very demanding job. It's Monday, it's seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Imagine being a single mother working day shift if you were lucky enough, and you've got your child in daycare, and then you get told you have to work overtime. Well, you just can't call the daycare and say, I'll pick my child up at 1130 at night. You've got to be at 6. So it's very difficult. So if you don't have a tremendous support mechanism, whether it's the males working or the female, it's very difficult. And then to work both weekends, nights, and shifts, plus the overtime, is very demanding on the family. So have you looked at other, like what is Louisville Pay or other regions or other states around to see, to compare? No, I've not done the official cost analysis, no, ma'am. But see, what can sometimes be wrong with that, if you went to West Liberty, Kentucky, as an example, at our prison there at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, that's a very good job. There's not many jobs in Morgan County, so their turnover rate is small. If you went to KSR in LaGrange, where you've got Oldham County, right next door to Louisville, then they're competing with even jails there. And in our case, I'm competing with the federal prison here right up the street. We had four officers leave and went there, and their pay raise with no overtime was $10,700 a year. And when you mention that there are no federal regulations or state standards or national standards on ratios between officers and inmates, I was stunned by that. Coming from a social work background in child care settings or school classroom settings or any of those similar social settings, we have those ratios to, even in nursing homes, I think, to ensure proper care of people. So if there's not one that's, I guess, established by law, is there just one within the industry but not necessarily official? No. If you went to Florida, you could find 1 to 96, 2 to 128. Excuse me, 2 to 128. It just depends where you go. What's more important about how many officers are is the inmate classification. That's the most important thing. If our classification is not working and you're putting Jeffrey Dahmers in with Otis of Town Drunks, that's a problem. And how many federal or, I guess, prison inmates do you have compared to just local detention center inmates? I didn't look at the numbers today, but my guess is we probably have about 75 federal prisoners and probably 100 Class D inmates. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. I'm all more together now. Let's go back to these vests. You said the number was around $4,000. Yes, ma'am. And you were going to have to put that in your 2015 budget. I think we've got about $8,000 surplus from our general fund that we ended up with when we did all our budgeting. Why not go ahead and let's just take that from the general fund and get these vests? I mean, that's a safety issue. Second. I guess I say no more. Are you making a motion? Yes, sir. I make a motion that we – can you give us the figure again, Director Ballard? Excuse me? Can you give us the figure again? $4,000. I got it on my desk. I think it's $4,200 and some change. Now, let me ask you a little bit about the vests. I'm not exactly sure. Are they custom? Are they one size fits? Oh, I know most of the police vests are custom. So is this something that they see? I think it's more like a sweater that's got arm holes and you can pull it over top of you. The good thing about it is it allows for a little misfit. If a vest is too long, when you sit down, it hits on your waist belt and it hits you in the throat. So because it's over the top of you, you can lift it over the top of your belt, you know, fit you more comfortably. So I don't have to be quite, it's easier to get, you know, a couple of larges, a couple of extra larges, and they interchange it versus if they wore it to fit their body shape. So these are shared vests then? Yes, ma'am. Okay. What's the feeling amongst the ranks as far as the shared vests? Have you gotten any response? Well, we surveyed the agility service team who transports inmates each and every day to court, and one of the parameters were if we bought vests, they had to wear them every day, which were underneath their clothes. They chose not to wear a vest. We wore them in law enforcement for years. Before we went to the individual, we kept them in the trunks of our car. It offers a couple things. One, if you get the hospital room, and the hospital room is 100 degrees, for example, with how heat will fluctuate, it's real easy to slip this one off. If it's comfortable, you leave it on. If it's underneath your clothes, you have to take your gun belt off, undo your shirt, pull it off, put it back on. So it gives the officer a little more flexibility whether he wants to keep it on or take it off. Obviously, we would prefer them to keep it on the entire time, but it's much like a sweater. I just want to make sure it does its job. You know, I know that's the reason why they have the custom-fit vest so each officer can protect them the best. But if this is something that they feel comfortable with and you all have discussed this and feel that would be the way to go, they just need to have some kind of safeguard, especially when they're transporting a prisoner. The ballistic proof is identical. Think of a long torso body and a short torso body. You might wear the same size pants, but if you're long torso, it doesn't fit the same. Vests are the same way. So inside your clothes, they have to be fitted better. Over top gives you a little leeway, much like a sweater. You know, you could wear a sweater that might be a little larger and get by with it versus, you know, an undergarment that might not be as comfortable. And once we get these vests, they will be required to wear them, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Well, I would support that. I would make that motion, Chair, that we go ahead and approve from the budget 15 vests. Is that what you said, approximately? I think it was for 10. 10? Well, whatever. The number. You'll come back to us with the correct number, or do you have that? I have it at my desk. Okay. I think it's $4,200 and some change. I'm sorry? It was $4,200 and some change. Appropriate $4,200, between $4,200 and $4,500. Would that be accurate? Yes, ma'am. To provide vests for the correctional officers that do transport duty. Second. All right. There's a motion on the floor in two seconds to purchase the number of vests that equal up to about $4,500 at the max is what I heard. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? Okay. We'll vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion passes, and we'll bring that to the full council at our next report out. in a work session. Any other questions for Director Ballard? I have a couple. What is your authorized budget strength? How many positions are you authorized through the budget? 267 sworn officers. We saw some information at our budget preview last week. How many new positions are you asking on next year's budget? Ten. Okay, so 267, 277. It still doesn't get us where we need to be. No, but I think realistically, in working with the budget folks, 10 is a significant number of people. That's probably half a million dollars in increase in the budget. And how many are you, again, how many are you short today? How many openings do you have? Well, it depends. If you look at the 2009 data and you think that's totally correct, it would be 35. I don't know if that's exactly correct or not. But it's no more than 35. You have vacancies. To the best of my knowledge, that's correct. Okay. All right. No other questions? We'll go ahead. Actually, Councilman Rellinger. Thank you, Chair. The mayor made the comment today at the state of the merged government that we're at 98% capacity. Where is that number coming from then? I think this morning we had 263 of 267. So how do we have the 35? Then that's, I guess, just to grow? I think if I got my history right, right before I came here, there was those positions that were unfilled in the Division of Community Corrections budget. And you took those unfilled positions off the table. You lowered their cap for a number of employees. I believe it was in March of 12. All right. Any other questions before we move to the next presentation? Okay. Thank you, Director. We appreciate you being here and your staff here as well. Thank you all. Thank you. Captain, how are you, sir? I assume you'll be giving the presentation? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You'll just state your name for the record. so those at home watching can follow along. My name is Jim Capillo, and I'm president of Town Branch FOP Lodge 83. I want to start off by saying the director and I are on the same page. My presentation is to explain those 30. Okay, some of the things he made reference to I've got in my presentation as to where we are and why we're there. So, there we go. Basically, the same information on my second slide is in his slide where we were in 2009 and where we are now moving forward. The history lesson, Ordinance 25-2002. I believe the mayor introduced Director Ballard on Wednesday morning and on Thursday evening. the previous council had this ordinance in front of it. It was a housekeeping measure. There were 41 vacant, unfunded officer positions and 12 vacant, unfunded sergeant positions in the Civil Service Code or in the ordinance. The decision was made, along with a number of others from HR, to go ahead and just abolish those positions. Just, again, it's housekeeping. Council Member Myers, I stood up and asked, please do not do that. We need these positions. Council Member Myers asked if a position analysis had been completed relative to the positions, and Commissioner Driscoll replied that one had in fact been completed, and on the next day I filed an open records request asking for that analysis. Seven days later I got a response from the Division of Finance saying that the LFUCG does not have any documents or reports responsive to my request. So I can only assume that Commissioner Driscoll misunderstood the question, that she thought you were asking about a budget analysis as opposed to a position analysis. So to fix that problem, I want to provide you today with that position analysis. It's not the first time I've done it. I did it last year during the budget process with the mayor's budget team, and I will do it again this year with the mayor's budget team. Basically, we have two kinds of posts for officers. I'm not talking sergeants, not talking lieutenants, not talking captains, just officers. We have people who work a regular work week, and then we have people who cover posts that require coverage 24-7. So on the people who work a regular work week, we have a training staff of four. We have a classification staff of six, inmates' services staff of five, court processing staff of two, The CAP program, a community alternative program, which is putting inmates out into the community so that we're not actually paying for them. They are paying us to stay at home. We have seven. The transport staff is at 16. When we first started, we were at 23 with two sergeants. We're now at 16 with one and a half sergeants. There will be a new sergeant added. We used to have kitchen and laundry staff. We outsourced that. Community services is two. Warehouse duty is one. And an officer to work with SIPCOL is one. Gives us a total of 45 people who work Monday through Friday. Transport staff, the people I talked about. That's a schematic of the courthouses. Basically, we have three floors of courtrooms. We have four elevator towers, one on the north end and one on the south end of each of the buildings. We have a holding cell on the first floor. We have, and all of those, if they've got an inmate in there, need to have an officer there, because inmates can commit suicide, inmates can do things if there is no officer present. So that's where we're coming to. We have the 16, we'd like the 23, but that's totally discretionary. One of the reasons we want that is because in the courthouses is where people get killed. I refer you to March 11, 2005, when that particular inmate there took the officer's weapon and shot the officer, the judge, and the court clerk. That's the kind of stuff that understaffing generates. From our point of view, we have our own individual, Mr. Asbury, misdemeanor defendant. He has a history of taking a razor blade, putting it into his cheek, and going to court. And then when no one was looking, took the razor blade out of his cheek. Thank God all he did was cut up the bus and cut up the belt and his restraints. He did not attack anybody. But it's that kind of thing that happens during court transports that we need a substantial number of officers to deal with. In the current budget, this budget, we got three new intake officers, and we thank you for that. The purpose for that was to help police get in and out of the building on those peak hours. Now, so what we've got now is making that adjustment, adding those three. We've got 48 officers who work a regular work week. In terms of 24-7 posts, we have three areas, lobby, master, control. Their job is to operate the doors and deal with the public, take care of the visitors. They are the nerve center of the operation. We have intake, who accept and release the inmates. And we have custody, who do everything else, working with the inmates who are actually in the facility. So I did a staffing analysis based upon the National Institute of Corrections using this particular workbook. And according to that staffing analysis, you calculate the number of hours that each employee is available to work, which is 2,086 hours. Subtract the time away from the post to get what they refer to as the net annual work hours. For master control and lobby, these are the numbers that we get. Now, the number in blue, that's zero on average of military hours per employee per year. There is no one working mass control in the lobby who was actually in the military, so that's where that number came from. The average number of funeral hours per employee per year and the average number of workers' comp hours per employee per year, those are actual numbers that I got from administration. So when you come up with all of those numbers, you come up with the officers in working master control and lobby are available for a little bit over 1,800 hours a year. In intake, a little under 1,700 hours a year. And again, I won't go through the details. The same process was for custody. It's a little over 1,700 hours per year. And the variations are the numbers of people in those units, what they're using for funeral, what they're using for comp, what they're using for actual military hours. So if you identify the number of posts we need each day and we determine the relief factor, the required hours to man the post, which is 24 times 7, or 24 times 365. You get 8760, and you divide that by that factor that we came up with on the last three pages. You then get a relief factor. So lobby mesh control. We actually have two posts from midnight to 830 in the morning. We have two people to monitor the camera. We close the lobby. God forbid your child should be arrested at 3 o'clock in the morning, and you want to come and post, give us the paperwork that says, release my child. one of our officers will have to leave the computer and come to the desk to handle that. We need one officer for breaks. So we need three people in that post. During the day, when we've got attorneys walking in and we've got a whole lot of people coming in, we still need two people to monitor the cameras. We need two people to handle the lobbying for the general public. And again, we need one officer to do the breaks. And at night, we need three officers in the lobby because that's when we have visitation. So when you add those numbers up, we come up with a total of 14. The relief factor, figured out from that calculation previously, is 4.77. We need 23 bodies to handle the posts in master control 24-7. In intake, we need two officers at the triage counter, male and female. The male, when a male comes in, the male officer does the pat frisk. The female officer does the computer work. When a female comes in, they switch. We need another officer at the booking to do data entry. Triage officer is just quick, down, and dirty. What's your name? How do you feel? What do we need to do to make sure you're safe? Getting the actual paperwork in and all of those things are done at the booking station. We don't need an officer at fingerprints, although state law requires that we fingerprint everybody because the sheriff has picked up that responsibility. We need one officer at release to let everybody out. Again, God forbid you should be told by the judge you're going to get out today, and we don't get you down there to get to the release officer. We need one officer in the property room. We need one officer to watch the inmates that are just floating around. We need two officers to give breaks in those positions. That's the union's position. So we have eight posts with a relief factor of 5.20. We need 42 people in intake to staff that 24-7. Custody, we have 20 units. Now, again, just using one officer per unit. We have 20 officers there. We have six high-risk units. Those are the double units, the double officer units. We need six officers to give breaks. Of course, we have a wage and hour lawsuit that says we have to give those breaks. We need two additional officers to be able to respond to emergencies when officers get injured or anything happens. So we need, on average, we need 34 people to work the shift. Because working the shift in custody is like teaching a class. When I was in second grade, Sister Mary Snowflake could not leave the second grade classroom and walk down the hall to the third grade classroom without the whole classroom getting totally disruptive and little Billy taking his ruler and hitting little Joanie over the head. Same thing happens in the jail. If there's no officer presence, there is no control over the inmates. Now, again, we're dealing with just those units. So when you take the 34 posts, you multiply it by the relief factor we got on that particular slide. We come up with 174 officers who were needed. So we come up with a total of 239 needed for that area. The 48 that we came up with who work the regular work week, we come up with 287 for complete staffing, according to the position analysis that I have done. We currently have authorized 257, and that's where your 30 comes in. We're talking about the difference between how many you have authorized us and funded us to hire and the number that we need. Now, what the mayor was talking about, and I don't know if I've got a pointer on this one, is that we are at 90% of the 257. So, again, the director and I are not working at cross-purposes here. We're giving you the same information. And I'm just explaining. Hold on one second. We want to clarify one of your numbers because it's different from what we previously heard. I thought the director said 267, we have 263. So what's our authorized strength? Is it 257 or 267? That's the number I have. I'm not sure. Because the director, I think, said we have 263 out of 267, and that's where we get the 98 percent. I will. Can someone clarify that for us before we leave today so we have the right number of authorized strength? If you're asking for 10 more, obviously it'll make a big difference. So we'll get that clarified. Continue. I will do that. Thank you. So that leaves us with a deficit of 30. Now, the director and I have a disagreement about what the law says. there is no federal mandate for staffing based upon the square footage there is a regulation that says that only the maximum number of inmates we can have in a unit is 80 and I'll get to that in a second and based upon the direct supervision model my interpretation of the regulation is that the maximum is 70 He made reference to it as a construction number. I maintain it's a staffing number. In terms of the physical plant, and that's the regulation. It's difficult to read. I have taken out the extraneous stuff and just left the things that are in red. When we first built it, we built eight sub-day rooms in 12 units, each with eight bunks, which was the standard at the time. The Kentucky Administrative Regulations were upgraded to allow us to put 10 prisoners sharing that B section, one commode, one lavatory, and one drinking fountain per 10 prisoners. So we were able to upgrade to 80 inmates in one of those outer ring sub-day rooms. And then the requirement is that there be sufficient tables and benches to handle the number of prisoners. The reality is the building has eight benches or eight seats around the table. and last spring we had 10 inmates there, so two people had to eat at their bed. In July, additional bunks were put in, so we're now up to, in some of these units, 96, 12 people sharing the one commode, one lavatory, and one drinking fountain. And again, with only. We believe it's a safety issue. We believe that watching 96 inmates with just one officer, and again, this is our philosophical difference. While it's true that some places may be able to make it work with 96 to 1, we don't feel that it is in the best interest for us to do that. The other regulation that I have is in the definitions of K.A.R. 3, 501, K.A.R. 3, 110, it defines a direct supervision area, which means an area used to house 70 or fewer prisoners in a jail. And we're housing 80 to 96 in our direct supervision areas. Now, again, the philosophical difference is that we're not a true direct supervision facility. So there's wiggle room there. But, again, I'm presenting. Captain, the time just expired. If you'll just wrap up for us. I will. Unless you need more information. I'm actually at my last slide. All right. Thank you. And I will stand for questions. Any committee member have questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Hold on. We do have one. Councilman Rellinger. Okay. So your philosophical difference is maxing at 80? Because aren't they supposed to be set up for 64, and then we've gone to 80, and now they're making it go to 96? And you're saying 80 should be the maximum? Or putting two officers in? Our position is when you go to 81, there should be two officers there. Now, the staffing that I gave you that we're down 30 short does not allow for that double officer in those units. So if you do that, again, you're now increasing the costs. All right. I just want to get those differences. Thank you. Anyone else? Any other committee members? I did have one question. Going back to what you pointed out in the KRS, the 501. AAR. Yeah. I'm sorry. Even if you increase the number of officers to two, you still have that issue. So how do you solve the inmate issue? Because it seems like if you solve the inmate issue, if you only have eight people or ten people for an eight-person table or have more than so many officers or inmates per commode, a fountain, et cetera, It seems like if you add two officers, you still have that problem. So if we reduce the number of inmates, you don't need the second officer. So which is it? That's what I'm trying to do. Which is the better of the two? How to drive the bus is not my job. My job is to make sure that the wheels go around. Or where we drive the bus is not my job. My understanding is that 64 to 1 was the original ratio. The state decided we're going to save a lot of money by taking our Class D inmates and sending them back to the local jails. The local jails said, great, we'll take this money-making opportunity, but by the way, we can't make it work at 64 to 1, so the state said, fine, we'll change the regs to 80. So we got a waiver of the requirement until the rest of the state caught up with us. We're now at 96. So we can do it in an emergency. The question becomes whether or not we're dealing with an emergency, and if we are dealing with an emergency, we feel we should have the two officers there. Okay. Very good. Customer Akers. Thank you, Chair. About the CAP program, can you tell me about how many inmates participate in that or at any given time, how large is that program? I do not have that information. I know we have seven officers. I know we have tried to make it more palatable to the judges, and sometimes the judges say yes and sometimes the judges say no. Well, that was my next question. I think Director Ballard is going to answer. I can help you out. Last year we did about 38,000 drug tests. Oh, that's what it consists of? I mean, that's the program? Drug testing and electronic monitoring. Oh, electronic monitoring and drug testing. And 38,000. So are they tested monthly or just randomly? They're all different cycles. Depends on what the court order is and their severity. And you have seven officers that work in that program. And so I guess that was what I was going to ask is how likely is it that we can expand that? Is that all on the courts? That's all on the end of the courts. You all don't get to determine on intake that this person would qualify for home incarceration instead of coming into the jail, correct? No, but what we did just last week, you approved a new contract from electronic monitoring, which is global positioning, which is real-time. You go to a computer and watch a guy driving his car on I-75 at 56 miles an hour, which in the past we all did, but it was more expensive. So we're now demonstrating that to the judges, showing them its capability, trying to encourage them to use it more. I was just sort of following up on Council Member Sinnott's question of reducing the numbers in the jail, therefore then maybe we wouldn't need as many officers and sort of trying to figure out how we might be able to do that. So thank you. I check with my budget person, Gina Doolin. She keeps me out of trouble all the time. Thanks for iPhones. In FY13, we were authorized 257 officers. You gave us six new folks in FY13. Our authorized strength is 263. 263. I said 267 was wrong. You have 263. We're probably at 262 today. We had one resigned. Our authorized strength is 263. And they have 263. And then we had one resigned this morning. It was in the academy. 263. So my number from 257 was last year's number. Right. We're good now. Okay. Councilor Marsati. Thank you, Chair. Captain Capillo. So at 263, your number that you feel that is necessary is what? 287, is that correct? That is correct. The difference between what we've got here is 24. I need to find my note. 287 is the number I have calculated that we need, assuming that we don't have two officers in units in the outer ring when we go up to 96. Okay, so we've got a difference of 44 officers in total that you're not suggesting. You're saying that in order to get to full authorized strength, that's what you would need. We would like that to be our full authorized strength. Right now, we are at full strength, full authorized strength. that does not match what necessary strength. Correct, correct. And I'm just thinking to myself, if I was in a room with 100 people that were not, quote, criminals, I would have a difficult time supervising, watching, looking over, whatever the term would be for 100. Can you imagine one officer with 96 criminals trying to be able to make sure that they don't cause themselves any harm or the officers any harm? I just don't find this acceptable. I'm not sure Commissioner, I mean, Director Ballard, give me the numbers it would cost to get up to authorized strength. What are we looking at there? One thing I need to explain to you, do you understand 96 inmates are all out at one time? Correct. I wouldn't assume they would be. You could have as few as 12. You could have as few as 24. So the officer has the ability to determine how many is out. So whether you let, if it was a capacity of 10 or two over, the difference would be two extra people. So it would be 12 people to watch. It is at the officer's discretion. You're telling me it's completely at the officer's discretion on how many people can come out at one particular time. Yes. And the rest of them are locked behind doors so they can't get out. Now, some units, some officers let more than that out because they feel more comfortable based on the inmates' behavior. Okay, so what if the inmates are all good that day? Well, President Capil could probably address it. We have some officers that feel comfortable with letting more out than others. So some, you let them all have rec or they do split rec. They get like two out at a time or group. So it's pretty subjective. There are other factors that control that, though. If there's keep-aparts or keep-seperates, it comes into play there. How do you feel about the situation? I think it's unrealistic to put a second officer in a housing with 80 people if they're Otis the Town drunk type people. I've got a good example. An AA is work release. I don't think it justifies it there because I don't think the threat level is there. I do believe in other areas of the jail it is a real threat level that probably should be raised to two officers in a housing unit all the time, whether they have 40 inmates in there or 35, based on the inmates' behavior and past criminal history. So in that scenario, how many officers would you need to make that situation for the officer comfortable and safe? How many officers would you be talking about? Instead of the 44, would you be needing 20? Would you be needing 10? I did put some paper to pencil to give it some thought and get the relief factor, but I could get you that number. That would be helpful because I think if you're saying it's at the officer's discretion, it also depends on the type of offense that the criminal is in there for, whether or not you need one or two, that makes a huge difference. If we could man those posts that are high risk where there needs to be two officers, I think that would be a more realistic figure than trying to come up with 44 because I just don't know what 44 would cost us. So if you could come back with us and give us that number, that would be real helpful. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. One of you could answer this question for me. I have two questions. One is how many officers, how many new officers could we hire using, and I know there's some negative effects here that you've expressed, but how many new officers could we hire if we used overtime that we normally spend on overtime? One of the things he showed you on this slide is an average officer uses 120 sick hours a year. That's three weeks of sick time. That's not vacation, holidays. So those are the factors we have to figure in. Our budget for overtime was a little over $800,000 this year. Benefits, entry-level salaries, right at $40,000 an officer. Okay. Second question. How many hours during the day where there are no inmates in the common area and everybody's in cells? These guys, you probably know the answer better than I would. 11 o'clock at night to... When is breakfast? Well, actually, they get breakfast in there. 11 o'clock at night to 7 in the morning. Okay, good. That's what I needed. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I'm not a member of the committee, but thank you for allowing me to ask a question or two. I guess I'm stuck on the question of the staffing versus overtime and the analysis that you gave us. Is it fair to say that with that analysis, since that's what you absolutely need to do to the job, that when you're understaffed, that that gap is filled by overtime. That is correct. And one of the issues I've got is that you give the division an overtime budget of $8,000, but we're 30 people short, we have to fill them with overtime, and then counsel says, well, how come you're spending all of that overtime money? We're spending all that overtime money because there are not sufficient officers there to do the job at straight pay. Okay, I think basically I'm kind of following up on other questions that have been asked, but do we have information, do we have a detailed analysis right now of the balance between up-leveling the staff and the overtime that we actually spend? That is, would it be less, because when I first came on council, this was an issue more with fire than it was with any other division. But the question was, are we spending really more on overtime than we would by staffing up? Has there been an analysis done that would compare staffing up to continuing to pay overtime? Not in any depth. But I can tell you it's a combination of two things. One, I agree with the president that we are short staff. The second of all is the workforce coming to work. They have a very lucrative sick policy. And as you saw in his analysis, I mean, how many of you all took off 120 hours last year in sick? That's three full weeks. So when those folks don't come, and some of them are legit, some are legit, some are injured, so when they don't come to work, we have to backfill those with overtime. Another example that neither one of us mentioned, when we do training, which is required by the standards. When we do training, when I take that officer off the line, then I have to put somebody in overtime to fill that position. The question, if I understand, do I think I could take $800,000 and totally eliminate the overtime and hire everybody I need? My answer is no. Okay. And I appreciate that answer. But what you're telling me is there are some conditions that exist that right now we don't have the ability to change. that is sick leave and that is other factors that affect the overtime issue. I understand that. But my question is, that's the status. That's what's going on now. Given that, do we have an analysis of overtime versus full pay? I mean, overtime versus staffing up? And I think the answer is right now we don't have an in-depth analysis. For one, I think that would be useful for me to see. And I would add one other thing. I understand, I think, from comments in the past that there was mandated overtime because of the shortfall. Is that correct? When we negotiated our contract, overtime was so bad that when we negotiated our contract, we deliberately put language in that said, because obviously 24-7, this may be somebody's Monday. So with that caveat, we specifically put language in the contract that says, You can make me stay on my Tuesday, my Thursday, and maybe my Wednesday, but not my Monday and Friday, because in the past there had been situations where people were staying five days a week. And is it fair to say that mandated overtime is not positive for morale? For some people it is. For some people it's what they use to make their house payment. But overall, in the balancing test. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll have one more question. I know we have another item on our agenda. We had a shortened meeting today. And if we need to come back to this issue, next meeting we can. So, Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Jim, the numbers that you gave about the hours available, are these, is this actual usage that you got from? The actual usage are the blue numbers. Okay. The other numbers that I have there are what the contract allows us. So if you're going to go ahead and figure out what your manpower needs are, you have to assume that someone, if the contract allows 126 hours, that someone might use them. And that's the NIC model for that staffing analysis. That's just what I wondered. Was 120 an average number of sick days, or that's just what is available? That's numbers available. Okay. And then, Director Ballard, for the vests, can we go back to those really quick? How many officers do you have that transport inmates? This is, well, let me make sure I understand your question. Are you talking about the inmates taking the inmates to the hospital or inmates going to and from court? Well, where are you? I mean, you asked for 10, or you mentioned that you were going to order 10. So would that 10 provide a vest for everyone transporting an inmate? No, ma'am. We polled the men and women who work in all auxiliary services and said if a parameter was if we bought the vest, you had to wear it every day. Do you want a vest or not? The overwhelming majority said no. So it's an optional vest. Well, no. There was an optional question to them. The vest we talked about this evening was when the inmates and staff take them to the hospital. So the sweaters that you mentioned that Council Member Massadi made the motion to fund, those are only to transport inmates to the hospital? Yes, ma'am. Not to court? It could be, but mostly just for a hospital. Because if you think about it, not that bad things can't happen in between and there, they came from a secured building into a secured vehicle, into a secured courtroom. So their contact with the public is limited. For the men and women that have taken them to the hospital, it's a public building. People are free to come and go. People can carry stuff in. So when we looked at where do we balance it, we chose to try to get it for the officers that were making hospital runs. So will you, if we find 10, will you then maybe request the balance of those vests that you need to cover every officer, including court, in the budget? Sure. But I think the caveat is, if you buy them, they have to wear them. And the poll of the workers were, if that was the rule, if we bought it, you had to wear it, they didn't want it. So the last thing we want to do is spend $450 on a piece of equipment that doesn't get utilized. I agree. If, let's say, someone chooses not to wear one and something happens and then they're injured or worse, then where's the liability on your department or this government when they made the choice to not wear the protective gear? I don't know if there would be any liability of a violent act, but if you're going to spend $450, I would think it would be only prudent that they wear them. Sure. Okay, just something to think about. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. If I might, just two quick responses. Response number one, in terms of liability, the only potential liability you have would be OSHA if you don't allow them to wear personal protective equipment, which would not be the situation. You'd be having an OSHA violation there. In terms of injury or death, God forbid, on the job, that's covered by workers' compensation, and the common law rules have been abrogated, and the rule basically says put your salary in the formula, you crank the number, and it comes out, and sorry about your luck, Chuck. But that's everybody's workers' compensation issue. Thank you, sir. One final comment and question, Councillor Mersotti, and then we'll move to our next item. I just wanted to keep this in committee. I think that Captain Capillo and Director Ballard are going to come back to us as far as the authorized strength, the right number plus some of this data analysis, officers versus overtime. So I would like to keep this item in committee if possible. Okay. So moved. We'll make sure. We have a motion and a second to keep it in committee. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. It'll stay in committee. And then I know Director Ballard did give us the staffing number already. It's 263. But I did ask him about the staffing that there was going to be for the high-risk situations. Right, which is another issue. So, gentlemen, both of you, thank you. And, Director Baller, I know this is the first time you've seen this presentation. If there's anything else you want to bring back to us or send us an e-mail, please do after this, after you have time to review it. Any other items on this issue? All right. We'll move. Thank you, and thank you to your officers for being here. We appreciate it. Next, we have an E911 structural imbalance presentation. Commissioner Mason, come on down. This is page 13 of our packet. The committee had requested some analysis on some forecasting for where the 9-1-1 fund is headed in the next few years due to the way the revenue is structured based upon landline phones and wireless phones. And I'd really like to thank the Division of Budgeting for pulling this information together and running these calculations. As you see in your sheet here, it's got five columns of actuals from 2009 to 2013 and in a forecast amount running out 14 through 19. The methodology that was used in doing this was looking at the trends that were going on in accounting for the revenue. They've adjusted some areas where there's some classification errors and things like that to come up with these figures. The historical data was reviewed and trends were established for use in the forecast. And what we see in looking across the landline fees revenue amount at the top of the page is, in fact, a decreasing amount, approximately 10 percent per year. The wireless fees are in a growth rate of about 1.5 percent a year. The other expenses were calculated in at approximately a 2% increase, so wages, contract, labor, professional services. Those things were all about 2% with the phones and connectivity at 5% increase per year. So that looks at going out what type of expenses we have as well. So a couple of things to point out about the overall circumstance here with the 911 fees. It's a state-regulated environment. The General Assembly controls how these fees are set up, and they're the chief regulating authority on that. By the end of the month, and I've been in discussion with the Kentucky League of Cities, it's the number two priority for the Kentucky League of Cities this year's General Assembly to address this because every locality is facing the same thing. Everywhere in Kentucky, landlines are decreasing, which means the revenues are decreasing. What they're going to propose is a bill that will increase the wireless fees from 70 cents to a dollar, and that's basically just a catch-up on a consumer price index. This fee has not been increased since 1998. So that 30-cent increase is really just a catch-up on the CPI to recapture the funds that have been lost. There will also be an attempt to end the disparity between prepaid and postpaid mobile wireless subscribers, and it will require the prepaids to pay the equivalent to CMRS that the others pay. So it will be a balancing on that and hopefully will take care of the overall drop in revenues that are coming as a result of landline decreasing. I was actually in Frankfort last week testifying about Smart 911, which we have here in Fayette County. There are five localities in Kentucky that have Smart 911, and there is a move to try and get that enacted statewide. So I was asked to come over and testify. And in both committees, both separate committees that we ran to testify, there was discussion by legislators that they understand that there's a 911 deficit for funds as a result of landlines decreasing. So it's a known problem throughout the state, and hopefully the General Assembly will take care of it to some degree in this session. with me today david lucas is back a retired 9-1-1 director he's back to offer his information for for questions that come up and the budgeting folks are here as well that as i said prepared this forecasting model so with that i'll open it for questions we first up we have councilman myers Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for coming in today. My question would be is when the legislature is looking at Smart 911 and rolling that across the entire state, what advantage does that do or provide, and is there a cost savings in that? Well, we're paying currently about $75,000 a year to have Smart 911 for Fayette County residents. If they are successful in having an appropriation figure for a statewide rollout of about $1.5 million, we would anticipate recouping that $75,000 as a result of the state picking up the bill to run it statewide. So if that happened, then what would our numbers look down the road with the decreasing number of landlines? Well, then you'd add in that $75,000 or take it out of the expenses line. It would decrease our expenses annually. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions or comments? I did have two. One, who tracks the wireless fees? Are we getting that revenue from the state, or do we collect it locally? Or is it paid from the companies to the state, and then we get a check? I think David's got a. Because the other issue is why is the 911 fees going down in terms of our revenue? When from 2009 to 2013, cell phone usage, or the number of people who had cell phones, increased 34% nationwide. But our revenue went down. That is true. The wireless fees are collected by the state. Every carrier has to submit it to the state on a quarterly basis. They crank it through their formula that's set by KRS, and we get our portion. We get the third largest of anyone in the state behind Louisville and KSP. One reason that we are getting decreased amount is it is split among every 911 center in the state. So as we went from 90 to 112 911 centers, the piece of the pie gets a little smaller. Okay, so it's a formula share. Yeah, we call it a House and Senate, so everyone gets an equal share on one side, and the other is based on the number of subscribers you have in your county, and we have a very large number of subscribers. Okay. And then, Commissioner, in 2016, the capital number, it looks like the 925,000 is what puts us almost in the red on the imbalance for capital for 2016, 2017. Is that for the new 911 call center? That is for – what that is for is actually for a plan replacement of our current computerized dispatch and our mapping systems. We had put that in as a future line item, knowing its end of life is coming, and we actually anticipate using fund balance for that at the time. As with 901 funds, we accumulate money for these large purchases and the PSOC being one of them, but this was software we already had in line to do. Okay, so this is cash, not bonding or anything? At the time, we were anticipating using the cash to pay for that, yes. Okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you all. We appreciate you presenting it to the committee. A couple of cleanup items on our last page, on page 14. Let's go through these items real quick. I know there's three that probably need to come off. Council Member Farmer, you had a compound list of safe places. We still need to hear that, I think. Yeah, we'll just back out one. Okay. So keep that in. Abandoned housing, Councilman Myers. Is there anything you want to? Yes, we want to keep that in. Okay. I know we haven't had any movement on the tenant transition and household disposal. Is there a motion to remove that from committee? We want to keep it in? Chris Ford in. Council Member Farmer. I think Council Member Ford gave this to the committee, and according to the notes here, we heard it in August and in October, but weren't some new guidelines enacted after that, or something happened after that? We'll keep it in, then, and we'll get an update before we take it out. The home fleet policy, hopefully we'll hear from that here soon. I know there's been some discussions behind the scenes. Project Lifesaver, we've had that presentation. Is there a motion to remove that? I move. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? Next, Martin, I'm on one. We've also had that presentation back in September. Is there a motion to remove that? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. There's two in here from the Public Safety Link, DEAM, preparedness, and fire station locations. I know the fire station, we may have that next month. Information on that. I'm not sure on the DEAM. Is there anyone on the committee that has information on the dean, emergency preparedness? Yeah, there hasn't been any follow-up from when the presentation was actually done back in November. Is there a motion to remove it? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? The motion is to remove dean, emergency preparedness, off the committee. List. All in favor, say aye. All right, that passes. We just heard the E911 structural imbalance. Is there a motion to remove that? There's a motion. Is there a second? Motion is second. All in favor, say aye. All right, that's coming off. Standards and oversight of rehabilitation homes. That's Council Member Lawless. There's been no action on that yet. Staffing level corrections, we just heard that, and we'll keep that in committee. We'll hear the Division of Police Staffing Plan next month. And then outsourcing of fire building maintenance we'll possibly also hear next month. Is there any items to change other than those? All right. Motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. We're adjourned.