Metropolitan Council - Regular Meeting

office and Sheriff Hall, I will turn it over to you to introduce yourself and your staff and you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to introduce our director of finance, Miss Christie Christy Brighter, our chief of corrections, Miss Ruby Joiner, and the most important people to all of us are the men and women who run the place. If you don't mind to stand up, I appreciate you being here and what you do every day. Thank you very much. I don't know what a rockstar is, but there's a bunch of rock stars back there. So, um, super proud of of them and the work that they do. You know, our our challenge in in what we do in the sheriff's office and what we do for the government in the last really 24 months um has been the word overcrowding. But I want to be real careful and that's really not an accurate description of what's going on. Um, the reality of of our situation in Nashville, I've been here a long time, is that we had beds that have come offline that were operational for years. And because of those beds being offline, then it obviously moves populations into other spaces that we've had. And so we're overcrowded in the viable beds. Uh, this this body and the city decided a few years back to end a contract with a private provider. that population of inmate is now in the beds that were built years ago for what you and I would call the local jail population. So that gobbled up a lot of those vacancies back uh back in 2021. And so now we're living within facilities that um that are housing a variety of populations and it's made it very difficult from a numbers perspective. I like analogies and and to me an analogy that helps in what we do for the government is we're the bathtub. with this bathtub that takes on water and the water are populations brought to us by a variety of of operations primarily the police department. So that that water that comes into the tub we don't control obviously. So we take every amount

that's brought to us but we also don't control the other side which is the release into that. And so you're you're managing this population and if your pub your your tub has to shrink um because you're losing beds and obviously that water rises and that's really where we are. Uh we've been in a serious um what we would call overcrowded situation for the last 24 months and for a variety of reasons um that population has become much more difficult to handle within the beds that that we have available to us. In the the budget in front of you uh that that the mayor has recommended, there's some additions to help with that. And so if you don't mind, I'd like to ask Chief Joiner to kind of walk through what's going on today in those facilities and what would what we see the additional positions would would help us with moving forward.

Here we go.

Thank you. Before coming here this evening, I reviewed our population numbers. We currently have 2,765 people in custody. That's 2,441 men and 324 women. as 415 over our capacity. Although overcrowding is not unconstitutional in itself, it has unavoidable consequences for both inmates and officers. The recommendation to add additional officer positions to our staffing is deeply appreciated. Connecting the incarcerated to essential services depend on adequate staffing. When I speak of essential services, I'm referring to access to attorneys, movement to and from medical, and managing out of sale time, just to name a few. Every movement a person in custody makes requires the supervision of one or more officers, depending upon the inmate's housing and classification. Managing the care, custody, and control of those in our jails is far more complex than simply making sure everyone eats and everyone showers. We do not arrest people. We do not determine how their cases are resolved or control how long they remain in jail while their cases move through the courts. However, we are responsible for the care and for the safety of persons inside our facilities. Many people in our custody are ill and or detoxing. Some struggle with being directed when to move and when to remain in place. Others resist rules altogether. Many are in custody diagnosed with serious mental health conditions. And as most of us know, more often than not, it is easier to get into jail than

it is to access a treatment bed. Many are homeless, barred from returning to shelters because of prior behavioral issues, which increases the likelihood that they will return to custody after release. These factors and many more make working inside a detention facility very challenging, even on good days. Men and women who work inside our jails do far more than just lock and unlock doors. This is important work and we have found it not a job suited for every applicant. We will continue to recruit. We will continue to train and we vow to intensify our focus on retaining the people needed to do this job. Well, thank you, Sheriff.

Yes. So, in the big picture, there's over 400 people in buildings that there are not beds designed for. Um, I was in this sheriff's office in the 80s. Uh, the federal court system took over our jail system. Uh, and for the next 20 plus years, the city spent millions and millions of dollars because it couldn't manage its own problems. Uh, the unique situation we have in Nashville is that the people responsible for that population have very little control of the intake or the outtake. And and so although we have stakeholders and a lot of folks who I think we work very well with, uh, there are things outside of our control. And some of those things are are compounding. As I mentioned earlier, the private facility that that was shut down in 2020, that was 1,200 beds. Those are offline today. Um there's other reasons that we've had complications with the state of Tennessee getting some of their population moved to the state um in in a in an expedited way. I will say the director of law, the mayor's office, I have been over here um I don't know how many times in the last couple of years and and have felt very good about the way they have listened to my concerns. Um and we have a roadmap of what not to follow. Uh what Nashville did in the 80s cost the city a lot of money uh credibility and and reputation and so I don't want to be a part of that operation uh having to go back through that. So, uh, there are a lot of things in in the works. Uh, Nashville deserves and should have safe and secure places for people to be housed, but most importantly, the people that you're paying to work there also deserve a safe place to work. Uh, so with that, Madam Chair, I'll answer any questions.

Chair Huffman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sheriff. Uh, it's good to see y'all. I appreciate you being here. I just had a couple questions. First off, I want to lead off with state inmates in custody. How many do we have total state inmates?

Okay, so so stay with me a little bit because it's easier for me to explain this way. There are two types of state inmates that you're really asking me about. Um the one that is a 1 to sixyear convicted felon, just to be candid, that population would have and was in a private facility up until the closure. So that's a state inmate paid for by the state of Tennessee that we're now managing for or instead of the private company. That revenue is coming back to you as a city. It's listed. I think there's $6 million more dollars in this year than you expected. That's coming back for housing a population. That's a 1 to six state inmate. Above six, anyone convicted above six, we just refer to that as a state inmate, non-local. That population is a problem. Uh today we're at about 171 or 172 of those uh you're not receiving the rate that you deserve as a city uh for that population. The the legal department, the mayor's office, myself, we are as we speak uh aggressively um leveraging the state to to either pay or come pick them up. To be honest with you, we need those folks gone. If today they came and picked every person they have up, that's 171. We're still 280 over, you know, over population. So, I don't want to make them our only problem, but it clearly is a liability that we as a city are going to have to deal with and and um I feel like there is some traction right now between the legal department and and my office.

Okay, that's that's good. It's like to your point, it doesn't solve the problem, but it gets you a long way there.

Uh good good to know. Good to know. What about mobile booking? How has that helped in regards to just overall efficiencies? Yeah, I wish Chief Drake were in here. I've always thought he should be the better cheerleader for this because it's really helping him and the city more than, if you will, the sheriff's office. Basically, what it is, it's a mobile unit that allows people to be booked offsite. And with the downtown uh involvement, as you as you well know, the the surge in population down there, when a an arresting officer is having to leave a scene to go book someone in what is it now across the road and it it takes in the upwards of a couple two to three hours to do that, then that person's out of zone and they're being taken off post or I grew up in Antioch or I live in Cre Hall today. That officer who makes that arrest is driving all the way downtown and going through the entire booking process. mobile allows us to move that unit in concert with the police department as to where they may be focusing their energy and primarily a lot of times that's in the down or at least over by the stadium area so they can jump off the interstate, drop the person off and go. It takes 20 minutes to book a person in mobile. Takes two and a half hours to do it downtown. I could explain all that to you. Um, the mayor's office has been very good to us in staffing that over the last few years because I do see it as a overall savings and a benefit to the public safety environment because the police officers are back where they should be. Uh, in this budget, one thing we needed to do, I was having trouble convincing anyone to work Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or excuse me, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights for 10 straight hours for the rest of your life. So, we were having trouble recruiting people into those post. What this budget addresses, we went to civil service, they approved it to allow us to pay the incentive pay just like the police get downtown for those people who are working in that environment. So, this just allows our booking staff who are down there as well to receive an incentive on top of the regular pay to recruit them to go work there.

How are you on staff right now? You feel like you're at capacity? I mean, you're over capacity with inmate population, but how are you on staff?

Yeah, I was listening to Chief Swan back there. He's right. I mean, one of, you know, we have three three words we say all the time uh in our agency. It's recruit, train, retain. Uh and the most important word of those is retain. And so, we left 55 brand new officers just as early this morning. We all met meet them as on their first day. It looks good to see 55 people sitting there. We know we will lose some of those through training. We'll lose some of those through probation. Um we're in a much much better place. this this council deser deserves credit for helping me a couple years ago get the structure uh better. Um it's a tough environment to work in no matter what and and it takes a special person to do it. We are as aggressive as anyone in this country and probably I would say as competitive as anybody in anywhere doing what we do and trying to keep our our retention up. Spend a lot of energy trying to uh survey our staff, meet with our staff, focus groups, and uh I'm I'm a nerd for that kind of stuff. I really like to understand what makes people tick and what makes them stay here. I know the way I thought 40 years ago when I came here is not the way young people coming to work there think today. So I don't want to talk to me. I want them to tell us what we need to meet them where they are. And um I heard I heard some phrases I think Chief Swan was talking a little bit about. you know, uh, we spent, to be quite honest with you, uh, our legacy, all of these people who work here, um, I I think would would be written in some some scope of trying to help people who who are in our system. Um, I'm a huge sucker for redemption. Um, spent a lot of energy on things like addiction and mental health. To be quite candid with you, I don't think I've done enough to help the staff that work there. Uh, nor has this city. And I'm talking about what I need to do is to do a better job making sure we get the services needed um to the people who are doing a very difficult job and and and quite quite frankly uh uh I feel guilty having worked so hard to do that for a population that deserves it. U but we're

not going to keep young men and women working here if we don't find a way to treat them right. And I'm talking about things far beyond pay and far beyond pensions. You ask a 30-year-old about a pension, they look at you crossey, you know, and and um so we're trying to find a way to to to keep that person meet them where they are, and they have needs that I didn't know about when I came to work here. So, we're working hard on trying to get um what I would call a better overall service provider to our population, our staff. For anybody, I mean, that that doesn't know. And I mean, you you hit it really on the head, but it's a tough job. It's a tough environment. Mhm.

It takes a special person there. Um there was a stat yesterday that director Pratt brought up and to your point in regards to we can all do better for for them, right? And it was that corrections officer was the highest uh type of officer that was on food assistance and that it just it killed me, you know. To see any Metro employee on there is just inexcusable, you know. So definitely something I'd like to talk to you about, you know, after this and work with you on because that's that's definitely, you know, um something we can do better on, but not not a reflection of you, of course. So,

well, I've been here, this is my 24th, probably 32nd year I've been up here for a budget hearing. You're the only public safety chair to have ever come visit the jail to see what it's like. I appreciate you doing that. Thank you, Vice Chair Spain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sheriff, thank you to you and your team. I think I think your whole team for um if if my memory is correct, and that's a big if, I I seem to have some recollection from this time last year that one of the requests from your department in the budget that didn't get funded had to do with upgrading your radio systems or or or camera systems. Am I remembering that right? And if so, have we have we addressed that need? I tell you, there's several technological things that we were asking for that we with with the help of the finance office, we've been able to to to start some of those. To be honest with you, I could spend the rest of the night talking about the challenges of of contraband, primarily drugs, trying to get in and out of a system like this. Um, you know, when most of us, well, excuse me, a handful of us started many years ago, what people tried to sneak in and how they snuck it in was was um was larger quantities of something that if you searched better and had more skills on our end, you'd be able to find. Today, what's coming under a fingernail will kill you. I mean, the lethality of what what people are sneaking in and out of drug out of systems, um, is very, very difficult to detect. And so the technology to do that, to be able to have our staff and you know, we've got all sorts of volunteers, we've got vendors, um that that we need to do a better job on the searching side. Just quite frankly, it's it's frustrating to admit that. Um we've basically eliminated every other avenue that you could get stuff in. We now do when you mail me a letter I'm in jail that's scanned and I get the scanned copy because it was all coming through liqufied um believe it or not liqufied drugs and so I could go all night on that but we spent a lot of energy and with the help of of the finance office we've been able to deal with what I would call the the scanning devices we were looking for. Um that's been a and it's going to be an ongoing challenge just because um it's you know that that's that's deadly now and back then it was really just drugs and being

used which is bad. Uh we have overdose and overdose you know Narcan savings on a regular basis. You you segueed beautifully into my second question um about contraband. During the state's budget hearings earlier this year, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections spent a lot of time talking about uh the threat that drones present to state facilities and how they've become the main thoroughfare for bringing contraband into state facilities. Are we seeing that at the local level as well?

Yes. A couple couple interesting things. Our facilities out in Harding Place are in the flight pattern of the airport. Uh, so it prevents drone use from a legal perspective, but again, um, people who are trying to sneak stuff in are are very sophisticated today. And I'm very concerned long term about how you're ever going to prevent that. One thing to remember, I like to say this not not to insult anybody's intelligence, but prisons and jails are different. And a lot of people blur the term. A prison and jail is a lot like saying a nursing home in an emergency room. And so what happens is in a prison setting, they're often built in big land spaces where the drone flying in and so forth is almost easier to pull off. We're in a downtown environment. There's a lot of it, especially across the road. Um, but we're going to have to continue. We we've got challenges ongoing as it relates to the introduction and and and how people are trying to get it in. Drones are today's challenge, but there's a lot happening. And um I'm not convinced that people even in our own town, even though the FAA will not allow you to fly drones, um the person trying to do that is not going to be following the law anyway. So um it is at risk, but we do not have our population going out on wreck yards like in prisons where you go out in the field and so forth. So it's a little more difficult to get it to where the inmate is.

Thank you, M. Council member Prep. Thank you, Madam Chair, and and thank you, Sheriff Hall. Um, I want to talk to you about the um behavioral care center that you run. Um, amazing program. Um, thank you for getting that that up and running. Um, in a report published back in February, it states that there are currently, um, 60 beds allocated evenly between men and women. Um, are there any plans on expanding that program to be able to facilitate more people being able to participate?

Wow, love this. So here's the deal. Um, we started designing this building in 201617. And the reason I bring that up is we were using data at the time that told us, we did a lot of deep dive into what the population's needs were. At the time of that, there were 100 people a day going to jail, coming to jail, if you want to say it that way. Today it's 70. It's not moving. So 70 has been a status you can just hang on to. Has been for the last couple of years. No matter what people are saying, we take every person. So we can tell you that 70 people a day compared to 100. So at the time what the 100 was used to do, it helped us determine who would qualify, what type of bed do we need, how long do we need the people in the beds. The mental health experts that we were meeting with during that time said, "You do not want a long-term treatment center. You want a stabilization unit and other things." And so they helped us put this whole thing together. What we've run into is because what's interesting is um because there's only a 70 coming to jail today, which may be a good thing, there's fewer people who meet the qualification that it was designed to build to do. So, believe it or not, my question, that's why I smiled. I like you much better than all the other people that ask me this question because they usually say, "Why in the world, you know, aren't you full?" The simple answer is because the the people do not come in the door that qualify for the services it was designed to provide. We all read about and know about this very tragic event out here in in the Belmont situation where there was a competency question involved. Once that event occurred, a lot of people start screaming at us saying, "Why don't you put more people in the BCC? It's not designed for competency cases. A person has to agree to go get mental health treatment. A competence for competency case can't do that." So, I love the fact that expansion is a conversation. You guys ask a lot of questions as I was sitting in the back about, you know, reach and care. I wish I could have gotten people to talk mental health 10 years ago. I couldn't get police, fire, mayor, council, anybody. And so they were all ending up in my system that we run. So we built a facility to handle what's

coming off the streets. The good news is there's other alternatives. I think that's fantastic. So I think your question's really good. I think the city, all of us need to evaluate what do you want to do long term. If it's, if you just ask me, I personally think there's some redundancy in all what we're doing now. I just need to think we should all figure out where to go. And and so the point here's what I have that no one else has. good or bad, we have the beds. You know, one of the things that I worry about partners of care and reach and everything else, there's not a bed to take that person to. Even if you decide it's a mental health crisis, we all know this, the families are usually exhausted, there's not an affordable place for that person to go to a bed. And so, what we have to think through is not coming to jail to get it, but we need to evaluate what do you want uh to do with that case. So, um I think expansion is on the it should be on the table. I also think all of you guys and everybody, we should sit down and figure out what is the role of all of these things you're funding. You've got a bunch of different spread out services and mental health. And I promise you 10 years ago I couldn't get anybody to talk about it.

I I appreciate that. And I will state like I understand that for the longest time um our lo largest mental health facility in Davidson County was the sheriff's office. Um which isn't necessarily your role. So, I I I very much appreciate this program that that uh you got up and running. I will say though, before I ask this question, prefacing it, understanding that a lot of the decisions on who qualifies and what to do with their case is is housed within the DA's office. They're the ones who are making those decisions. Um but in the report that was published in February, um it it did cause me some concern just as far as the percentages of population of the general uh uh prison population or jail population versus those within BCC. Um so according to this report, it it stated that upwards of 61% of folks housed within uh DCSO were either black or minority and 39% white. whereas the participants within the BCC are 57% white, 42% black, um, and 5% other Hispanic, Latino, um, Asian-American. And I guess the heart of my question is understanding again, it's your office isn't the one making the decision on who qualifies and who's actually being able to get into the program. Um, but I'm curious from an administrative standpoint what more we can do to ensure that there is equity of access of those resources. Um, because again the BCC is an is a phenomenal program that not only provides the that inpatient care but provides them continuing wraparound services after they've depart departed the facility. So I guess the heart of the question is what can we do? What more can we as a council body do to ensure that there is equity of access of these resources that are available?

Love the question. I love I agree with you completely. Really bothered me. Um like I've been here a long time. A lot goes on the government. I was quite surprised that the I think internal audit did this audit and um I think they did a really good job. They don't know much about operations and and one of the things that that they did wrong in their report. To me, you're the population. They're quoting you on the 61% black, 39% white. That's our daily population in housing. What I think is a more accurate read of what they should compare is the booking number. Because the booking number coming to jail is 50% white, 50% black almost every day. I mean, give me give me a few points, but I'm just saying where where I think there's another discrepancy that's really worth studying is day two that number turns into 60% black. The arrest is 50% black. So who we're choosing from or the system's looking at is 50% black, 50% white, and that turns out to be much closer to what BCC is. Does that make any sense? They looked at our average daily population, which is really who's being housed. They did not look at the right number. They should have looked at who's coming through the the entry door that we are evaluating. So I first look I was concerned about that. The second thing is I'm not a mental health expert, but I've got some great people. Uh one of the things I asked was what in the world is the problem? You know, what how can we increase? What are we talking about beyond this this discrepancy? One of the things that Lucy Easley may be back in the back. She runs our BCC and she told me it's a national challenge. People of color are much more likely to ask and admit for help for mental health. Here we are in the most difficult situation in a booking room asking a series of questions. And so what we haven't done well is make that conversation knowing what we now know even more suited to a population that is not comfortable talking about it. So, I'm learning that as as we go. It it's something and this sounds minor. We have a booking room that looks a lot like this. This is where a lot of decisions are made. It's wide open. Looks just like this. Nurses and then you go meet with obviously in private nurses and and

behavioral care staff. Um, one of the things that we haven't done well is to communicate what the BCC has to offer. Keep in mind the individual has to be willing to go and it's disproportionate with people of color saying they're willing to do it. So, we need to make it more suited, especially in the conversations that that it looks and we haven't done a really good job of that. It's a pretty sterile video of here's what you're going to get and here's what you're going to need. Doesn't take all of that into account. Um, so we're working on that. I was disappointed, you know, a little bit in in the numbers and she reminded me it's a challenge around the country, not just in jails. And so, what we need to be able to do is heat that head on and be in our booking room. One thing that we're doing better than we were when this report uh mentions as well is um you know handing handbooks out and having people read about what's offered is just not doable especially with the language barriers a lot of things that go on and so we do orientations now we're doing a lot more in-person conversations. Um I do have to brag on a few. I don't want our staff do fantastic but the DA's office I have to say this we couldn't do it without them. They have the authority to do away nollie the cases which is important. uh the public defender does a great job helping us and in our staff every morning uh going through these these cases, but it's it's it's an ongoing thing. I I think I think what uh and I welcome any ideas, by the way, on these these things. But I I felt a little more concerned that it's a national challenge that we're not outside the norm, but that still isn't suitable. How do we go fix that? Um we're trying some creative conversations with staff. Uh the the jail world in my experience is a prettyworked conversation. What I'm saying is the conversations go pretty fast. What's over there if I accept BCC? And we're seeing some improvement of the newness has worn off and they know what it is. It it's a I mean I hope you would. It's a treatment center. It's surely not a jail environment. So we we hope we can even soften um the fear uh because it's a challenge. We sure don't

want to be perceived as selecting disproportionate disproportionate proportionate populations.

I I appreciate that. Thank you. And you actually segueed perfectly for my next question, which was around uh language access, not only just within BC. Well, I know you all do a good job of language access and ensuring that if there's an inmate who needs to speak with their attorney, making sure that there there's plenty of access for for translation. Um, but this question really does hone in on language access for folks that are participating within the BCC. If I'm a non-native English speaker, grew up speaking Creole in my household. If Creel is the only language that I speak, um, and I qualify for the BCC, how is that facilitated to ensure that I'm able to fully participate?

And the language line services, which we use for all sorts of different languages, um, is, and keep in mind, booking and medical is right next to. That's where a lot of these early questions are. are so critical. I mean, we need to know the condition that you're in in a series of questions. So, so we use the network services there. I've often joked that the most popular people in our organization are the bilingual folks because we need them everywhere. Uh, you know, and so, um, we we try to recognize that, but we're meeting it with technology as well just to make sure that, um, we have other challenges that people don't think about. I mean um you know we have folks who can't hear and can't see and and are missing limbs and there's a lot of challenges in a booking environment trying to gather information but uh I think with the technology improvements over the last 5 years um the communication is pretty good within the language itself it's um it's the challenges of you know uh how do you say this in a booking room the detox environment is so chaotic and you're trying to gather all the all the information you can during a pretty difficult Um,

thank you. And then my last question um has to deal with some new state legislation that that um has has been passed which is requiring all local sheriff's offices to sign a 287g contract. Um my question is sort of twofold in what is the timeline for implementation of that contract and whether or not uh Metro or your office are incurring any extra costs associated with having having now to do that.

Yeah, it's been uh I think Kelly Oliver's in the back. Uh, Kelly Oliver worked in Metroleal for many years and and she would pick us apart as a lawyer about what we weren't doing perfectly in the sheriff's office. And I said, "You think you're so smart? Come over here and help us." So, she's been with us since co she does great work. Um, but she also helps us as a government, you know, kind of keep our eyes and ears on on things that are going on in that that legislation you're talking about. I think it's fair to say the entire government, lawyers and and all of us uh were watching that go through and she caught uh a couple of key words uh in that legislation that basically excludes us. We are not required to follow the law that particular piece of legislation because of some words that she caught. Uh Metro Legal has ruled on that and of course my folks as well. So, um, that's that's probably the political news, meaning meaning that piece of legislation we do not believe legally applies to us. I do think it's worth putting everybody on notice what happens right now regardless of that legislation. This has been going on for for many years really. In the Obama administration, uh, there was a program called Secure Communities and they rolled out and what that really meant was when you're fingerprinted for any crime, automatically that print goes to the to the immigration system. This is back then. So what that really does is it automates the transfer of that print and that print then goes in the hands of what we would call immigration. And so they're looking at it and then they determine it if those prints are someone they're interested in. This has been going on now for what well 15 years, however long it's been. And so what they do is they notify us, hold on to that person, we have a detainer to lodge against them. And I'm just talking a little bit fast, but so that's been going on the whole time. and and we turn over people that they have a detainer on uh if they get us the detainer within 48 hours of the arrest. If not, we turn the person loose. I mean, that's just the way it goes. So So, and just to give you some ideas, that's about 600 people a

year. 50 a month is what you're seeing right now. I'm just trying to give you a gauge of what that looks like. 50 out of 600 a month out of 25,000 arrest. Just to put that on the number. So regardless of the recent legislation, regardless of the national trends that are all going on, we've been living by this other thing since I'm calling Obama's administration because that's when the prints were shared. Then there was a state law passed a few years later that forced the sheriff to have to cooperate with ICE and that was illegal language. So that language just says cooperate means I couldn't refuse to accept their detainers and that's how we've been living the whole time. So, you know, my my last piece of that story, I think, would be that the legislation, if passed, then I think we would have to be up here explaining what what piece of uh relationship would we would would we then have to cooperate with ICE and do. The way I see it and way I've talked with other folks, very smart people that are in the back, uh I don't think it would be a lot different if we ever get forced to do it because of this sharing that we're doing now that turns out to be about 50 a month. But we'll surely come back and have that conversation. But as we sit here right now, we're not worried about the the existing legislation that was just passed. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you, Sheriff Hall. And those are my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Council member Allen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you'all for being here for all you do and for all your detailed explanations. Um overcrowding is is a problem and um I know that there's $7 million in here for the annex which as I understand had previously had been sort of a transitional facility which was helping people going back into real life and unfortunately we can't do that anymore. Um but now it's at least being used to deal with some of the overcrowding. So is that is that an okay space for that use and is that serving those those residents well? I I've always said you have the most you do a really good job of background questions. I've said this for many years. It's important. Um the annex was built I want to say in early 2000s. Um it was built for weekenders, people who would show up and serve a DUI. They would get their own key, lock their own door, come and go as they please because that population obviously was was very low level, low risk. um after after many years go by, it was a fine facility, but we didn't have the population that would would fit that classification any longer. So, it became a training facility. We used it for other things. It's been used for overflow, for we've had all sorts of things. But what happened uh in the last 9 to 10 months, we've had some serious life safety safety challenges in the jails and and the overcrowding was some of that. We had some very difficult events that occurred. Uh and so what we were able to do is to go put our hands around what would it take to secure this annex and let's call harden it to be able to move people who were higher risk. And so that effort went into our folks and a lot of people in general services and everyone worked really hard. That building is not approved to house people that are in it long term. And what that means is we would not pass certifications at the state unless we could show them that we're working on some bigger, you know, plan down the road, not not a long-term thing. So, they have approved us to

house them temporarily as long as we show effort that we're working towards the future solution of tearing down a bit a building and building something different. Um, so cross our fingers, it's working. It's not long-term. Uh, my my belief is two to three years is all you would want to try to do that. Um and and as a city, we're going to need to move forward with something to replace the other beds. Thank you. And that gets me to the next question. Are we using the facility out at Harding in some capacity or fully or is that a space that that more beds could be built later?

Good question. So on that property, if we were in a hot air balloon and looking down, there are five correctional facilities on that property. One of those is 2/ird of the way demoed, meaning demolitioned. It was where the private facility or the the population that was in that facility. It's on that property housed 1,200 people. It's being torn down and that population five years ago moved into the existing beds that are on that property as well. And um and all of those facilities as Chief Joiner mentioned earlier are, you know, severely overcrowded because of of the capacity. There is a facility on that property that's been there since 1996. Uh I heard Chief Swan talking about how old some of the uh um fire halls are in jails. Uh jails are three times their age. That's just a national number because of the wear and tear and what happens. It's a very difficult population and staffing and just 24/7 and it's a lot different than a fireh hall for example. So 1996 this building there's a fi fancy report um produced that says it's not worth renovating. It's past its end of life but it has 800 men in it today. And so this city is going to need to tear down that building and replace that building. You're not you're not growing beds. We don't need more beds. We need the beds that are past their life to just be rebuilt and we need fewer of them. That's why overcrowding is a little misleading. If we could build back what we need, we need about 200 fewer than we had 5 years ago. But some of those are offline. So, if we were in a hot air bloom looking down, you'd see one under demolition and you'd see other ones that are severely overcrowded awaiting some beds to be to be built.

Great. Thank you. Um and then final final question. Um in terms of retention of um of staff, have y'all looked at providing on-site child care for female operators? And is that in this budget or should it be?

Wow, I love this too. Uh we studied, man, we go four, five, 10 years ago, we did a real deep dive. I had this grand I our staff had a grandiose plan. We we Here's what we ran into. We have 24-hour day headaches, right? Our our staff are on 12-hour shifts. Moms and dads both who are trying to get daycare, child care for that person, 12-hour shifts are horrible for them. By the way, our staff voted on twelves. They want twelves because it is a better situation. There were not enough people and please fire us in that type of environment that I think the city could afford. we were going to do all sorts of things trying to be creative and bring an attraction to the staff coming to work here. What we learned is you just don't have a concentrated enough number of people that would use those services to justify the cost. Uh again, we're out on Harding, a lot of our facilities on Harding. We have another facility across the street. We pulled and surveyed our staff. Would you drive to Harding if it was, you know, reducing your your child care in half? I just I mean, I'm a huge fan of this. I forgot. I got someone call me a year ago and and I said, "We'll give you work with you. We'll get our staff involved because it would be invaluable to be able to do it." We just couldn't find enough concentrated people that need the shifts and hours that that the men and women need in in in public safety.

Right. Thank you for looking. And I will also say I was one of those council members that voted to end the private contract and I have except for all the the agony that it put you through, I have not regretted it. Y'all are doing a much better job than they were and thank you for how hard you work to make it happen. Well, well, thank you. Thank you for not forgetting it just because one of these days we thought we'd have to be here doing it, but we're hoping to do better. All right. Next up, I have Councilwoman Sor then Councilwoman Webb. Hello. Hey there.

Thank you, Sheriff, and thanks for uh bringing everyone and thank you uh men and women for the work that you do. I always like your budget earring because I think that you you provide a lot of um information and a lot of insights and uh like you rightly said some of the things that you share things that I believe uh conversations we should be having way before uh um and I echo uh council member Allen's word I we didn't want civic in town so so thank you for the work that you're doing. Um a couple of clarification. We know that crime is going down according to the police department and I think in something that you said there was something about 70 before and then 100 before but it's now 70. How do we reconcile those numbers going down and the overcrowded? What is causing that?

I love this. That's a great question. A great great observation. Yeah, it's 100 before COVID. It's 70 now. When I say I'm just I fast talk this. What I mean is it's not a blip in a month. We we watch this a lot last couple of years. You're you're at 70. In CO, you were at 20. So if you go 100 way down in CO because we're back to what the status quo is, at least in today's enforcement of of the police department. So So go back to my analogy. The the the faucet pouring water into our tub is not increasing at all. That that's that 70 number. What's happening is people are not moving to the prison system once convicted fast enough. There are other cases where people are not going into court fast enough. And I'm not the one saying how fast. But what I can prove to you is slower than before. So therefore, the population is growing because it's not coming in the door, it's getting faster. It's slowing down going out, which is growing our our bathtub.

All right. Um so in that case um you have more people that may need services and I want to go back to the uh mental health program that you do again amazing. It's that it's all at your place but uh we're working on it. So what happened to inmates that says to need that services but you don't have room for them in the program? Where do they go?

Yeah. So, um, I made up this fake scale. There is no such thing. I'm I'm a simple guy. I I need 1 to 10, right? So, 10 is more than one. So what I wanted to do when we built the BCC was I knew that if severity or acuity of mental health on that scale the higher you go the more acuity more difficult your challenges are we didn't build the facility to handle 1 to 10 because the eight nines and tens in my madeup scale are severely homicidal suicidal schizophrenia their their behavior right now is not treatable in an environment that is so we never expected for that person who's coming off the streets who is in major uh disorder at this moment. There are hope there's hope to stabilize that person and move them to our care center if they can stabilize and if their charges and so forth are okay. But what what we were trying to do is to get the the men and women who are coming to jail because they've been off their medication because they can function in society in our communities, but whether it's medication or whether it's programming or whether it's their families, they don't have the resources to do it and they're being arrested. And in any other system in this country, they're being in jailed.

I like the word decriminalized. We wanted to take the criminal aspect out of it, hand it off to mental health. And guess what? Mental health is who tells us when you go home. not the DA, not the police chief, not the sheriff, not a judge. It's a mental health decision.

So, we we've been really good at that. I think the challenge, and I say we, I don't do any of the work. The reality of it is the the the what I would call the three to eights on my scale are are somebody we're searching for and is the target when they come off the streets. The eight, nines, and tens are very severe. We're moving them into the jail system, which is normal, and they're being treated by mental health psychologists and psychiatrists. um but they're in a lockdown environment because of their behavior, because of what they're they're doing. And so what I what I think we have to do as a community is to think about it because right now the BCC doesn't lock the doors. What what I want you to understand is we don't believe it's a criminal case. We don't believe you should be secured. And I'm I'm talking about, you know, without your your um uh it's up to you. I mean, you're in a treatment center. We expect you to follow the the program while you're in the program, but we're not treating you like you're in jail. You don't wear jail clothes. You're not called to inmates. You don't separate address, separate phone number, same separate location. We want it to feel like a treatment center. And so when we're doing that, it's it's important that we let that program treat that population. If you bring, let's say, Chief Joiner over there who is at a level eight, nine or 10 on my magical scale, she's disrupting your and my ability to be treated. It's also not fair for the co-op, mental health co-op, who's under contract to treat a certain population to be moving in people who don't qualify for for what I my madeup scale. But um you know, it's something I was wrong about. Uh when we started this whole idea, I didn't think about everybody thinking mental health, which is a huge complicated question. Every time there's a mental health crisis in in town that has any justice involved case involved, everyone thinks to move it to the BCC. And what we have to be careful about is it wasn't designed for that. And the quality and the uh the reputation matters to me that we get,

you know, some some things done without without just trying to be one fit all and move a bunch of people in there. So, it's a balance.

Thank you. I It's filling a gap, but there's still a bigger gap. And so as somebody who has been in this space and talking about this, are you involved in the community safety plan? Are you talking to the to the uh court system? Is there because there are people in your system that needs to go somewhere, but they're not going there, right? And there are people that the police are bringing in that also need to be treated. And I'm thinking because folks are spending more time in your system, you probably have and your staff probably have a very good idea of what's going on to be able to divert or send. Is there something like that that we're working on that would help move things along? Because that's what I'm hearing here. Uh uh your facilities cannot handle everything, but you see a lot of things that need to be done, but it seems as if he's stuck at your place. So, is that happening or how do we make sure that happens?

You're right on again here's this is just my opinion, but here's a gap in the system. Um, for many many years, um, the state of Tennessee would only pay for a person to be evaluated to determine if their competency for trial or not if it was a felony case. So, what that meant was if I'm an armed robber case, let's say, and they're they're suspect of my mental health, then an evaluation can be done to determine if I'm competent enough to go forward with the case. Up until just a few years ago, a misdemeanor, let's say Chief Joiner's case, she's on, you know, a shoplifting and a disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge. But if I'm honest and my colleagues that that in the system, we should all admit that that person was being run through the court system uh with our questions of competency

because you didn't have a way to pay for the evaluation or to have the evaluation. The felony case is being evaluated. The person in and I'm using Chief Joer, but the reality is that person back then was running into a courtroom being asked to plead guilty or dismiss a case and processing it on through. Today, uh I forget which year, a certain year, several back, um funding of evaluations for misdemeanors came about from the state. Sounds like a good thing. Before the money came, Chief Joiner on a shoplift and disorderly conduct would be taken into a courtroom, probably dismissed. She's been here a couple of days. It's some trivial misdemeanor stuff. I'm not saying it's constitutionally right. But she was gone in 48 hours because that case was dismissed and she's gone. Today, the fact that her competency is in question, she's languishing in our jail because we can't get the evaluations done in time. There's not enough staff at the state. There's Middle Tennessee Mental Health is awaiting beds. So, that case that would have been processed in a very quick way. And the idea of funding something to allow her to be evaluated is extensing extending long stays for some cases. Um, and so that's a gap, a serious gap. Here's the thing. A person who's incompetent does not need to be in jail. Period. In a lot of jails around the country, there's pressure to come up with what we call competency restoration. That means we we evaluated you and we believe you can be restored and there's a lot of treatment involved with trying to help restore your your care. I'm all for that. It does not need to happen in a jail setting. And there's some places debating that it needs to be offsite. But we're going to have to think through it as a city because like I said, her case before 48 hours and she's on the streets with no services. By the way, today she's sitting in a system awaiting a bed and and the

charges were trivial. You're I say trivial, but low. We're waiting that call from Middle Tennessee to get her evaluated. Um and and she's taken up a bed for long periods of time and that eventually catches up with our overall numbers. And that evaluation is not done by your system. It's done outside. Yes. Uh uh and there's nothing you can do to expedite that evaluation one way or the other.

I will promise you this. We are working every creative way. I see some people in the back responsible for this. We've got virtual services where we're trying to do stuff virtually. Will you let us We'll bring the person to you. We'll give you space. We're working in every way on it. We'll take you to Mox and Ben and Chattanooga. will go to Memphis. It's worth it to us even because I hope we're good Samaritans, but more importantly, it helps us move our challenges of these beds. It's just difficult because the state of Tennessee is who oversees that. Vanderbilt is under contract to do the evaluation and the state didn't fund the positions to do all of that work. And so, we're sitting here at their discretion. Uh, but I have done everything from say open space here. Will you come here and do the evaluation? Can we can we do it electronically? We're continuing to to to beg and I don't think it's over, but we're we're working in any creative way we can to try to get that that helped.

All right. Well, I will continue the conversation and and I know that you will be um your your wisdom and your experience in that space, seeing what's going on. I think is going to be very critical especially as we're talking about the larger conversation about community safety, policing, jailing people with mental health and all of that so that your cop is less filled. Uh uh uh I think that's going to be important. I wanted to uh we talk about the data that shows that people of color are very reluctant in uh seeking mental health. Uh did we look into hiring people of color as therapist as part of the solution? So, one of the things that happens in the BCC is my staff oversee it. I don't we we call them a fancy word. We call them technicians. You and I might call that a security staff member. Most so we're running the facility that way. But the clinical care comes from the co-op.

So, the therapist is a co-op. Now, we have shared all the the reports and the data with them and um they do great work. They they do but but it's and it's not something I'm passing to them. They're they're aware. We're aware. I really think the problem quite frankly we can improve it over in the booking side with the way that we are um what do you what do you say not selling the program but but convincing populations what's the options what's the alternative for that and what I think we've done wrong is we've done it pretty standard just videos and produce it I do not think we have made it um a very warm uh especially with people of color seeing people of color who are in treatment or going through treatment we haven't done that very well we just sent videos out and not intentionally, but the point is it probably doesn't look warm to everyone. And so we're trying right now. Um there's three things that have to happen. Your charges have to qualify. Our staff have to approve it. And I'm saying that because of your security. The third one is you have to agree to go. So once those first two things are done, it's up to you of whether you will come and receive the behavioral care center. if you say no and there's a significant number that are declining it of all colors by the way and not not not just uh but the difficulty there is we're trying to figure out why are you not wanting the treatment down in the weeds and so I I I I don't want to um I want to be careful because if the person declines it, we need to know why so we can work on the why because it's not a DA sheriff's office declining people to come over in these cases. It's really the individual. So we're and and again I welcome some ideas. My my mental health staff have told me it's a national challenge right now. So we're working on that.

All right. Thank you. And I think that just putting your recommendations and your thought processes and sharing with the everybody involved from my experience to think that data is also shown that people of color responds better to somebody of their color talking to them. And so if that's a problem, I think there's is a way to to look at that. Two quick things and then I'll I'll wrap up. Um I know that one of the issues that you and I have talked about uh year or two behind is the account receivable the the payable from the state for are they on point with their payment to us? I know we're not getting what we need for over six years and we're challenging that in court. I saw all that news about that. But for even the stuff that they're supposed to pay us I know that there's always a lag. Is that still happening or are we paid to date? So Chrissy Bratcher, who is right here, has been promoted since I was here last. She did all the work before she did and she's doing all the work now. We had we had this type of work is what I'm saying. They've worked extremely hard. We have the state. We're confident you're getting back what it's costing you for us to do that work. And that's taken a long time. They do really good work. Um it's coming in. I I do believe I forgot who asked the question. It's that other population that that you're you're you're subsidizing the state right now if we don't get that money down the road because you're doing their corrections work for them at a fourth of the cost for that above six.

Thank you. And my last question, I think that uh my colleague uh prepped to talk about the language assess and the uh 287g unfortunately um and you and I have had a conversation. I know that there are things that you have to do because of where we are and as much as we all aid it uh um um that is happening. So that population that is being handed over to ICE or that you're keeping for 48 hours for eyes is there any um reimbursement any payment uh and then is there anything what is the difference between what you're doing now and the 287g proper? Wow, that's a great question. Okay, so uh the first one is we do not get reimbursed and and keep in mind if Darren was here serving a 10-day sentence on the 10th day, once my sentence runs out, the clock starts ticking and if they don't pick the person up in 48 hours, he's released. You see what I'm saying? So, so once local stuff is complete, if let's say I make bond, if I make bond, the clock starts. And if that 48 hours later or 48 hours goes by, we turn them loose on the 48th hour. 48 Yeah. 48th hour of their um once once their local stuff is done, there is no reimbursement for that. Um there those 48 hours. There was a contract. We had a contract 100 years ago that housed federal um marshall inmates that also allowed us to house back in the 287g days here um immigration cases for reimbursement. If you were that case I'm talking about, if you were held here awaiting back then, you received reimbursement. That contract ended, so we're we're not getting those 48 hours here. Here's here. It's the best way I know to explain it. This is not professional. It's not going to come across as anything other than the way I I think of it. Miss Jorner and I decided to come across

the border 10 years ago. And when when we got to the border, we we took off into the country, this country. As we were flying down the road and we get pulled over and let's just I'm making this up, but there is some sort of white powder in the car. I I don't know. I don't care what that is. When the police arrest us and we're taken both to jail, when the fingerprints are run on both of us, she had never had contact with immigration before in my analog in my hypothetical. She's never had contact. When I was 18, I tried to sneak over once and I was caught and they fingerprint you, which is very common at the border. the fact that my fingerprint was in when I was 18 and the night that she and I got pulled over when we get booked in Arkansas or wherever we are, those prints are going to go to immigration, they're they're not going to know who she is. We both have a cocaine arrest if that's what it was. Darren's fingerprints are going to hit against the immigration system and say we know him. He has no legal means to be in I'm I'm assuming all these things. So, we both have the same criminal charge, but she would be bonded and released if she wants to and go home. I won't be able to go because my print triggered that they know who I am. And that know who I am would often times mean they know I don't have a legal means at that time. So, so what's important to know is that the public are a little confused because she and I were the same age, same day, same everything. We got arrested for the same thing. We the only difference is they knew who I was. Knew because my prince told them in the 287g model that that I think you were asking me to compare it checks both of our status. So here's what's different about it. So what that means is on that arrest for cocaine, both of us would have been held assuming we were

undocumented, assuming there was evidence of all that. Um the thing that we have to be careful about is that as you know just for communications uh purposes that immigration the prints are being checked but the only thing they know about is someone who already has a fingerprint in the immigration system. You could be arrested a hundred times and they're not going to have your immigration fingerprint until that part of the of the situation is told. So it it's always it's important to know 287G by the way that's where it is in the law. It's got four or five different models nowadays. But the one that's happening right now, the way it works here, it's 50 people a month. We're not doing anything. They're doing all they send us a detainer, we don't do anything. So that part I think we would stay in that even if the law forced us, I think that's the level that we we would be able to just continue and you wouldn't see any difference. Um, if the law had said you must do the 287g model by definition and explained it, it would have it would have identified both of us in my in my Example,

Council Member Webb. Yes. Thank you'all for everything you do. I have a simple question with the numbers. What is the ratio from guard to inmates? And are we above a standard or below a standard?

That's a great question. So, I always use number one to 64. That's not really accurate, but that's a housing unit. So 64 inmates would be in in a housing. You'd have one officer in there. Um, clearly we have more than 64 people having to stay in those spaces now. And so what your your question is exactly why we're here. the budget that the mayor has recommended that we have asked for and and allows us to keep that ratio down because our population is over what it should be and these 12 positions would allow us to spread that officer ratio out uh and keep everyone a little safer. That's exactly why it's in here.

Council member Ellis, thank you. Um, and I appreciate your entire crew or at least half of them showing up. So, I'm a bit intimidated with asking this question, but I'm only asking to see if this is change under the cushion. Um, so under the utilities on page 216, uh, there is an increase of 2 million. Um, why is that? It should be a 1 million. Are we looking at I just want to make sure I'm on the right spot. Is it an increase? We asked for a million. Well, it's so in fiscal year 26 it's 2.9 and then fiscal year 27 it's 4.9. Okay.

Yes. So I I can double check. Let let me one one thing. There's two different uh pieces that we we our facilities as you would expect because of 24 hours a day. Our utility costs are extreme and we have not asked for an increase in utilities in 10 years. And so it's caught up with us in other areas. And so this 1 million that we're asking for in addition is the just to keep our utility cost, our budget within within line. The other piece of that money is the facility that I think uh council member Allen was asking us about that we opened up and it opened that up which caused new building or new it's old but a facility to operate that we weren't operating before. So you take that building and our increased utility is is the the 2 million number you're talking about.

Okay. Good. Um well not so good but good. Uh so the state direct program revenue that additional six million what is that for?

Yeah. So as we were talking about having state inmates backed up for longer periods of time. What's happening is you get reimbursed as we were talking about two different rates. You're getting reimbursed the right amount of money but that's in that 6 million for the one to six year. It's about 600 people. um there's 171 or two people that you're not receiving the right amount of money for, but you're getting some money and it adds up to the $6 million additional revenue. Um we've looked at that. If you if you just let me do some I went to Antioch, I'm going to call my Antioch math just quick, right?$5 million more dollars is what you're missing a year. If you're going to keep the population that they have here and not pick them up the way they should, it's in the five to six million additional monies. And so the legal department is challenging the state and we're working to force them either to come pick them up more aggressively or to pay the real rate.

Got it. Um to steal your phrase, I'm use need some anoch math here. Um so the expenditures per capita went from from 2024 2025 $164 to 186. So help me explain that to my constituents. Is that um higher jail population, the new annex facility or I can you help me out just on just catching up with your numbers? Just on on page 213. Okay. So, uh one thing that I ground myself in is the expenditures per cap. I see. Okay. And so I'm trying to be able to explain um that increase.

Yeah. Sure. Sure. No problem. Um yeah, I mean our population is where our cost is and anything we do. 80 plus% of our budget staff staff managing an overpop populated facility. Um and and so it's the overcrowding over those periods of time is clearly what what drives our our hiring staff and food and utility costs. And so it doesn't surprise me that it's moving at that direction because our population is also in a very aggressive place.

Any additional questions for Sheriff Hall and his staff? Seeing none, thank you, Sheriff Hall. I will say that as all of my questions were answered and I will add that as a second termer who was also involved in that vote vote, I do not regret it as as well. Thank you. Just don't forget it. You don't have to regret it. We'll never forget it. Uh and thank you for the work that you all do. All right. Thank you very Next up, we have water. And y'all can come on up.