The Virginian-Pilot
©
PORTSMOUTH
The city could staff and secure its new courthouse for less than half the sheriff's $1.4 million estimate, a consultant said Tuesday.
Much of the savings would come from using video conferencing to reduce the number of deputies needed to handle and transport inmates, according to the consultant, former Virginia Beach Sheriff Paul Lanteigne.
The Portsmouth Sheriff's Office has estimated it will need 28 more deputies and new equipment to staff the Portsmouth Judicial Center, which is scheduled for completion in September. That would cost about $1.4 million and an additional $1.2 million annually in personnel costs, according to its numbers.
Lanteigne's estimates brought those figures down to $665,000 in startup costs and about $500,000 annually. His scenario relied on video conferencing, which is common elsewhere but was not considered in the sheriff's projections. Arraignments, bond hearings and appearances to determine legal representation can be done by video.
"That will dramatically reduce your inmate movement," Lanteigne told the City Council.
Officials from Sheriff Bill Watson's staff saw Lanteigne's figures for the first time Tuesday at a public work session. They said they were not consulted on the study, which they said led to at least one error in how he interpreted their estimates. They also questioned some of his assumptions, including whether video conferencing could reap as much savings as he suggested.
Watson did not attend the meeting. Lt. Lee Cherry, a spokesman for the department, said video conferencing would lead to some savings, but "does it justify everything he said? No."
Lanteigne said one request from the sheriff's office - to staff every room in district court with two deputies - exceeded state standards, which require one.
He suggested additional savings by using part-time civilian staffers to handle screening equipment and lot security, rather than full-time deputies. The federal court and state courts in Norfolk and Virginia Beach use part-time employees, most of whom are retired public safety officers, Lanteigne said.
Council members were pleased to see the lower estimates, but some disagreement existed over the extent of the potential savings.
Council members, sheriff's officials and Lanteigne discussed his findings in more detail in a closed meeting, citing an exemption from the open meetings law for public safety items.
Afterward, Councilmen Paige Cherry, Bill Moody Jr. and Curtis E. Edmonds Sr. said they were under the impression his potential savings were inflated by $300,000 due to a misreading of the sheriff's figures.
Councilman Steve Heretick disputed that reading of the situation, saying Lanteigne's numbers held up.
Regardless, council members said they would work off the study as they complete a budget for the courts complex.
Lanteigne said he was paid $5,000 for the study.
Dave Forster, 757-446-2627, dave.forster@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

THE DAY IS COMING
The day is coming when we want have to deal with a face to face contact. It will be cheaper for City hall to join with other city halls and and use a centralized network and when we go to pay our taxes we will deal with a monitor with a person out in Montana. It will be cheaper. When we go to the doctor we will deal with a doctor in Utah, because he/she is part of a network and you really don't have be seen by an actual person in order to answer questions and give your pain level of 8. We are already being trained to take care of so many things online, bill pay, bank information, appy for entitlements, or communciating with each other(e-mail). The day is coming and it will be cheaper, so we better get used to it and fast!
i dont get it
a report comes out that shows realistic ways to save taxpayer money and everyone complains about it? people love watson and he has a reputation of being for the people, which i understand, but will we let this blind trust cost us an unnecessary $500,000 in taxpayer money??? if it was any other official people would be celebrating a report like this and trashing the person who put the budget in. find some moderation. you can still be a fan of watson, but recognize that cutting back on his wishes would mean some of our money isn't wasted, which would be a good thing.
Watson has a crew of
Watson has a crew of fans....particularly on here (pilotonline) that will kiss his boots no matter what he does.....
They are blinded by favors done for them or for their own interests.
The work-crews Watson controls gives him considerable leverage in obtaining votes long before the election cycle begins.
He uses those work-crews surgically.......
Larry
some of us are just loyal to our friends. I kiss no man's boots but I will stay firm in my support of a friend who has never done me a bit of wrong in the 15 years I've known him. BTW, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, Larry.
what glass house.....? I
what glass house.....? I don't have a work crew and am far from a legitimate candidate......just because I believe i have good ideas and intentions is a far cry from running for office when push comes to shove....I just like watching Watson supporters cringe when I talk about running....It makes me think maybe I'm more of an electoral threat than first thought.
If I am no threat and completely incorrect about Bill why argue and name call me for having an opinion....?
Oh and unsworn (cough) I'm not the one who was posting on the pilot forums all times of the day and night while on the taxpayer dime.
I remember you were angry at Watson earlier in the year as well....while I'M NOT ANGRY I am confident Lagnteign has caught the PSO in a gaff.
Larry
I tried to respond to you but the Pilot shut me down. Maddening but true. I do have a question for you, what time, especially at night, was I posting on the city's penny(I'm not sworn, they don't give me dimes)?
I GLAD THAT QUESTIONS ARE BING ASKED
It just amazes me how the closed meeting is used so much in order to talk about public business. They just don't want us to know what is really being said. I am glad that questions are being asked, I just wish I could hear the answers. Of course Watson submitted a budget with his wishes, now the discussion is to be held for what is required, what is needed and what is extra. I don't have a problem with Watsons request. Now Council looks at it and decides. SPENDING is the issue with our budgets, not the revenue. We have enough revenue coming in, we just have to spend only what is requried to spend on, and not the councils wish list. I would feel safer with an actual person instead of a camera. Soon we want have to deal with people at all.
One Lone Deputy
So, we are to believe that the judges can provide their own security while the deputy goes to get inmates from the lockup for court appearances.
And only one set of eyes is needed to observe the people in the courtroom while following the judge's instructions.
Has the consultant ever been inside a courtroom?
The deputies handling lockup
The deputies handling lockup behind closed doors should be bringing out incarcerated inmates.....standing with them .....then returning them to custody.
If you follow Portsmouth politics at all you should know the demand for 2 deputies came from the judges themselves.
No other city has 2 deputies per C/R......1 Deputy per courtroom
4 deputies to shuttle inmates from direct custody to courtrooms.....
SIMPLE math....remember Watson called the judges "prima donnas" for preferring 2 deputies per C/R 1 for security and 1 as a runner.
Lagnteign is correct that this is a perfect retired or former LEO part time position.
Also replacing Deputies at scanners with Civilian Security P/T for peak hours cuts costs.
newport news always has 2
newport news always has 2 Deputies in criminal and all Circuit court hearings.