Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Translation Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freestone County explores language-line contract for jail intake to aid non‑English speakers
Summary
Commissioners discussed contracting telephonic translation services for the Freestone County Jail to assist non‑English speakers during intake and arraignments, reviewed pricing models and use restrictions, and asked staff to return with a recommended plan and clarified funding source.
Get email alerts on the Jail Translation Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freestone County commissioners discussed a proposed contract to provide telephonic translation services at the Freestone County Jail during intake and arraignments, citing gaps when in‑person interpreters or staff fluent in a language are unavailable.
Sheriff (name not specified) said the service would allow jail staff to connect detainees to a translator by phone when someone who speaks the needed language is not available. The sheriff and other officials noted Spanish is the most common non‑English language encountered, but said other languages can be costly and rare.
The contract discussed uses a per‑minute billing model with higher “nonstandard” rates for before‑8 a.m., after‑5 p.m., weekends or holidays and for short‑notice assignments. Speakers cited contract language listing a $70 “standard” hourly rate and a $650 per‑language direct‑response setup fee in the contract text on page 3; they also discussed a toll‑free number option and per‑use charges for certain service tiers. Commissioners said they need to identify which county office will pay for usage and agreed to restrict use so the jail—not other county offices—would access the line if the county moves forward.
Questions were raised about whether commissary or inmate account funds could be used to pay service charges; staff said that would be examined. The commissioners asked staff to review plan tiers, confirm whether other vendors provide comparable services, clarify setup and per‑minute costs (including any $12.95 line‑item referenced in discussion), and return with a recommendation. A motion to approve the contract contingent on clarifying the $12.95 item and payment source was discussed but no final contract award or specific vendor selection was recorded at the meeting.
No voice‑vote tally was recorded in the minutes for any final approval at the time the issue was discussed.

