Denton County Commissioners Court Courthouse on the Square 110 West Hickory, Denton, Texas * * * * * Formal Agenda Minutes
Not Official Minutes.  For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012.

July 17, 2001

Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order at 9:02 am on the 17th day of July, 2001 with Judge Scott Armey presiding. Commissioners Sandy Jacobs, Jim Carter, and Cynthia White were present, along with deputy clerk Kathleen Bransford. (Commissioner Bobbie J. Mitchell arrived later.)

Court opened with an Invocation by Chaplain Phil Baker of the Denton County Sheriff's Office and was followed by the Pledges of Allegiance to the American and Texas Flags led by James Gibbs, Centralized Road & Bridge Manager.

Chaplain Baker: I would like to begin by asking you to observe a few moments of silence in honor of Tom Haywood. Let us pray. God, we give You thanks for this good man whose name we honor. We give You thanks for this day. We give You thanks for the freedom to be here. And we remember with pride the men and women whose blood made it possible for us to be here, the men and women whose sweat and tears and toil made it possible for us to be here in the wars of the past. Men and women of this County who vote and who care about the business of this County, the men and women who work for this County, those elected, those appointed and those employed. We ask You to be our guide this day, and all that we do may be pleasing in Your sight. Whisper in the ears of those who must vote the wisdom that can only come from their God above in whose name and whose sake we pray. Amen.

ITEM 1 PUBLIC INPUT

Nancy Brown, Denton County Extension Agent, and Randy Upshaw, District Extension Director for the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, introduced a new employee, Michael Schertz, as the Denton County 4-H and Youth Extension Agent.

ITEM 2 CONSENT AGENDA (Item 10.C pulled to be reposted)

AUDITOR/TREASURER

5.B) Approval of Payroll.

PURCHASING

6.A) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Office Furniture, Bid #06-01-1432, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-10-01)
6.B) Approval of purchase to replace breaker for Carrier Chiller at Denton Courts Building, in the
amount of $2,326.33 to R. Taylor Electric from the 4th Floor and Lower Level Bond Funds, and any
appropriate action. (Briefing 07-10-01)

BUDGET

7.D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101730 for Operating Equipment for Courthouse Security in the amount of $1,100. (Briefing 07-10-01)

7.E) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101750 for Office Supplies for constable Precinct #6 in the amount of $970.

HUMAN RESOURCES

8.A) Approval of Order Making Appointments. (Appointments have been posted and advertised. Interviews were conducted as set forth in the Denton County policies adopted by the Commissioners Court, except as otherwise stated in the appointment orders. These appointments are within the budgetary constraints.) Jefflyn Gilbert, Senior Clerk-Criminal Courts/County Clerk; Jennifer Stockard, Deputy Clerk-Support Courts/County Clerk; Christina Grelle, Juvenile Probation Officer/Juvenile Detention; Jim Dawson, Adult Probation Officer/CSCD; Ramona Holder, Secretary/CSCD; Josh Bishop, Detention Officer I/County Jail; Kristi Cannon, Detention Officer I/County Jail; Todd Luna, Detention Officer I/County Jail; David Berry, Corporal-Patrol/Sheriff; Leonard Price, Sergeant-Patrol/Sheriff; David Delcambre, Sgt-Detention Support Services/County Jail; Kenneth Odom, Inmate Service Instructor/County Jail; Jeffery Hensley, Criminal Justice System Product Technician/County Jail.

PUBLIC WORKS

10.D) Approve the Final Plat for Telea Addition, Phase 1, in the Lantana Project, Precinct 4.
10.E) Approve the Final Plat for Laviana, Phase 1, in the Lantana Project, Precinct 4.
10.F) Approve the Final Plat for Redfearn Addition, Precinct 1.
10.G) Approve the Final Plat for Bouse Addition, Precinct 1.

COUNTY CLERK

11.A) Approve the minutes for July 03, 2001, Formal Session.

Move to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 10.C, which will be reposted, by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0381

ITEM 5 AUDITOR/TREASURER

5.A) Approval of Bill Report.
(Payments from Adult Probation, Community Corrections, Pre-Trial Services and District Attorney Check Fee Fund are presented for recording purposes only.)

DELETIONS FROM GENERAL FUND:

$100.00 to Daniel Kossman, incorrect vendor;
$1,560.00 to David Biles, incorrect amount;
$14.00 to Dale Odom, incorrect amount.

CORRECTIONS:

To Sheriff's Office Training, $50.00 to James Willingham, incorrect vendor, s/b Leslie Willingham;
To '99 CO, $7,476.12 to DiStefano/Santopetro for Jail Expansion, incorrect amount, s/b $7,558.09.

ADDITIONS TO GENERAL FUND:

To Historical Comm., $85.00 to the Tx. African-American Heritage, registration fee for Rosyln Shelton;
To Sheriff's Office, $222.60 to Woodland's Resort, lodging for Susan Elrod;
$100.00 to Susan Elrod for Woodlands Travel Advance;
$175.00 to SWT/Texas Step, registration fee for Susan Elrod;
To Operations, $21,696.84 to H-GAC for a 2001 Ford F150 truck;
To Law Enforcement Facility, $700.00 to David Curtsinger for June cleaning;

To Sheriff's Office Training, $327.60 to Sheraton Hotel, lodging for Leslie Willingham;
To Debt Service, $4,785,574.38 to First State Bank (Wired to Bank of New York) for Principal/Interest on Debt Service.

Move to approve the Bill Report, as amended, by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Armey nay)
Court Order 01-0382

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.C) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101710 for various line items for various Sheriff's
Department Budgets in the amount of $219,295 and approval of exception to Sections #D (3) and #E (3) of the budget amendment policy. (Briefing 07-03 & 10-01)

Move to approve by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White, nay)
Court Order 01-0383

ITEM 10 PUBLIC WORKS

10.B) Approval of any appropriate action regarding ongoing, planned, and proposed county and state transportation projects; Denton County's Better Safer Roads Program; and any necessary action regarding the modification of the Denton County Master Thoroughfare Plan - Commissioners Court.

 NO ACTION

ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS

13.A) Approval of any action regarding Denton County boards and committees - Commissioners Court.

NO ACTION

13.B) Approval of Denton County Redistricting 2001:

1) Splitting and Realigning Voter Precincts,
2) Redistricting of County Commissioners Precincts,
3) Potential Redistricting of Justice of the Peace and Constables Precincts,
4) 2001 Redistricting Committee - County Judge.

13.B-4) Move to appoint Carl Young as an Alternate to the 2001 Redistricting Committee for Precinct Four by Comm. Carter, second by Judge Armey.

Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0384

Comm. Jacobs committed her vote for the redistricting plan to the recommendation of the Citizens Redistricting Committee. Comm. Carter concurred.

ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARING

4. A) Approve the Replat of Lot 18, Little Brook Estates, Precinct 1.

Move to Open Public Hearing by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0

No one spoke either for or against this replat.

Move to Close Public Hearing by Comm. White, second by Judge Armey.
Motion Carried 3-0-0 (Jacobs absent for vote)

Move to approve replat by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0385

ITEM 10 PUBLIC WORKS

10.A) Approval of any appropriate action regarding project development, construction progress, and
change orders to Denton County Building Projects - Commissioners Court.

Move to approve the following Change Orders for the Pre-trial and Law Enforcement Centers and Kitchen Expansion by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter: CO #1 (PCO #81) a deduct of $7,365 to Howard-McKinney, Inc. to delete three stainless steel tables; CO #1 (PCO #68) an add of $1,848 to Overhead Door Company of Fort Worth to change size of door at Sally Port in the Pre-Trial Center; CO #2 (PCO #71) a deduct of $17,831 to Wilks Masonry Corp. to delete Type "K" finishes, furnish and install coved base tile in the Serving Kitchen area Room G107 and remove structural glazed block base in the Restroom area of Room A-117 and the Shower area of B157B; CO #3 (PCO's #47,55 & 80) a deduct of $87,049 to Boggs Electric Co., Inc. to redesign three (3) motor control centers and change forty (40) fans to single speed/single winding, to furnish and install switches in the Booking Area of the Pre-Trial Center and wall coring at the Kitchen Expansion, and remove the allowances for the CCTV and Card Reader Systems from the contract; Co #4 (PCO #43 & 59) a deduct of $496 to Boggs Electric Co., Inc. to delete the wiring conduit and fuses to three fans, and furnish and install Type "S" wall pack fixtures.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0386

ITEM 12 SHERIFF

12.A) Approval of resolution and application for grant assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture to fund an Emergency Vehicle for the Rural Burglary/Theft Unit for the Sheriff's Department. (Briefing 07-10-01)

Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0387

ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS

13.C) Approval of any action related to the 77th Legislative Session - Commissioners Court.
Comm. Jacobs noted the following legislative bills she would like to see the court consider: House Bills 177, 1121, 1254, 1362, 1445, 1681, 1863, 1955 and 2092; also the following Senate Bills: 189,201, 220, 303, 407, 545 and 732.

NO ACTION

13.E) Approval of Commissioners Courtroom bench modifications and permit application to the Texas Historical Commission. (Briefing 07-10-01)

Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0388

ITEM 14 LEGAL

14.C) Approval of Software License Agreement between DMG-MAXIMUS, Inc. and Denton County, Texas, for the Human Resources Department.

Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0389

14.B) Approval of any action regarding Denton County's obligations regarding the Juvenile Alternative Education Program, the opinion by the District Attorney's Civil Division, dated June 6, 2001, and Commissioners Court request for an Attorney General's Opinion.

REPLACE ON THE AGENDA AUGUST 21, 2001

ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS

13.D) Approval of any action related to SB 7 regarding indigent defendant's court appointed attorneys, a
public defender system, the formation of a committee, and any appropriate action - County Judge.

FOR NOW, LEAVE ON BRIEFING AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

Comm. Mitchell joined the court at 9:47 am.

13.F) Approval of a Resolution supporting and commending the Denton County Legislators for their hard work in the 77th Legislative Session - County Judge.

Move to approve by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0390

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.B) Approval of the Denton County Budget Amendment Policy, effective October 1, 2001. (Briefing 07-10-01)

7.B-1) Move to approve a friendly amendment to have the word "left" replaced with the word "available" by Comm. Carter, second by Judge Armey.
Motion Carried 3-2-0 (Mitchell & White nay)
Court Order 01-0391

7.B-2) Move to approve the policy as amended by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-2-0 (Mitchell & White nay)
Court Order 01-0392

7.B-3) Move to forward this policy out to all Department Heads and Elected Officials for them to review and sign, indicating their commitment to these policies, and return to the Budget Department two weeks from today by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0393

ITEM 17 RECESS 10:05

ITEM 18 RECONVENE 12:08

ITEM 15 EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Commissioners Court reserves the exercise of its discretion and may convene in executive session as authorized by the Texas Government Code §§551.071, et seq. on any of the agenda items previously listed.
For purposes permitted by Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 - Contemplated or Pending Litigation or Settlement Offer, Section 551.072 - Real Property, Section 551.074 - Personnel Matters, and Section 551.076 - Security.

Move to Convene in Executive Session by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0

15.A) Real Property: Texas Government Code, Section 551.072: Real Property.

15.B) Deliberation regarding security procedures and devices - Texas Government Code, Section 551.076.

15.C) Consultation with Attorney: Contemplated Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A): ATC Associates, Inc., (formerly ATEC Associates, Inc.), David Baldwin, Inc., Landscaping, CCRD Partners Professional & Consulting Engineers, Phillips Swager & Associates, Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers (formerly Ellisor & Tanner, Inc.), JRJ Paving, Inc., Landscape Design & Construction, Hunt
Construction Group (formerly Huber Hunt & Nichols), Pacheco Koch, and R.C. Small & Associates regarding the Denton County Courts Building.
15.D) Consultation with Attorney: Pending Litigation - Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A) Tarrant County v. Denton County, pending in the District Court of Parker County, Texas 43rd Judicial District, Cause No. 44051.

15.E) Consultation with Attorney: Pending Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A): Save Our Sanger, an unincorporated association v. Commissioners Court of Denton County, Cause No. 2000-50212-367 in the 367th Judicial Court of Denton County, Texas.

15.F) Consultation with Attorney: Contemplated Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A): Maria Escamilla and Luz Rodriguez.

NO ACTION ON ANY EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM

BROKE FOR LUNCH AT 12:45 PM TO RETURN AT 2:00 PM

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.A) Approval of any action related to the Denton County's 2001-2002 Budget.

(The following is a paraphrasing of the
motions and salient points made during this budget work session.)

ITEM 12 DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS/REALLOCATION OF FUNDING/NO IMPACT

Judge Armey: Donna has prepared an agenda and I would request that we start with Item 12, Reallocation of Funding/No Impact.
Ms. Stewart: The first item, Appeals, regards the Health Dept. Pg. 398 is a memo from Dr. Burton adding a Financial Support Specialist II to his budget with some offsetting revenue to pay for that new position. Mr. Wells agrees to certify that revenue. The Health Dept.'s fees would  increase by $75,000 with expenses by $33,000 for a remainder of $41,364 which I would recommend leaving in the health dept. budget to help compensate for salaries where grants are not picking up the full portion.

Judge Armey: Under discussion, on the spreadsheet, lead us through where those changes impact.

Ms. Stewart: On Pg. 7 of 8, Public Health Clinical, shows the changes we are asking for, and that $41,364 will be a contingency until we know the line items for the various grants.

Judge Armey: Also, on Pg. 5 of 8, there is an impact to Jail Health. Is that included in this?

Ms. Stewart: Yes, thank you for bringing that up. It is all tied in.

7.A-1) Move to approve the Jail Health Increase of $2,000 on Pg. 5 of 8 as well as the Public Health Clinical items on Pg. 7 of 8 with the balance of $39, 364 being kept as a contingency in the PH/Clinical budget by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0 (Carter absent for vote)
Court Order 01-0394

Comm. Carter joined the court.

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 401, also on Pg. 3 of 8, the Auditor has reduced his Training & Education line item to reallocate funds of $900 for a leased computer plus accompanying software. This would be a transfer to the County-wide Technology Dept.

Comm. Jacobs: This charge would include licensing?

Ms. Stewart: Yes.

7.A-2) Move to approve transferring $900 Training & Education from the Auditor's budget to County-wide Technology budget of $240 to the software line item and $660 to lease payment line item by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0395

Ms. Stewart: The third item regards Information Services on Pg. 2 of 8, Kevin is requesting to delete two Intern Positions and add one new Support Systems Analyst, also reduce Contract Labor and Computer Software. I do not consider this as adding a new position because of his deleting two Intern positions which is equivalent to a full-time position.

7.A-3) Move to delete two Intern Positions in Information Systems @ $38,825, reduce Contract Labor @ $1,000 and reduce Computer Software @ $277 in order to add one new Systems Analyst @ $40,102 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0396

Ms. Stewart: Another item regarding County-wide Technology on Pg. 2 of 8 is the first three line items: reduce hardware and increase software maintenance and establish a new line item for Computer Repairs.

7.A-4) Move to reduce Hardware Maintenance line item of $82,293, increase Software Maintenance of $42,293 and Create New Line Item for Computer Repairs by $40,000 for zero impact by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0397

ITEM 1 SALARY INFORMATION

RECLASSIFICATIONS/EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS

Ms. Stewart: We thought the court might be ready to take action regarding reclassifications/equity adjustments recommended by DMG Maximus and the Human Resource Department. On Pg. 309, this is an ongoing changing form because as there is turnover we have to constantly update this Chart and, if the
court approves these today, then we can track those changes as they occur. It may affect the bottom line a bit but it will all balance out.

Comm. Jacobs: And these were all approved by our consultant who reviewed them?
Ms. Stewart: Yes. And Amy has included a timeline with regard to how the appeals were handled -Pg. 321.

Comm. Jacobs: There may be one or more departments where DMG stated they were an exception to the rule. So they would not be included in here?

Ms. Stewart: There are several IS positions included in this list - the court might want to address this separately.

Comm. Jacobs: This document does not include any raises? This is purely an equity adjustment?

Ms. Stewart: Most of these are reclassifications and a few equity adjustments.

Ms. Phillips: There are raise recommendations that go along with these and equity adjustment recommendations on Pg. 320.

Comm. White: What happens when their reclasses lowered the present pay?

Ms. Phillips: We have several situations where job classes went down, but the current employer's pay will not go down but, because their grade changes we have to put them on a step, so they will get a small increase to be placed on a step.

Ms. Stewart: There is an exception to that - those that fall outside of the pay range would be maxed out at their current salary.

Comm. White: What do we do for that person who is maxed out?

Ms. Stewart: The court has taken the position that once you are maxed out, that is it.

Comm. Jacobs: We determined from our conversations with consultants that each job description encompassed a specific salary and if they reached the max, they are being paid the most they could be paid for that particular job performance. We have been reviewing those salaries every other year to justify an increase, if necessary. More often than not, that salary will be increased on a sliding scale.

Judge Armey: I think the issue of what we do with maxed-out employees is somewhat of an independent issue. A position must have a range.

7.A-5) Move to adopt en masse the recommendation of the Human Resource Dept., DMG Maximus and Budget Dept. for reclass/equity adjustments by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0398

Judge Armey: What we just approved is on pg. 8 of 8 - Other Motions - and was included in the Recommended Budget.

Comm. Carter: I would like Amy to look at Harold Alexander's position. He does have somewhat more experience in this position than the other two.
Judge Armey: Commissioner, you will have to submit that in writing as an appeal.

NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (Part I)

Ms. Stewart: Beginning on pg. 324 is a complete list of all those positions that do not fall within our pay grade and step system. We have included the current salary for each position, the survey average prepared by HR and Requested Scenario is based on the action the court took last year. That is, they approved bringing all NC positions to the survey average plus 4%. If they fell below that average, they still received the 4% increase.

Comm. Jacobs: I will be presenting reorganizations that may affect salaries on this sheet having to do with Road & Bridge, Public Works or Planning. If I could suggest that whatever action we take in this area exclude those three departments. My other question is about the Auditor's salary - do we set that? Then it should be removed.

Ms. Stewart: We left it on here because that job cannot exceed the salary of the highest paid elected official, like the County Judge. The requirements of the law are listed in the footnote on pg. 324.

Comm. Mitchell: So if we are voting on this today, it would be based on the survey average?

Judge Armey: We won't be taking action today. I see employee salary discussion coming first.

Comm. Jacobs: I'd like to see the regression chart on these employees.

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 327 is for Department Heads and 329 for Elected Officials.

Judge Armey: Encouraging about the Department Head regression analysis, there are only three points of deviation. We will not be taking action today but need to familiarize ourselves with that and with the formula from last year: we brought these individuals to the average plus 4%

Ms. Stewart: The next report is on Elected Official salaries on pg. 328, similar to the Department Head chart. Last year, they were brought to 95% of the average with a 4% cap.

Judge Armey: The formula we used last year was somewhat complicated but it accomplished a number of things: for elected officials, the rule of thumb being it does not exceed half of what we give our employees. Last year was 8% for our employees so 4% was the highest we could go. In addition, those positions that were already at the average needed to be capped. There is something to be said about our county not setting the lead or even meeting the average on Elected Official salaries.

Comm. Jacobs: Speaking not for the court but just as a commissioner, we have in the past given elected official raises and frozen commissioners court salaries. I am not speaking against a freeze if that is what the court should choose but I want to speak for all other elected officials. A great picture of elected official salary ranges is on pg. 329, there is a good size gap between the salary average of Denton County and all other counties up to the level of County Criminal Court Judge. Only our Probate Judge and Criminal District Attorney are paid substantially more than average. We have an internal inequity to begin with. Point Two, we have just discussed that those employees needing an equity adjustment, should have that adjustment before a raise. I don't think we should treat our Elected Officials any differently. I believe that if an equity adjustment is made, regardless of percentage, that we should do that in addition to giving our elected officials a raise - but only at 50%. Let's get our Elected Officials, not Commissioners Court, to at least 95% of the average, not put any cap on them. The gap is continuing to grow. Lubbock County is giving an average of 15 to 20% raise to the Elected Officials to try and get them up to salary. We are doing just the opposite. The third point, the salary is from this year's budget - not next year's budget, widening the gap further. Every year the Salary Grievance Committee has met, they have sent us the same message - put your elected officials where they belong on the salary structure. If we keep the 4% cap, we will never get to average. If I had my choice today, I would go to the 100% salary line item and no raise so that those who are already on the salary average line would stay there and those who were not, would reach it thereby addressing the internal inequity and the external.

Comm. Carter: As I look at these charts, I would really like to see Collin County included in the county salary averages. Dallas & Tarrant Counties raises the average and I am not sure our elected officials faces the same kinds of challenges of these larger counties.

Ms. Stewart: On pg. S-78 & 79, Collin County is included.

Comm. Carter: Perhaps we should consider dropping Dallas and Tarrant from the comparison.

Judge Armey: To get an average, you must look at so many counties larger and so many smaller; also, look at those counties in your market for cost of living, etc.

Comm. Jacobs: For the sake of consistency - we use the two larger counties in our employee surveys, so why not here? We are approaching the point where the administrative assistants for our elected officials might be making more money than our elected officials. I am willing to support a motion that freezes all commissioners court salaries but that penalizes our other elected officials. Other counties are going to the salary average plus the same percentage raise as their employees.

Comm. White: There is a difference between elected officials and employees. I do agree that Dallas and Tarrant are not comparable.

Comm. Jacobs: I agree we should treat our elected officials less than our employees. I agree that we should have a survey average we can all be comfortable with. How will you address the internal inequity between some elected officials who are paid so much closer to the average than others.

Comm. Mitchell: We should be looking at comparable counties and Dallas and Tarrant are not.

Judge Armey: Let me remind you that Tarrant and Dallas both have county managers, therefore their commissioners do not have more responsibilities. Comm. Jacobs made some excellent points but I would caution you not to exclude commissioners court because if you are addressing equity issues it defeats the purpose from the start. Look at your individual preference on that. I have voted for and against but I have never taken a pay raise until after the voters have passed judgment on my performance. We should not penalize ourselves.

Ms. Stewart: With regard to elected official salaries, once the court determines their salary they must be notified in writing and given an opportunity to appeal to the Salary Grievance Committee. If all nine members vote for an increase, we are mandated to include that in our budget. The window of opportunity they have to appeal may force us to delay the adoption process if we do not take quick action.

Comm. Jacobs: Good point. Can we wait until the 31st to make this decision? We have two members who will be absent on the 24th.

Judge Armey: Let us first look at comparable counties and do another survey right now agreeable to everyone. (Directed staff to cut out the three largest and three smallest in county population.)

INTERNS

Ms. Stewart: Pg. S-75, is a list of Intern salaries - eight positions countywide. How do you want to proceed with applying the cost of living increase, if at all? They are not in our classification system, so they do not automatically get an increase.

Comm. White: How long are they interns?

Ms. Stewart: They can go for two years.

Comm. Jacobs: Interns are just as valuable as our employees and it has always been my premise to treat them the same.

Comm. Mitchell: To me, it depends on how long they will be with the county.

Ms. Stewart: Our policy does allow for an intern to receive up to a dollar per hour increase once they have completed the six-month probationary period.

Judge Armey: How about speaking to those department heads they are under?
Comm. White: Pertinent to this discussion, are some of those interns receiving college credits for this work?

Ms. Stewart: We can get specific information from the departments.

EMPLOYEE RAISES

Ms. Stewart: Pg. S-94 you will see the original regression analysis and gave you a revised handout last week.

Ms. Phillips: Today I distributed some updated regression analysis on salary surveys. Last week I showed you the current pay line as opposed to the market average. In Grades 10-19 the slope of our line was very similar to the slope in the market survey. In Grades 20-30 there was more of a discrepancy as the grades got higher. It was suggested that we look at the step plan than just the grades so we could approximate a slope of the market survey. That is being provided to you - Current and Proposed Pay Lines Grades 20-30. We generated a line that approximates the slope between each pay grade.

Judge Armey: What is the change?

Ms. Phillips: We have made the increments between pay grade 20 and 21 about $2700, rather than the $2200 it was.

Comm. Jacobs: So the differential between each pay grade is about $2700?

Ms. Phillips: Exactly. We don't have a budget impact on that yet. Donna and I did talk about it. These are options and we are looking for direction from the court.

Comm. Jacobs: So we would have to increase every employee in this pay line grade about $400 - $500?

Judge Armey: No, because there is a cumulative effect - the higher the pay grade, the higher the increase.

Comm. Jacobs: I would like to see what effect this would have - we are talking about a sliding scale.

Judge Armey: We need to see the budget impact on this. Also, what about those points so far off the average that we talked about last week?

Ms. Phillips: I should have explained earlier that those were averages from the survey data, not specific Denton County salaries.

Judge Armey: We need a budget impact on the realignment of the regression line and then get some numbers applied to that new line for each step and its costs. Members, be prepared to discuss specific grades, positions, etc., as far as something that is more than across the board, for the 31st meeting.

SALARY ATTRITION

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 330, our office has prepared a history report for you. We worked up information on salary attrition for three years of actual history. We have taken it a step further on pg. 336 with the larger departments that have significant turnover and made some projections/recommendations. For example, with the Criminal District Attorney we're showing a recommend percentage of budgeting 98%.

Comm. Jacobs: I would be ready to make a motion to approve an attrition schedule from pg. 336.

Ms. Stewart: My recommendation is that the monies be transferred to the contingency fund only if we missed on these projections. The departments are not penalized and we do budget amendments at the end of the year to make sure they are fully funded.
Comm. Carter: Given the information you have here, would that be $881,000?

Ms. Stewart: Yes sir.

Judge Armey: To cleanup, the six positions that have been filled need to go to the jail budget and deducted from the $881,000.

7.A-6) Move to approve the Recommended Attrition Contingency for the large departments as seen on pg. 336, separating attrition contingency into a non-departmental line item as recommended by Ms. Stewart and moving the six employees into the jail budget so the total will be $881,357 less those six employees by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0399

OVERTIME CASH OPTION REPORT

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 338 reflects the $200,000 budgeted for the various departments based on the number of hourly employees they have. That $200,000 is probably a little more in that we applied $225.00 for every hourly employee. In the past whenever new positions have been added, we have not adjusted that overtime salary figure.

Comm. Mitchell: Why do we encourage comp time rather than overtime?

Judge Armey: What we are doing here is to try and encourage and create overtime over comp time. We may want to bump that up to $300,000 or even more, if we can find the dollars to do that.

Ms. Stewart: It is an employee option and some prefer comp to overtime.

Judge Armey: Exempt employees do not get comp time.

ITEM 2 CAR ALLOWANCE

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 341 is a breakdown and we have applied the 23 percent increase for the fixed allowance and 34.5 cents, the IRS rate, to the reimbursable car allowance, as the Personnel Policy Committee recommended. The impact is $25,000 just for the variable.

Comm. Carter: I support the move from 28 cents to 34.5 cents. I do not believe the 23% is very fair. He gets $100 a month and would only increase $23.00. I would like to see a fixed dollar increase like $100.00 a month, given Harold $200.00 a month.

Judge Armey: So you are recommending on the fixed $100 a month increase for everyone.

Comm. Carter: Yes.

Comm. White: I thought you said in the Recommended, fixed wasn't addressed at all.

Judge Armey: Neither one is addressed in the recommended but the Personnel Policy Committee is recommending the 34.5 cents for reimbursable.

Comm. White: I would support that but not changing the fixed.

Comm. Jacobs: I agree.

7.A-7) Move to increase the fixed car allowance to $100 per month for everyone by Comm. Carter.
Failed for lack of a second.

7.A-8) Move to freeze fixed car allowances at their rate this year by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-2-0 (Carter & Armey nay)
Court Order 01-0400

7.A-9) Move to increase the reimbursable car allowance from 28 cents to 34.5 cents per mile, excluding any grant or state agency car allowance based on different requirements, by Comm.
Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0401

ITEM 3 REORGANIZATION OF COUNTY DEPARTMENTS

Comm. Jacobs: This would affect four departments: Planning, Operations, Public Works & Road & Bridge. It is my opinion that we have reached a point where additional services are needed in the area of Planning. Planning addresses the needs of the future as well as the present. Denton County's commitment to the development of a Master Plan addresses the facilities management and growth but does not address who will be in charge of managing and implementing the plan. An experienced, qualified planner can provide our residents with services in their home 24/7. In order to hire someone with this kind of expertise, it would take a salary of $95,000 and require restructuring of all departments mentioned. If the majority of the court is interested in this, I suggest we provide a draft of potential reorganization of these departments.
Comm. White: It is a good idea and my highest priority is decentralization of Road & Bridge to give Comm. Carter and I, since we have the most roads, more of an impact in that area. Most people think we still do. Right now we really don't. I will come back with an organizational structure.

Comm. Carter: I have continued to urge and support additional planning for the county and to put together a road map for the future. I support Comm. Jacobs's general concept. I would like to study it a little more since she has just introduced it. Thank you Comm. Jacobs.

Comm. Jacobs: This recommendation has nothing to do with the caliber or quality of employees in these three departments right now. I think these people have done an outstanding job and I hope they will continue to do an outstanding job with the county.

Judge Armey: Over the past several years we have re-looked at this area to adjust to what is best. It is always healthy to review your structures. I believe we could find a way to reorganize without an increase to this year's budget, perhaps we can even find a way to trim with that going into necessities such as materials, etc.

ITEM 4 EMPLOYER PAID BENEFITS - PAYROLL CHECK STUBS

Ms. Stewart: Pg. 366 is an email from Cindy Brown, Treasurer with regard to paycheck stubs. She has asked our software vendor, STW, to help her on this. (Ms. Brown briefed the court off mic.) She is moving forward on this project.

ITEM 5 COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #5

Ms. Stewart: One of the appeals we received was to know the impact to add CCC#5 October 1, 2001 instead of what is in the proposed budget of January 1, 2002. You will see on pg. 369 the impact to add the court 10-1 would be $110,800 and we've included impact statements for each position that's included in the recommended budget for this court. The Sheriff's Dept. is appealing some of the positions that he feels should be tied to this court rather than to his budget, only including those positions in the recommended budget. Those will have to be discussed separately by the court.

Judge Armey: Members, this is a court that came on-line October 1, 2000. We delayed the startup of this court for one year. I believe the county court judges have been anticipating an October opening. The Recommended Budget has a startup of January. I would like to see what it would take to start it 10-1-01.

Comm. Jacobs: Clarification on the differences between Recommended and Requested Budget.

Ms. Stewart: Recommended is the startup date of January, Requested is a startup of October with an impact of $110, 800.

Judge Armey: I would like to find the dollars but, depending on what court members want to do, we might want to take a few more reports before a motion is made.

ITEM 6 EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE CLINIC

Ms. Stewart: Beginning on pg. 378 is a memo from Dr. Burton regarding the potential of a health care clinic. He and Ms. Phillips have visited the one in Collin County. We have prepared a very rough budget impact statement based on setting up a clinic. A lot of the cost associated with that is tied to relocating another department, assuming that would be rental space.

Ms. Phillips: Dr. Burton, Gustavo and I visited the clinic in Collin County. We feel such a clinic would have savings to our health plan but we are unable to quantify those savings at this time. Dr. Burton has provided you an extensive memo. This definitely warrants further study. Dallas County also has a similar clinic and both counties feel it is a benefit to their health plan. (Dr. Burton briefed the court off mic.)

Dr. Burton: The savings could be seen in sharing wait rooms, staff, etc. Space is a concern and a cost.

Comm. Jacobs: Dr. Burton, I noticed that you added another physician. Why is that?
Dr. Burton: Our two physicians are already so busy - if not another physician, perhaps an assistant or a nurse practitioner.

Comm. Jacobs: How much more space would be needed?

Dr. Burton: Perhaps another 1,000 square feet.

Comm. Jacobs: I would like to know who is in the Loop 288 building now.

Judge Armey: OK - let's get a breakdown of that, Mr. Zwinggi. Who is in there and how much square footage they have? The timing may be perfect as we move forward with the Food Lion Building and some other spaces.

Comm. Jacobs: Keep this in mind as we do our re-organizational charts for those four departments.

Dr. Burton: This would be a gradual process, accomplish this by increments.
Judge Armey: I agree.

Comm. Jacobs: Before we even begin this process, could we do a survey to see how our employees would feel about such a clinic?

Dr. Burton: It would be an option, not a requirement, for the employee to use the clinic.

Comm. Jacobs: Of course. I am curious to see how many would be interested in using the clinic.

Comm. White: This is not included in the Recommended Budget, right?

Comm. Jacobs: I think we need to see if there might not be some available grant money to help us set up such a clinic, not limited to just state but also federal grants. There is a lot of activity in that area.

Comm. White: It is hard for me to discuss additional dollars, they may be worthy ideas but everyone has their own priorities.

Judge Armey: I see this first work session as a place to lay everything on the table and then start removing. Anything that you are interested in looking at over and above the Recommended Budget, please lay it out there. This is a process of determining those priorities we all agree upon. We must all be present for the last work session when the real cutting and adding gets done, as motions are given and approved or not.

ITEM 1 SALARY INFORMATION

NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (Part II)

Judge Armey: We have our surveys back for the four counties - one larger, three smaller. Third column in the survey average gives a bottom of line cost to implement 100% of the survey average of the four is….

Ms. Stewart: $175,147.

Judge Armey: No one receives a decrease? So even with these four, Denton County was still below on all levels?

Comm. Carter: Do we have all the judges on here?

Judge Armey: Those are set by the legislature.

Comm. Carter: Not the county judges, are they?

Judge Armey: Yes, they are now tied by a percentage to the legislature as are the district judges. The County District Attorney is the only one in the supplement that is not 100% county paid.

Comm. Jacobs: I am tempted to make a motion to freeze all court salaries and then address the other salaries separately.

Judge Armey: I think if we are looking at equity adjustments it's got to be for everyone.

Comm. Carter: Commissioner, if you make the motion I will second it.

Comm. Jacobs: Judge, let me ask you a question. You and I have looked at this for some time. There have been many times you have made that exact motion. With all due respect, it appears you have changed your position now.

Judge Armey: I have made motions to freeze all elected officials but since then I have changed my position but have come to realize that if you do it for one, you do it for all.

Comm. Jacobs: Then Judge, would you support a motion that would pay the new survey average at 100% as reflected here without any increase or raise?

Judge Armey: Yes.

7.A-10) Move to set elected official salaries at 100% of the survey average of the four counties -
Collin, Ft. Bend, Jefferson and Montgomery - with no increase beyond that by Comm.
Jacobs, second by Judge Armey.

Comm. Carter: May I ask Comm. Jacobs if she would separate Commissioners Court from that motion so I may vote Yes.

Comm. Jacobs: The County Judge talked me out of that.

Judge Armey: A commissioner can always give the money back, as I have done in the past, rather than penalize the other members of this court.
Comm. White: I thought we weren't making any decisions until we knew how much money we had.

Judge Armey: But now we are facing this deadline for appeals of Elected Officials. I wanted to hold off on this until we addressed employees but the budget calendar may not allow that.

Comm. White: But then what happens if we don't have - a hypothetical - the money to give employee raises?

Comm. Jacobs: That is not going to happen.

Judge Armey: Ms. Stewart, Ms. Rivera-Worley, can we put a contingency that raises for elected officials are contingent upon employee raises?

Ms. Rivera-Worley: No.

Comm. Carter: I prefer to wait on this decision.

Ms. Stewart: I think we need to take action on this item quickly. To wait until the 31st is pushing it. The Elected Official has five days from receiving the notice to appeal and if they are on vacation, it could be an additional five days.

Comm. Jacobs: It is the intention of my motion that no equity increase would be given to any elected official if the appropriate raises would not first be given to our employees. But the timeline gives us no choice.

Comm. Carter: I have a philosophical objection to voting a raise for myself. I believe the perception will be that we took care of ourselves first. Could we review and adjust the timeline?

Ms. Stewart: The elected officials have five days from receiving notice to appeal. One or more of them could be on vacation for two weeks. The County Judge has ten days to call a meeting. If we wait until the 31st, our last session scheduled is the first meeting in August.

Comm. Carter: What is our last day to pass the budget?

Ms. Stewart: The court has approved the calendar to be the first part of September. The court can adjust the calendar however that may hold up the mailing of tax statements, delaying tax money coming into the county.

Comm. Jacobs: I am retracting my motion. The vote needs to be unanimous. May I suggest we change our entire calendar and place this vote on the 31st.

Judge Armey: Will we be ready to take action on employee raises on the 31st?

Comm. Jacobs: We were scheduled to have our last budget meeting August 7th. So we need to add another budget meeting on the 14th. I am out of town on the 21st but will be back for a meeting on the 28th. So, the 14th for sure, the 28th as a backup.

ITEM 7 COMPUTER SOFTWARE REPORT

Comm. Jacobs: I have a handout concerning the Enterprise Agreement. As we discussed last week, we could be sued millions of dollars if we were to be found in noncompliance with our software licensing. Not having had a computer department in the beginning, we determined it would be impossible to inventory all of our software. (Please refer to handout for points made during this discussion as Comm. Jacobs was off mic.)

7.A-11) Move to approve placing the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement License Purchase in the budget for an impact of $197,700 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Failed 2-2-1 (White & Mitchell nay, Armey abstained)

Comm. White: This is a priority but I believe we should wait to vote on it.

Judge Armey: It is important for us to consider but I recognize that the court needs more time.

ITEM 8 JUROR PAY

Ms. Stewart: On pg. 392 are spreadsheets from Sherry Adelstein, the District Clerk, showing the current pay of $6 per day if called, $10 per day if you serve. That is included in the Recommended Budget, approximately $235,000 per year. On pg. 393, if the court were to increase that to $10 per day if called and $20 per day if serving, the impact would be $155,927 above what is already recommended. And if the court, on pg. 394, chose to go to $12/day and $20/day the impact would be $204,744.

Judge Armey: In my opinion, all though jury duty may be unpleasant, it is founded in a desire to serve and contribute to your community. We will never be able to pay our jurors fair compensation for their value to our citizens, county and system. Most who take time off from work, do get compensated from their work. I do not see where we can afford to address juror pay this year but it is something to keep on our radar screen.

Comm. Carter: Judge, I agree with you but a question. Much of the money we spend for jury goes to some worthwhile organizations. It may be incumbent upon us to review these organizations.

Judge Armey: We will get you a list of all those charities where jurors can donate their dollars. If there is no objection, this will end any further discussion in this area.

ITEM 9 SOCIAL SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

Ms. Stewart: On pg. S-198 is the list of social service agencies that were recommended by the Committee. Those funding levels are included in the Recommended Budget and we are looking for action from the court on that today.

Comm. Mitchell: What is the Denton City/County Day School?

Ms. Stewart: Dr. Burton has some information on pg. 378.

Comm. Mitchell: Do we have any of these in the other cities?

Judge Armey: Not that have applied for the funding.

Comm. Mitchell: Do they even know about it? I don't think so. We don't need to be doing for one city what we're not doing for the others.

Comm. White: Is this its first year for funding?

Ms. Stewart: This is the first year they've applied. They asked for $30,000 and the committee recommended $10,000.

Dr. Burton: This school is a 501.C3, has existed for three years and is one of two subsidized day cares in the county. No others have applied.

Judge Armey: Awareness may be lacking but availability is for all. It is a new area we are engaging in and do we want to get involved?

Comm. Carter: Perhaps we should keep a service list and another strictly for health care.

Judge Armey: Last year we took action to place Pedi-Place contract directly with the health department and not in consideration with Social Service Agencies. This year the committee has recommended that it be placed back with them. So, Ms. Stewart placed them all in the Health Care Relief Fund for budgetary purposes. Perhaps there is a better name we can put on all this - perhaps, Social Service Agency/Health Care Relief Fund. The money is coming from the same source - the Health Care Relief Fund.

Comm. Mitchell: They are all non-profit agencies.

Ms. Stewart: Some of these agencies do both - health care and social service.

7.A-12) Move to approve the funding levels as recommended by the Social Service Committee except for the Denton City/County Day School and change the name of the committee to Non-Profit Agency Committee by Comm. Jacobs,
second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-1-0 (Carter nay)
Court Order 01-0402

Judge Armey: With this motion then, the Pedi-Place contract will be returned to this committee for evaluation on an annual basis.

ITEM 10 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTS

Ms. Stewart: Beginning on Page 395 shows the emails passed back and forth.
Ms. Rivera-Worley: Hugh Coleman and I discussed whether there was any provision that required 100% reimbursement for all expenses. I was able to locate only one - Local Government Code Section 362.003c -I have quoted this on pg. 395. I believe this provision can be applied to our situation: to be used to require 100% reimbursement. The point may be moot because Captain Powell tells me that they already seek and receive 100% reimbursement on those contracts.
Comm. Jacobs: This has always been a controversial subject in the fairness aspect. If we were to act as a policing agency for all the cities in this county, we could not afford it. The intention of these contracts was definitely to get 100% reimbursement. I need to see something from the Auditor's office that shows we are getting fully compensated for our costs, some kind of balance sheet.

Judge Armey: It appears we have three contracts - Northwest I.S.D. for a school resource deputy, one is for a deputy for the town of Shady Shores and the third is the ASAP program with Constable, Pct. 4.

Comm. Carter: My understanding is that both school contracts are 100% reimbursable.
Judge Armey: Our contract with Shady Shores predates the time they had a tax rate so we want to communicate with Shady Shores to see if they even need this deputy anymore.

Ms. Rivera-Worley: That is a contract that the Sheriff enters into so he may want to do the communicating.

7.A-13) Move to get certification from the Auditor that all Law Enforcement Contracts the county engages in are 100% reimbursable by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0403

ITEM 11 HEALTH INSURANCE CONSORTIUM

Ms. Phillips: This is specifically referring to the Public Employee Benefit Cooperative that was formed a few years ago by Dallas & Tarrant County along with the Tollway Authority which joined at a later date. It is too late to get involved for 2002 but we are looking at it for 2003 because we do see some benefits from it. It is a purchasing cooperative and the theory is that the more employees, the greater the purchasing power.

Judge Armey: When does our current contract expire?

Ms. Phillips: We are in the first year of our contract with an option to renew twice.

ITEM 13 DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS

Judge Armey: Item 13 is the Departmental Appeals received so far and this is for us to review between now and next meeting.

Judge Comm: How many of these departments include addressing the subject of reclass or salary?

Ms. Stewart: That would be Records Management, Veterans Services, Constable Pct. #1, Road & Bridge and various Sheriff Dept. budgets.
Comm. Jacobs: Members, I suggest handling any appeals concerning reclasses/salaries/equity adjustments that we only hear the appeals in that area and that the information being presented is different and above from that already presented to DMG Maximus.

Judge Armey: In fact, we want Ms. Phillips to ascertain that prior to our meeting.

Ms. Stewart: A clarification on Constable Pct. #1, there is an appeal for a reclass and that is being recommended by DMG if they receive the new employee they are requesting.

Judge Armey: Donna, on new hires, if you could prepare according to priority. Also, we need a report on all positions that have been vacant for at least a year.

Ms. Stewart: There is one issue that Carmen and I were talking about and need to make you aware of, and that is the Assistant Prosecutors in the DA's Office will now be eligible for state longevity pay. We are waiting on a certification list from the DA. Even time they spend in other counties will apply. They will still be eligible for the county longevity pay. We will budget revenue to offset that as well.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Judge Armey: These items are ones Donna is gathering more information to be placed in the budget. There are two items I would like to add in this area. One is the Transportation Authority. It's becoming clear that with the aggressive time line to create that authority and develop the service plan, there will some costs associated with it. I don't know how much yet and hopefully we can share costs with the cities. The bottom line is, I spoke with Bob Dransfield, our bond counsel, and he assured me that that whatever we spend these next several months can be recovered. The other item is that with the changing of the jurisdictions in the courts, there might be some opportunity to move or even eliminate staff.

Comm. Jacobs: I would like to have a couple things discussed: the master licensing for software and I do not think we should any appeals next week.

Judge Armey: No, we won't be hearing any appeals next week. Until an item is off the agenda - such as juror pay - we will be returning to them.

Comm. Carter: I support putting the court on October 1, 2001. It has been delayed long enough. For James, what is the cost of not opening the new jail? We need to see if we can offset some of the cost of opening that jail such as up front contracts with INS, other agencies and states to bring people in. I do not believe any of that is in the Recommended Budget.

Ms. Stewart: Just the cost of utilities.

Judge Armey: Next week, due to members being absent, we will not discuss the Sheriff's budget, Road & Bridge and any salaries. Any other items?

Comm. White: I recommend opening the new court in January as it is in the Recommended Budget.

Judge Armey: Next meeting will be an information gathering session. We have a motion from Comm. Carter, second from Comm. Mitchell to adjourn. Commissioners Court is adjourned. (Court adjourned at 6:00 pm)

This set of minutes prepared by deputy clerk Kathleen Bransford and reviewed by County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell.