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 31, 2001

Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order at 9:03 am on the 31st day of July, 2001 with Judge Scott Armey presiding. Commissioners Sandy Jacobs, Jim Carter, Bobbie J. Mitchell and Cynthia White were present, along with deputy clerk Kathleen Bransford.

Court opened with an Invocation by George Butterfield of the Singing Oaks Church of Christ in Denton and was followed by the Pledges of Allegiance to the American and Texas Flag led by Denton County Constable Pct. 3 Jerry Raburn.

Pastor Butterfield: God and Father of us all, throughout the ages in the midst of Your people and also among the nations, You have demonstrated that You are a God of goodness and severity, justice and mercy. I ask this day that You will fill with Your grace and the spirit of discernment Judge Armey, the Commissioners and all who come into this place so that they, in what they do, might be just like You. Amen.

ITEM 1 PUBLIC INPUT

Tom Spencer of Shady Shores asked the court to review some data he has assembled on the Denton County jail budget.

ITEM 2 CONSENT AGENDA

(The following items were pulled for further discussion and/or a separate vote: 5.C, 7.E, 7.G & 13.E with 7.F to be re-posted)

AUDITOR/TREASURER

5.B) Approval of Payroll.

PURCHASING

6.A) Approval of renewal for Wireless Telephone/Service, RFP #05-98-1170, with Progressive Concepts, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.B) Approval of selection Brockette, Davis & Drake, Inc. as the most qualified firm for engineering services for the improvement of Chinn Chapel Road., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.C) Approval of renewal of Delinquent Tax Attorney Services, RFP #03-98-1163 to Hayes, Coffee & Berry, P.C. and McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen, P.C., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.D) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Tires and Tubes (Passenger and Light Truck), Bid #07-01-1434, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.E) Approval of renewal for Uniform Rental, Bid #05-99-1222, to Unifirst Holdings, L.P., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.F) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Pharmaceutical Service-Public Health, Bid #06-01-1430, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.G) Approval of renewal for Election Supplies, Bid #05-99-1223, to Hart Information Services, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.H) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Uniforms, Sheriff's Department, Bid #07-01-1436, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.I) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Gasoline, Bid #07-01-1435, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.J) Approval of renewal for Batteries, Bid #06-00-1378, to Ken Owens Battery, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.K) Approval of renewal for Vehicle Parts, Bid #07-00-1380, to NAPA Auto Parts, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.L) Approval of renewal of Travel Management, RFP #06-00-1370, with Bismark Travel Agency, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

6.M) Approval of renewal for Armored Car Services, Bid #07-00-1382, to Dunbar Armored, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 07-24-01)

BUDGET

7.B) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101800 for various line items for Constable, Precinct #5 in the amount of $3,722. (Briefing 07-24-01)

7.C) Approval of Budget Amendment Request # 101830 to increase revenues and allocate expenditures for Bank Service Charges for Debt Service in the amount of $4,000. (Briefing 07-24-01)

7.D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101840 for Computers for Indigent Care in the amount of $4,850. (Briefing 07-24-01)

7.H) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101880 for Operating Supplies for Constable, Precinct #4 in the amount of $2,249.

7.I) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101950 for Computer Supplies for Records Management Preservation Fund in the amount of $13,280.

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.) Judy Stone, Deputy Clerk-Recording/Passport/County Clerk; Andrew Sanchez, Deputy Clerk - Support/Courts/County Clerk; Diane Starnes, Deputy Clerk-Support/Courts/County Clerk; Beatrice Chambers, Admin. Assistant (PT), Constable Pct.#5; Jennifer Nations, Senior Clerk-Recording/County Clerk.

8.B) Approve salary adjustments for Michael Moore, Anthony Paul, Chris Ventura, Jeffery Fleming, and Karen Betchan-Criminal District Attorney (Effective date of August 1, 2001) (Briefing 07-24-01)

PUBLIC WORKS

10.C) Approve October 30, 2001, 9:10 a.m. as the date and time to hold a Public Hearing on revisions to the Denton County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. (Briefing 07-24-01)

COUNTY CLERK

11.A) Approve the minutes for Denton County Commissioners Court Meeting, and the County Clerk minutes for Budget Work Session for July 17, 2001, Formal Session.

OTHER DEPARTMENTS

13.F) Approval of Tom Garbacik donating seven items of memorabilia to the Joann Garbacik Law Library. (Briefing 07-24-01)

13.G) Acceptance of the certificate of completion certifying that the continuing education provisions of the Texas Local Government Code, Article 81.0025 have been satisfied by Commissioner Cynthia White, Precinct 1 for the calendar year 2001 - Commissioner Precinct 1. (Briefing 07-24-01)

LEGAL

14.B) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Ponder ISD. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.C) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the Town of Copper Canyon. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.D) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the Town of Hackberry. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.E) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Krum ISD. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.F) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of Highland Village. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.G) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Lewisville ISD. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.H) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of Krugerville. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.I) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of Ponder. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.J) Approval of (1) Contract for Imaging Software and Services with VOTEC Corporation and (2) Addendum o Software and Maintenance Support Agreement for the Denton County Elections Administration/Voter Registration Department. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.K) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the Denton County Fresh Water Supply District 1E. (Briefing 07-24-01)

14.L) Discussion of the Grant Acceptance for Continued Funding for the Family Violence Intervention Grant, VA-99-V30-13610-02, for the Denton County Criminal District Attorney's Office. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to approve Consent Agenda with the exceptions of 5.C, 7.E, 7.F (to be re-posted), 7.G and 13.E by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0428

ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.A) Approve the Replat of Lot 10, Pecan Valley Addition, Precinct 1. (Recessed from Public Hearing 07-24-01)

Move to Reconvene Public Hearing by Comm. Mitchell, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0

Gina Brock-Hill spoke in opposition to the replat.
Sharon Vaughn spoke in favor of the replat.

Move to Close Public Hearing by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0

Move to approve replat by Comm. White, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0429

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 Juvenile Probation, ($184.74) credit to Boise Cascade,
From Indigent, $110.00 to WSK Eye Associates, PA.

ADDITIONS TO GENERAL:

$1,821.80 to Progressive Concepts for mobile phone services to Constables 2 & 6 and License & Weights; $3,910.00 to Mary Lour Crosbie for court-appointed services to various courts; $3,075.00 to David Moraine for court-appointed services to various courts, $814.71 to General Services Commission for Monthly Circuit Charge;
To DCGC, $45.00 to Texas Dept. of Licensing for Boiler inspection.

Move to approve the amended Bill Report by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.

Motion Carried 4-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0430

ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS

13.H) Approve the Resolution supporting the City of Denton Alternative Transportation Day, Wednesday, August 1, 2001 - Commissioner Precinct 1.

Move to approve by Comm. White, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0431

13.I) Approval of resolution opposing Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission's Issuance of Air Quality Permit No. 47958 to Marriott Rentals, Inc. which would authorize construction of a Portable Asphalt Plant located at 2269 Masch Road, Denton, Denton County, Texas - Commissioner Precinct 4.

Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0432

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.J) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101960 for Cars/Small Trucks for Constable, Precinct #3 including the transfer of funds from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Alternative Fuel Vehicles in the amount of $20,828.

Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0433

7.G) Approval of the submission of the appraisal roll for Denton County for tax year 2001 from the Tax Assessor-Collector. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0434

ITEM 5 AUDITOR/TREASURER

5.C) Approval of the Imposition of Optional County Fees relating to Motor Vehicle Registration. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to approve to set the County fee at $10.00 with no options by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0435

ITEM 6 PURCHASING

6.N) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Independent Auditors, RFP #05-01-1428, and any appropriate action.

Move to approve with minor changes by the Auditor by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0436

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.E) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101850 for Computers for County-Wide Technology in the amount of $38,425. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to approve in the amount of $40,275 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0437

ITEM 8 HUMAN RESOURCES

8.C) Approve revision to Policy #6.4-Incentive Pay. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0438

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.

NO ACTION

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.

Move to authorize a letter, signed by Commissioner Jacobs on behalf of Commissioners
Court, to the Texas Transportation Commission, the partner cities, etc., thanking them for their support and giving an update on the approval by the Texas Department of Transportation of this court's innovative financing providing $170 million from the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) towards the completion of State Highway 121 mainlanes by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Jacobs.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0439

ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS

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

NO ACTION

13.B) Approval of any action regarding the 77th Legislative Session - Commissioners Court.

NO ACTION

13.C) 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.
NO ACTION

13.D) Approval of appointment of Election Judges and Alternate Judges for FY2002 - Election Administration.

NO ACTION

13.E) Approval of allocation of funds for economic development from Unappropriated contingency. (Briefing 07-24-01)

Move to allocate $25,000 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 01-0440

ITEM 16 ADDENDA

16.B) Discussion and approval of the Master Plan Blue Prints prepared by Architexas for the Courthouse on the Square Grant, and any appropriate action-County Judge.

Move to approve along with a request for Architexas to provide a budget by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0441

ITEM 17 RECESS (10:30 AM)

ITEM 18 RECONVENE (11:20 AM)

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. White.
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: 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.D) 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) Deliberation and discussions regarding various Economic Development Projects, the financial information received from the subject businesses and offers of financial or other incentives, Texas Government Code, Section 551.086 (1) and (2).

NO ACTION ON ITEMS 15 A,B,C,D, & F

15.E) Consultation with Attorney: Contemplated Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A); Claim of Glen Baldwin.

Move to approve the recommendation of the District Attorney, Civil Division, to settle the claim by Glen Baldwin in the amount of $1,065 payable to Mr. Baldwin upon his execution of the release for the County with the funds coming from Road & Bridge by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0442

15.G) Consultation with Attorney: contemplated litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A): Jonathan Cain.

Move to approve the recommendation of the District Attorney, Civil Division, to settle the claim by Jonathan Cain for overtime pay in the amount of $6,723.23 with $5,787.74 coming from Line Item 013010, Slot No. 998DA, Overtime Cash, and the remainder of $935.49 coming from the Benefit Line Item of 013010 from the District Attorney's Office to be paid to Mr. Cain upon his execution of release for the County by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0443

15.H) Consultation with Attorney: Pending Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A); Shaw v. Toshiba Class Action Settlement.

Move to approve the recommendation of the District Attorney, Civil Division, to accept a check in the amount of $3,021 payable to Denton County and coupons worth several thousand dollars; also, to accept the final settlement from Toshiba by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0444

ITEM 17 RECESS (12:15 PM)

ITEM 18 RECONVENE (1:45 PM)

ITEM 7 BUDGET

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

16.A) Approval of any action related to the Budget Worksession for 2001 - 2002.

1) Salary/Benefit Information

Non-Classified Employees
Elected Officials
Interns
Employee Raises
Salary Attrition Information
Vacant Slots
Report on Employees @ Maximum of Pay Grade
Report from HR - Reclassification of Appeals
Retirement Options

2) County Criminal Court #5
3) Employee Health Care Clinic
4) Computer Software Report
5) Law Enforcement Contracts
6) Breakdown of County Services/Non-Mandated Report from DA
7) Building/Properties Committee Prioritization Report on Tax Notes
8) County Court at Law #2/Civil Court
9) Reorganization of Public Works/Road and Bridge/Planning and
Facilities
10) Electronic/Technical Changes- Court System Process
11) Jail Expansion
12) Radio Tower Funding
13) Criminal DA-Civil Division
14) Juror Pay
15) Transportation Authority
16) Report on New Hire Appeals
17) Constable, Pct. #4-ASAP Pgm & Traffic Enforcement Position
18) SB 7 - Court Appointed Attorney Fees
19) Capital Items (Vehicles and Other Items Over $20,000 each)
20) Economic Development Funding
21) Revised Appeal - Records Management (No Budget Impact)
22) Budget Planning Calendar Discussions
23) Department Appeals Are Pending - They Will Not Be Held on July 31, 2001

CHOS Museum Alcohol Beverage Commission
Treasurer Tax Assessor/Collector
District Clerk Juvenile Detention
Constable, Pct. #6 Juvenile Post Adjudication
Records Management Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program
Veterans Service Criminal District Attorney
Constable, Pct. #2 Criminal District Attorney - Civil Division
County Criminal Court #4 Various Sheriff Department Budgets
Constable, Pct. #1 Centralized Road & Bridge
Teen Court Emergency Management
Child Protective Services License & Weights
County Criminal Court #3 Justice of the Peace, Pct. #4
County Clerk Sheriff's Department - Radio Technician
Human Resources

24) Other Discussions Relating to the FY 2001-2001 Budget and Any Appropriate Action.
25) Future Agenda Items

1) County Auditor Report on Fines, Fees & Collection Rate
2) Various Department Appeals
3) Criminal DA - State Longevity Pay
4) Report from Juvenile Board - Judge Windle's Proposal for Magistrate

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

Ms. Stewart: (distributed two sheets regarding tax rate - Estimate ONLY) The first sheet gives you a summary of the estimated effective rate. We hope to have the final number next week. The second sheet shows breakdowns in increments of 50 cents. The rollback rate is above the M&O (Maintenance & Operation rate) and a separate debt rate and you can increase 8% above the M&O rate. The rollback rate would be .23474 based on the estimated effective rate we have today. That would be about 4 million dollars.

ITEM 1 SALARY/BENEFIT INFORMATION

SALARY SCENARIOS

Ms. Stewart: Scenario One is adjusting the pay scale as the court has discussed and then adding step increments based on sliding the scale from Pay Grade 20 on up. To adjust pay scale and put elected officials and department heads at the survey average is 1.4 million dollars. With a one step increase, that would be 3 million.

Comm. Jacobs: So Scenario One costs over 6 million?

Ms. Stewart: Yes, 6.3 million to adjust the scale and provide a three-step increase.

Comm. Jacobs: If we were to adjust the scale only 20-30 and provide a two-step, what would that cost?

Ms. Stewart: 4.7 million, including raises for elected officials at the survey average.
Comm. Jacobs: And the scale plus one-step?

Ms. Stewart: 3 million.

Comm. Jacobs: If we go higher than the 4 million, and cannot find the cuts, we threaten a rollback.

Judge Armey: We need to look to the authority created with the referendum - that is 3 cents above this year's tax rate which would be …..

Ms. Stewart: Based on our current rate of .23193, so it would be .26193 or approximately 11 million dollars.

Comm. Jacobs: I have been through a rollback and do not want to go through that again. Just because we have a non-binding referendum, does that prevent the rollback?
Carmen Rivera-Worley, Criminal DA, Civil: To my knowledge, it does not.

Comm. Jacobs: To give our employees the raise they need and deserve, we are looking at three options: One, no raise - which I would definitely be opposed to - two, we take it as far as we can without a rollback - which would give us about 4 million toward raises - three, we go the whole 3 cents that has been directed by the referendum. I think all of us have eliminated the first one, so now it's a question of the other two alternatives. We need to discuss that first to set the pace for the entire budget.

Judge Armey: What is the effective rate?

Ms. Stewart: .21937

Judge Armey: We would have to raise taxes by 19.4%

Comm. Jacobs: So the question becomes are we serious about raising taxes almost 20%?

Comm. White: I am a firm believer in a no-increase tax but we're at the point where our employees are seriously underpaid. And to operate an effective organization, you have to pay them competitively. We have a mandate from the voters that passed by over 50% saying that they will accept up to three cents, and I feel that is a pretty strong message that we need to consider.

Comm. Carter: I agree with Comm. White. I think we do have a mandate and have seriously underpaid our employees.

Comm. Mitchell: How much is 2 cents?

Ms. Stewart: Based on the current rate, 8.5 million.

Comm. Mitchell: We only need 4.9 million.

Comm. Jacobs: Just to do Scenario One would take 6.7 million. It's 4.7 million if we do the scale plus two steps. That is one alternative. If we could find one million and reduce it by that amount, we could have a tax increase that would be below the tax rollback rate. But if we ignore that and listen to the message received from our taxpayers, then we can go beyond the tax rollback rate. And, if we are going to go beyond it, then we might as well go the full three cents because once you go past that rollback rate, it doesn't matter.

Comm. Mitchell: Yes, we have a mandate, but we still should use only what we need.

Judge Armey: You are correct, we need to look at what the referendum allows and to what extent does that need to be exercised. How much below market survey are our employees?

Ms. Phillips, Human Resource Director: The difference between our line and the market line is about 10%, so to bring it up to today's market, we would have to make the adjustments we have talked about and slide the entire scale about 10%.

Ms. Stewart: 10% slide of the scale plus one step would be 7.8 million.

Comm. Jacobs: What percentage of a tax increase is 7.8 million?

Ms. Stewart: 13.5%.

Judge Armey: Based on full implementation of the referendum authority, what could we slide the scale to with the correction to grades 20-30 and the inherent one-step raise determined by the system?

Ms. Stewart: 16% is the maximum.

Judge Armey: To summarize, the components are: to adjust the line in grades 20-30 at 1.4 million and the one-step increase is 2 million - we need to do those two steps to achieve market equity.

Comm. Jacobs: So a one-step is basically a cost of living raise.

Judge Armey: The remaining variable is to what extent do we slide the scales. We are hearing on average that we are 10% below market. The minimum we need is sliding us to market and one step going forward for 7.8 million.

Comm. Jacobs: So most employees would see a 14% increase?

Judge Armey: It would be a minimum of 14%.

Comm. Jacobs: And that would be 7.8 million raising the taxes about 13.5%.

Judge Armey: To fully implement the referendum, we can do all of that plus an additional 6% slide. We want to determine if there is a threshold we do not want to exceed.

Comm. White: There are positions now that are close to market or even above - how will those be adjusted?

Judge Armey: I've thought about that - those that are below or above, they are still in the right ratio within our scale. For us to correct that, we would be creating internal problems. Our organization is different from private - where 90% of their positions are the same, like a sales force. We have everything from law enforcement to lawyers to doctors, etc. We have a microcosm of all types of positions and we have to equate them. We have to strike a balance between internal and external equity and what the market dictates.

Comm. Carter: Would it be possible to take each on an individual basis and bring those below market up to market and those above market would remain the same?

Judge Armey: Then we would be arbitrarily assigning grades. We have, in effect, 100 different industries within one organization.

Ms. Stewart: There were only a handful of positions that were surveyed and we do not know the market value for every position.

Ms. Phillips: We have 1300 employees with about 700 job descriptions. We survey benchmark positions which is about 50-60. We do not have market data for every single position so it is not possible to adjust position by position. We will always have some paid above market and some below.

Comm. Jacobs: It is hard for me to ever vote to raise taxes, as you can see by my record. All of our employees for many years have done an outstanding job and some are under market pay. I would be ready to support the 10% slide plus one step increase - including fixing the 20-30 scale, a 10% slide for all positions and a one-step giving most employees a 14% increase and the 2001 market for elected officials totally 7.8 million. That would mean an almost 10% tax increase but we have to consider the human value which also has value to our taxpayers.

Ms. Stewart: That would put us at 3 cents above the effective rate - .24937.

Judge Armey: .24937 is about 1.2 cents less than the referendum rate.

Comm. Carter: My concern is that we are seeing some employees at 28% below market particularly in the law enforcement area. We're bringing them up only half-way. I think we need to take each job in the county to market - I know it would be difficult, but we need to see the impact of that. We still have another 1.2 cents. I am not for raising taxes anymore than we have to but we have a unique opportunity here to raise them with the blessing of our voting taxpayers.

Ms. Phillips: I do not believe it is possible to get a market number for every position. We have a lot of positions that are specific to the county. We can compare positions to other cities and counties but we have some positions that simply do not match. This is not an across the board increase - when we adjust the scale before sliding the scale, we are bringing those positions that are far below to an average. Some of those positions that are 28% below, will get more than the 14% increase, bringing them closer to market.

Comm. Jacobs: Can you name me the law enforcement positions that are between grades 20-30?

Ms. Phillips: Deputies, corporals, investigators, sergeants, lieutenants…..

Judge Armey: Refer to pages 632, 633….

Ms. Phillips: Regarding Information Services, who was not surveyed by DMG, I have spoken with Kevin Carr and he feels this adjustment would take care of a lot of his salary problems.

Judge Armey: My position is to look at the full 3 cents. The Sheriff has requested the opportunity to work with the budget office to come up with specific proposals for law enforcement.

Comm. Mitchell: Are we allowing all other elected officials the same consideration?

Comm. Carter: But the Sheriff's Office seems to be where we are most deficient.

Judge Armey: Many organizations treat law enforcement within a different scale. To what extent do we want to separate it out? If there is interest in doing this, we need to set parameters.

Comm. White: I think we need to treat all of our employees equally. Where is the greatest disparity in the pay scale? Did DMG address law enforcement?

Ms. Phillips: The disparity is county-wide, not specific to any department. The greater disparities are in the higher grades. The positions requested by the elected officials were addressed by DMG.

Judge Armey: Are we interested in different proposals for law enforcement including constables, fire marshal, and investigators in the DA's Office?

Comm. Mitchell: I am not.

Comm. White: I thought that is what we paid DMG to do.

Comm. Carter: I would support looking at them separately.

Judge Armey: I would be willing to review and allow for law enforcement proposal under a certain construct.

Comm. Jacobs: I think we need to find some common ground.

Comm. Mitchell: Employees resent being treated differently. We all make our choices but that does not mean one position is better than another position. We need to stop treating some employees better than other employees. They are all valuable.

Sheriff Lucas: I would like to answer that accusation. Sheriff's Dept. is not here to ask for more money because we think we are better. We're here for parity. People in my department do shift work and there is a 28% difference in pay from this county to other counties and cities adjacent to us. 14% is great but I promise you that will not keep the employees - 28% will get them to parity.

Comm. Carter: The goal is to make all jobs within the county at market rate. I would support any elected official to come and make an appeal like the Sheriff is doing. I admire him for sticking up for his people.

Judge Armey: As the Sheriff indicated to me, he is not looking for 28% for all his positions. His intent is to adjust case by case. He needs the budget office as a resource to help him do this. Is the court interested in allowing every elected official to do this and then communicate back to us?

Ms. Stewart: What kind of time frame are we considering? We need most of our decisions made by next week to adopt a budget by September 4. I am concerned that if we let every elected official come forward, we will never get a budget adopted.

7.A-1) Move to approve the adjustment of pay grades 20-30, move the scale 10% and provide a one-step increase (4%) going forward, bring the elected officials to average for 7.8 million by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter with appeals being heard within the week.

Move to amend the motion to remove Commissioner Court salaries by Comm. Carter,
second by Comm. Jacobs.
Amendment Failed 2-3-0 (White, Mitchell & Armey nay)

Comm. Jacobs: I have a clarification on the appeal process. In fairness to Donna, her staff and the timeline, Donna should provide all elected officials and department heads the results of this motion. If they want to change something, they need to put it in writing and send it to us. I would like to see their proposals in writing by 5 pm Friday, August 3.

7.A-1) Move to approve the adjustment of pay grades 20-30, move the scale 10%, provide a one-step increase (4%) going forward, and bring the elected officials to average for a total of 7.8 million, placing the tax rate at approximately 24.937 (fine-tuned next week) by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter with written appeals to be received by the court by 5 pm Friday, August 3, 2001.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0445

(End of recording tape #2 of 6)

Judge Armey: One other thing related to salary related items, parity and compensation, under Salary Scenario #1 there is a sheet entitled Retirement System Options. Each year we have to determine our contribution and the specifics of our retirement plan.

Ms. Stewart: The current employee deposit rate is 6%. The matching ratio is $2.20 to every dollar. The vesting provision is eight years. Denton County's contribution rate is listed and as we provide a life insurance option. 80% COLA for retirees based on the consumer price index. The court has approved this for the last two years. Our new option is the 20-year retirement eligibility. Our current rate is 7.34%. Option One continues that current plan. Option Two shows continuing our retirement plan adding the 20 year option for an impact of around $60,000. Option Three shows changing the matching ratio from 220% to 225%. Personnel Policy Committee has suggested the court look at increasing our deposit rate from employee side as well as the county side to 7%. 95% of all Texas counties provide 7% to their employees. Our proposal is to increase the rate. A $20,000 employee would see a $200 decrease in their yearly salary or $8 per pay period. We would recommend the 7% contribution.

Ms. Phillips: This would make our retirement plan more competitive.

Judge Armey: The total impact is more than $498,000. This would be a good year to do it with the salary raises we are giving. I would suggest we add that to the 7.8 million that we just approved.

7.A-2) Move approval of the recommendation of the Budget and Human Resource Directors and the Personnel Policy Committee for Option One: increase the employee deposit rate from 6% to 7%, with the County's matching ratio at $2.20 per $1.00, Vesting provision at 8 years (Rule 75), the Life Insurance option at 0.21%, the COLA increase of retirees at 0.06% and adopt the 20 year Retirement Eligibility for a total of approximately $498,000 to be appropriated from the 1.2 cents remaining from the tax levy provided by the 3 cent referendum by Comm. Carter, second by Judge Armey.

Motion Carried 4-1-0 ( Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0446

ITEM 9 REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC WORKS/R & B/PLANNING & FACILTIES

Comm. Jacobs: What would a Road & Bridge Commissioner need today in the way of staff - here we are only discussing Commissioners of Precincts 1 and 4. Based on my experience, that would be one administrative foreman for each, one foreman, 10 truck drivers each, 14 heavy equipment operators each, 1 1/2 clerk each - this is substantially more people than I had as Road Commissioner 10 years ago. In addition, we discussed putting all mechanics in one central repair location. There are some legal questions about this but there is waste in having them separated. The legal question is from where to appropriate the funds. In order to address those cities that will ask for assistance, 500,000 would go to each Commissioner in Precincts 2 & 3. My idea is to hire a credited licensed planner for $95,000. This planner would be able to implement our space study and plan ahead for road & bridge. This person would need an administrative secretary with the Engineer and Facilities Manager being under the Planner. All Operations would remain but the vehicle maintenance may be placed in a central location. This addresses the majority of the filled positions. Areas to be addressed: salary of the engineer under the Planner, the salary for the Planner, and what to do with those displaced employees. This is a rough draft and is just a beginning point.
Judge Armey: It appears there are two components to discuss: One is the structure of Road & Bridge issues - budgetary and revenue; Two is the Planning and Operations Facilities.

Comm. Carter: If we keep the barns in Aubrey and Argyle, should we not have maintenance people there?  How practical is it to have a central maintenance facility? The legality of funds needs to be addressed.

Comm. Jacobs: There will be cities that ask the county for assistance - they provide the material and we would use ICA's where there is bond money available. We would go in with the cities to hire outside contractors.

Ms. Stewart: The spreadsheet on Page 657d shows that decentralizing Road & Bridge could save $657,803.

Comm. Jacobs: That amount could buy a lot of material and fix a lot of gravel roads and bridges.

Comm. White: I support separating out Road & Bridge. Two commissioners don't have any county roads as where that is a huge part of 1 & 4. I believe we have the staff and capability for the planning end without hiring a planner. Up till now, we have not purchased the software. Counties do not have the same jurisdiction as cities, so am not sure we can do the planning for the future on the scale that cities do.

Comm. Jacobs: I would agree except for the amount of money we're spending on the space study. Who would you put in charge of implementing this study? No one on staff now has the qualifications.

Comm. White: Implementation is not necessarily the problem. We should be able to do that.

Comm. Jacobs: I respectfully disagree.

Judge Armey: Let us address the R & B issue first. In order to divide the revenue side, we might try having a base amount plus x amount of dollars per road mile.

Comm. Carter: That is too simplified - we need one formula for asphalt roads and one for gravel.

Comm. White: We're basing this on an estimated amount from fees. I would need to see the breakdown on the number of asphalt and gravel roads in each precinct one and four.
Kelly Zwinggi, Public Works Director: Asphalt roads require a lot of upfront money and then not much maintenance as where gravel roads need constant maintenance. It might balance out.

Comm. Jacobs: I would suggest that on the R & B side, Commissioners Carter and White meet and come back to court with their recommendations. I ask you to look at only filled positions and give some thought on administrative foreman and foreman. Also, your thoughts on centralizing the mechanics or not. The base amount is determined by deducting the $500,000 each for Precincts 2 & 3 and using filled positions.

Judge Armey: Total amount of revenue for R & B is about 7 million so 1 & 4 has about 6 million to breakdown for each.

Comm. Jacobs: Figuring 3 million for salaries and raises of existing positions plus the 1 million for Precincts 2 & 3, Commissioners 1 & 4 would have about 1.5 million to spend on capital items and material, which is a lot more than they have now.

Judge Armey: The funds for the centralized road and bridge facility are not included. Those funds would revert back to the donor commissioners.

Mr. Zwinggi: There is still a need for EPA approved washing facilities, EPA approved fueling facilities. Those facilities in Aubrey and Argyle would need to be upgraded.
Comm. Carter: Crew jobs are still in place - that word needs to go out - but we do need to determine staffing.

Judge Armey: So we all agree on $500,000 going to Precincts 2 & 3?

Comm. Carter: This year I would agree to that amount but it needs to be looked at each year.

Judge Armey: I agree. We will look at the organizational charts next week. Now we need to look at planning, facilities, engineer.

Mr. Zwinggi: There would still be a need for Quality Control inspectors and a need for the bridges, floodplains and subdivisions to stay under engineering rather than being split between the two commissioners.

Comm. Jacobs: That is a good point. I would recommend we add the Quality Control under the engineer.

Judge Armey: Some things will still be county-wide: subdivision rules and regulations, floodplain, etc. to maintain consistency.

Comm. Jacobs: Let me ask Mr. Zwinggi, if we put the two Quality Control people under Engineering, would you support this planning scenario?

Mr. Zwinggi: If you are including overseeing the space study, perhaps it would be best to have a professional planner, although I believe we could handle it. We will do whatever the consensus of the court dictates.

7.A-3) Move to adopt a framework of a qualified state licensed planner with an engineer having two quality control people under one division, minus the planning manager, and the facilities manager under another division below the planner by Comm. Jacobs.

Motion Failed for lack of a second.

Comm. White: What would the present Planning Manager do?

Comm. Jacobs: That is an interim position and she could go back to being an assistant planning manager, and that slot is vacant. This plan does not displace anyone.

Comm. White: My plan as drawn here shows the engineer at the top with the planning, facilities, vehicle maintenance and bridges as all divisions under the engineer. Under planning is the floodplain, plats, subdivisions and the implementation of the space study. I asked Kelly the percentages of where he spends his time. He said 25% for facilities, 50% for road & bridge and 25% for planning. So if road and bridge is deleted, he would have a lot more oversight time to facilities and planning.

Comm. Jacobs: Engineering appears to be your priority - planning is mine.

(End of recording tape #3 of 6)

ITEM 7 BUILDING/PROPERTIES COMM. PRIORITIZATION REPORT/TAX NOTES

Ms. Stewart: Page 640 has been revised and the revision is being passed out now. The far right corner shows their priorities.

Comm. Jacobs: I would like to see Mr. Brumley's prioritization of this list.
James Wells, County Auditor: Tax notes do not have the declaration and petition requirements of Certificates of Obligation. Tax notes have a seven-year maximum pay back period.

Comm. White: Do we have a cap?

Mr. Wells: Court adopted a policy last year at 5 % of the current budget. This year the cap is 4.4 million.

Comm. Jacobs: We have Danny's top ten list. No. 1 is the matching funds for the restoration of the courthouse; No. 2 is the Probation facility systems repairs; No. 3 is the Space Study, No.4 is the duct repair on the Carroll Bldg; No 5 is the chiller for Loop 288 Government Center; No. 6 is the telephone department lease payments; No. 7 is the Tax Office computer replacement; No. 8 is the lightning rod on the Carroll Bldg; the lightning rod on the CHOS is being taken care of so that item can be removed; No. 9 is the Law Enforcement Facility.

Judge Armey: Danny, the kitchen renovation for juvenile is not listed here.

Mr. Brumley, Facilities Manager: I believe that does need to be added around No. 4 or 5 for a total of $108,000.

Comm. Jacobs: The grand total is 3.125 million for everything that has been prioritized.

7.A-3) Move to approve the Building & Properties Prioritization Report on Tax Notes as Danny Brumley, Facilities Manager, prioritized them by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0447

ITEM 23 DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS

Judge Armey: Page 688. In the past, any official who wanted to, could appeal. This year, if three members of the court want to hear an appeal, then we will. The following are those from whom we will not hear: Records Management, Constable Pct. 1 & 2, County Criminal Court 3, Alcohol Beverage Commission, Juvenile Detention and Post Adjudication, and JP#4.

ITEM 17 RECESS (5:30 pm)

ITEM 18 RECONVENE (7:00 pm)

ITEM 1 SALARY/BENEFIT INFORMATION

SALARY ATTRITION INFORMATION

Judge Armey: There were a lot of questions from our action taken last week on the Salary Attrition procedure of going less than 100% of budget. Even though we are budgeting departments at less than 100%, if that department exceeds the estimate given them for their salary needs then that amount will automatically be moved into their budget.

Ms. Stewart: Other counties, like Travis, budget a negative figure in those departmental budgets called "Salary Savings". We would like to adopt that procedure so we can identify and track those funds easier and more readily for each department.

7.A-4) Move to adopt the recommendation of the Budget Director for a budget procedure allowing her to set-up a line item called "Salary Savings" in each departmental budget in order to identify and track Salary Attrition and automatic replacement of funds, when necessary by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0448

Judge Armey: Ms. Stewart, don't we have some no-impact….

Ms. Stewart: Page 2 of 9 of the legal sheets, Records Management has requested a reallocation of funds within their budget, the four items below the reclassification for 0 impact. If the Microsoft Licensing Agreement is approved, this transfer won't be necessary.

7.A-5) Move to approve a zero impact in Records Management with the deletion of three (3) Windows 2000 upgrades for a credit of $330, reduce Office Supplies for a credit of $100 and reduce Printed Material for a credit of $50 in order to purchase Computer Software - MS Office 2000 Professional for $480 by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White with a friendly amendment to this motion by Comm. Jacobs to vote on the Licensing Agreement, offering a savings on this item plus many more.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0449

Ms. Stewart: An update, under County Criminal Court #3, Judge Garcia is withdrawing his request for one notebook computer in the amount of $3,490. His other request is to increase Office Supplies for a glass top for a hutch, file, bookcase and bench. County Criminal Court #5's request for the same items is in the Recommended budget. I recommend approval. I feel this was an oversight on my part.

7.A-6) Move to approve glass tops for furniture for County Criminal Court #3 in the amount of $1,530 by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Jacobs.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0450

Ms. Stewart: On Page 4 of 9, County Operations shows the reduction of the $170,000 for the space study to be funded by tax notes.

Comm. Jacobs: I move that we use that money toward the Master Licensing Agreement. Do I hear a second?

Judge Armey: We will get to that item this evening, Comm. Jacobs. I do not think we need a motion on the $170,000 since that was covered under tax notes.

Judge Armey: Donna, if you could review for us those who we have not received signatures from on the budget policy.

Ms. Stewart: Becky Kerbow, Bruce Isaacks, Deborah Hollifield, TABC, Jim Dotson, John Narsutis, Larry Floyd, L.Dee Shipman, Lee Gabriel, Lou Morales, Vicki Isaacks, Phillip Vick, Richard Podgorski, Weldon Lucas, Willard French and the Game Warden.

Judge Armey: Have we received any that say they will not sign?

Ms. Stewart: Jim Dotson, Bruce Isaacks - they will follow it but not sign.

Judge Armey: We just need affirmation that they will follow the policy. On Tuesday, we will need to know who is not going to sign it or abide by it and discuss the budget amendment policy that would apply to those offices.

Judge Armey: Now let us see what are our available dollars.

Ms. Stewart: Based on the preliminary tax rate information we have, we think at this point we have $493,000 that can still be allocated. This takes in all the action except for the salaries.

Judge Armey: The $493,000 represents how many dollars we have below the effective rate. Everything from the effective rate to the adopted referendum is salary-related items.

Comm. Jacobs: If we reorganize Road & Bridge/Planning Dept. we may have offsetting funds for the Planning Director, if we decide to go that route.

Ms. Stewart: Just to clarify, all those positions are currently funded with Road & Bridge funds….

Comm. Jacobs: If we take the two Quality Control people out of R&B, and place them under the engineer, that would be an impact on the General Fund side. Adding their salaries and benefits would reduce that $493,000 to $400,000.

Judge Armey: We need to remain aware of these contingencies when considering what appears to be an additional $493,000.

Comm. Carter: Before leaving that subject, where would the money come from to rehab the R & B facilities in Argyle and Aubrey?

Judge Armey: That could come from R & B funds.

Comm. White: It could, but do we want it to?

Ms. Stewart: Would you like us to work up a budget impact statement based on the engineer, planner and two Quality Control people?

Comm. Jacobs: Yes, but the percentage is the key.

Comm. Carter: How about 25%?

Ms. Stewart: There is one more item on the vehicle for Jerry Raburn. The decrease would be inserted on Page 6 of 9 - it is not presently shown - because that action was taken earlier in court today.

7.A-7) Move to delete a vehicle from Constable, Precinct Three in the amount of $23,500, since the vehicle was replaced with a budget amendment approved earlier today by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0451

Ms. Stewart: On the agenda, under Vacant Slots, we have recently received an email from the Sheriff's Dept. indicating that there are no plans to fill the grant position slot that has remained open for over a year.

7.A-8) Move to eliminate the Victims Assistance Liaison Program Officer 05-02-00 under the Sheriff #111-SO for a savings of $40,721 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0452

ITEM 2 COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #5

Ms. Stewart: We had a request from Judge Garcia to fully implement this court October 1, 2001 instead of January. No action has been taken. January is in the Recommended Budget.

Comm. Jacobs: What would the difference be in the impact?

Ms. Stewart: $110,800.

Comm. Jacobs: If I have a choice between starting up this court or allocating money for the Microsoft licensing agreement, I would opt for the licensing agreement. The total amount is $234,000 and we might want to look at tax notes.

Ms. Stewart: Actually that amount is down to $197,900. Of course, that is one year of a three-year agreement.

Judge Armey: Let's start our short list of priorities. (Complete list is at the end of this set of minutes.)

Back to the agenda, #2 -CCC #5 is on the board, #3-Employee Health Care Clinic is on the board, #4- Computer Software Report is on the board, bringing us to #5.

ITEM 5 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTS

Ms. Stewart: No additional information. As for the Shady Shore's contract, as long as we incorporate the raise, the SO feels like they are recouping their cost and you have requested the Auditor to verify that.

Comm. Jacobs: My question is to the Auditor: Do we have a way of tracking these agreements?

Mr. Wells: No new information at this point.

Ms. Stewart: My office will work up a revised impact statement and share that with James.

ITEM 6 BREAKDOWN OF COUNTY SERVICES/NON-MANDATED REPORT

Ms. Stewart: We prepared a list of those on Page 569 including revenues where we could identify them with the agencies or departments. Carmen has done a lot of work as to whether we can fund these agencies. Her report begins on Page 571.

Comm. Jacobs: Let's take a look at the sheet on Page 569. All of these are non-mandated by statute. A lot of them are grants. For instance, we're not required to provide the County Extension Office with the $318,291.

Ms. Stewart: We supplement their salaries and we provide four full time staff members plus office supplies and space.

Comm. Jacobs: We have revenues covering the courthouse security fund. We don't have to provide the $52,170 to the Historical Commission.

Ms. Stewart: That includes one employee and some office supplies.

Comm. Mitchell: Teen Court.

Ms. Stewart: There is a $30,000 allotment, Judge Gailey had requested $60,000 based on an expiration of the grant.

Ms. Mitchell: I think the city should be funding that.

Comm. Jacobs: Other cities, like Carrollton and Lewisville, do provide their own Teen Court.

Judge Armey: She has been working with the other JPs to expand Teen Court county-wide.

Comm. Jacobs: At one time Judge Marchant had Teen Court but the City of Carrollton took it over.

Ms. Stewart: We do provide Judge Hollifield $1200 for holding a Teen Court in her courtroom.

Mr. Wells: She charges $10.00 per student so there is some revenue there.

Judge Armey: Let us start our Potential Cut's List. (Please refer to the end of these minutes.)

(End of recording tape #4 of 6)

ITEM 8 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2/CIVIL COURT

Ms. Stewart: There was some discussion last week about separating out one of the Court Administrators that is currently assigned to Judge Whitten. She apparently has two, where the other courts have only one. Based on the changes required by Senate Bill 7, they are asking to place that court administrator in another budget. We would reduce the Juvenile Budget - County Court at Law #1 - by the amount for the setting of this separate budget.

Judge Armey: Please refer to Pages 647, 648 & 649 - the current breakdown of the District Court Administration, there is a Senior District Court Administrator and a District Court Administrator, both Pay Grades 24. The District Court Administrator position is vacant. The Statutory County Court Administrator, as seen on the bottom of Page 649, is also a Pay Grade 24. That request comes from Senate Bill 7. I do not know these job descriptions but I am wondering if we could not reduce the District Court Administration by one and move that over as the Statutory County Court position. So each would have one and not displacing any personnel.

Comm. Jacobs: That is a good idea. We do not know yet the ramifications of Senate Bill 7. I suggest that we create a line item for Senate Bill 7 so that we have Unappropriated Contingency expressly for Senate Bill 7.

7.A-9) Move to approve moving one of the Administrators from County Court at Law #1 to the Statutory County Court Administration position (at the same grade and step) and delete the District Court Administration position from the District Court Administration, placing an equal amount of dollars - this is zero impact - into a Senate Bill 7 contingency by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Jacobs.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0453

ITEM 10 ELECTRONIC/TECHNICAL CHANGES - COURT SYSTEM PROCESS

Comm. Jacobs: I have distributed a packet for your review. Obviously, we are not going to make these changes overnight but I believe we have the technology in place and available so that we could do video conferencing, remote testimony, hold administrative meetings among parties, internet broadcasting and I encourage you to study this NINJA site. This would help us cut down on court reporters and costs of arraignments. We may be able to do this by next year by utilizing some of the Senate Bill 7 allocation to make our courts more technologically serviceable thereby saving money and benefiting our taxpayers. Perhaps we need to call that line item Senate Bill 7/Technology Court System, or something like that.

Judge Armey: The committee we will be forming could look at this also.

ITEM 11 JAIL EXPANSION

Comm. Carter: I had asked James to do a projection that shows an ongoing cost of about 1.6 million without any revenue to offset that. I felt the Sheriff could open a portion of the jail as an offsetting factor but the Sheriff is not interested or does not believe it is possible.

Judge Armey: I'm afraid the only way for an offset is to be fully operational and we just can't get there in one year. We must be prepared for the first year and be ready for a hit of 1.6 million.

Comm. Carter: And what about the warranties?

Ms. Stewart: I sent an email to Captain Powell regarding those warranties.

Judge Armey: We still need information on those.

ITEM 12 RADIO TOWER FUNDING

Ms. Stewart: Page 659 is a budget impact statement showing the position of a Radio Technician at Step One as well as the operating expenses. According to the email from the Sheriff's Dept., if the testing equipment and this position is not included in the budget then their projection for a service contract with Motorola to provide this service would cost $280,000. The impact of the employee, $52,842, and the testing equipment is already in the budget at almost $89,000. We could fund the radio consoles from Tax Notes and eliminate one large piece of equipment, a service monitor.

Judge Armey: Is this something we must provide?

Ms. Stewart: That is my understanding. The most cost-effective way is to hire the Radio Technician. This person would have to go to specialized training with Motorola and be certified to work on the equipment.

Comm. White: Why would a service contract be $280,000?

Ms. Stewart: You can address that through their appeal. We do need more information. One of the radio consoles could be funded with tax notes, reducing the $89,000 by half. Some of this request for a new hire could be offset by $25,925.

Comm. Jacobs: What we are saying is the actual impact is about $27,000.

7.A-10) Move to approve one of the service monitors, with the other service monitor being funded through tax notes, and add the Radio Technician for a total impact to the budget of $26,917 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Carter.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0454

ITEM 13 CRIMINAL DA - CIVIL DIVISION

Ms. Stewart: Page 662 or 3 of 9 of the worksheet.

Judge Armey: I had requested this be on the budget agenda because it does impact Commissioners Court directly. This affects the structuring and staffing and perhaps we can make some suggestions for the District Attorney to study. They do have some new hire requests. I requested this due to what happened in court several weeks ago when we found ourselves with no legal representation. We want to make sure as we move forward that not only does the District Attorney feel comfortable in his authority and ability to represent us but that we also feel comfortable in the representation being provided.

Comm. Jacobs: Does your suggestion to the DA include the fact that we do not have counsel for the Sheriff, for Road & Bridge, etc. but that the entire Civil Division report to the head of the Civil Attorney staff?

Judge Armey: That is correct and was the chief point made to the DA and that perception is reality. I gave both Mr. Isaacks and Ms. Breading a couple of ideas about the division of labor but it is his decision. The present structure was recommended by Commissioners Court years ago when there was so much work directly coming out of the jail. But now, even if it comes out of the jail, they are suing the county or the county is liable and the decision is ultimately ours to address.

Comm. Jacobs: There is another problem. We cannot hire our own attorneys because that implies we might have some authority over their decision-making. Right now we have an attorney and his office in the Sheriff's Dept. and perception is reality. That needs to change. The person who heads up the Civil Division must be the last and final authority in that Division. Currently, I am dissatisfied with the structure of the Civil Division.

Judge Armey: The attorney in the Sheriff's Office is in a tough spot because he is charged with providing that assistance and advice to all elected officials. There are two options, as I see it: One option is for one or two attorneys be designated as Counsel to Commissioners Court. Option two would give us greater flexibility and that is the Civil Division become more generic and comprehensive, so we don't have a Counsel to the Sheriff, Bond Forfeiture attorney or Public Information Officer. They may specialize in those duties but not exclusively. Also, then they would be staffed altogether, cutting down on staffing needs such as the paralegal to the Sheriff's Counsel.

Comm. Jacobs: One person needs to head the Civil Division so we know to whom to direct our inquiries.

(Both the District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney were present during this discussion and spoke to the court off mic.)

Judge Armey: When we look at the appeals regarding staffing levels, we have to take your word for it because we have requested support material - workload information, statistics, logs - and not received any of that yet. So, when you say your department needs more staff, you're asking us to take your word on it. I do not see it strictly as needing another attorney. We may need additional staff but the structure itself broke down a few weeks ago when this court was left without legal representation, and that needs to be corrected.

Comm. Jacobs: This is the governing body. This body needs a decision from one civil attorney, not three or four. Elected officials do not make the motions and decisions or accept the liability.

Judge Armey: You make the decision about the division of labor but where employees are physically located and the staffing levels are decisions of this body. I respect your authority over your resources but it will not be, as you say, you raiding the Sheriff's Office - that would be our responsibility. This court can decide not to allocate that space in the Sheriff's Office to the attorney and paralegal.

ITEM 14 JUROR PAY

Ms. Stewart: Page 664 is a report from the District Clerk regarding how the jurors can make donations to non-profit organizations.

Judge Armey: I will visit with Ms. Adelstein about putting up posters in the jury room. Juror pay was taken care of in our last meeting.

Judge Armey: Transportation Authority is on the board. New Hire Appeals.

ITEM 16 REPORT ON NEW HIRE APPEALS

Ms. Stewart: Page 672 includes a list of the new hires that have been appealed. I have indicated several positions that you may want to reconsider: Constable, Pct. 1 needs a part-time Office Support Specialist I for $14,295. The Tax Assessor-Collector needs a deputy clerk for $35,543 and you have already approved the Radio Technician.

Judge Armey: Shall we add these two positions to the board?

Comm. Jacobs: Yes. I would also like to add the first two positions under Criminal DA-Civil.

Judge Armey: Any new hires that are on appeal are still in play. These are ones we want to add.

ITEM 17 CONSTABLE PCT.4 - ASAP PROGRAM AND TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

Ms. Stewart: Northwest ISD did offer to pick up one of those positions at the 42 hours per week with the county picking up the additional ten week period when school is not in session. Page 674 shows you the impact of $24,652. The concern we had was this does not include anything in the way of raises. We can revise the impact to include the raise. The contract is effective tomorrow and no action has been taken.

Comm. Jacobs: I would be willing to put forward only that for which the school district is paying. Our county taxpayers should not be paying for something for which the school district is responsible.

Comm. Carter: The constable says he will be using that person during the 10 week period when school is out.

Judge Armey: Comm. Jacobs is willing to go for the nine and a half month position.

Comm. Carter: What do you do with the employee for that 10 week period?

Comm. Jacobs: You divide that salary into 12 months.

Comm. White: I agree with Comm. Jacobs.

Judge Armey: Presently some constables do this function within their own office and do not charge extra. The school needs to revise it to that time period. No county funding for that program. Donna, what is included in the Recommended Budget?
Ms. Stewart: That position is included.

7.A-11) Move to delete the county funding for the Absent Student Assistance Program position in the budget of Constable, Precinct Four, by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.

Motion Carried 3-1-1 (Mitchell abstains & Carter nay)
Court Order 01-0455

Ms. Stewart: On page 675 is the other position that was carried part-time for ASAP is included in the Recommended Budget as a Traffic Enforcement position. The Auditor reviewed this and agreed to offset it with revenue. If it specifically for Traffic Enforcement, then the cost will be covered.

Judge Armey: Presently, traffic enforcement is with License and Weights. Do any of the constables have traffic enforcement officers?

Ms. Stewart: No sir - not specifically earmarked.

Comm. Mitchell: They all should have the right to one if they want it.

Judge Armey: I would disagree in that License and Weight, Traffic Enforcement Division needs to function as a unit. This is in Constable Pct. 2 because he took the initiative to create it.

Comm. White: We do not want duplication and I agree it should remain one unit, whoever is over it.

Comm. Mitchell: The unit belongs under the Sheriff.

Comm. Carter: Leave it like it is.

Comm. Jacobs: The original motion when this unit was established is that it would be county-wide.

Judge Armey: Is License & Weights appealing for an additional traffic enforcement position?

Ms. Stewart: They want a lieutenant position.

Judge Armey: I would favor having an additional one in the unit.

Comm. Carter: The License and Weight Unit must stay under Constable Pct.2 because the Sheriff has the responsibility of carrying their commission and he will not designate any other constable.

Judge Armey: What is the consensus on the part-time traffic position in Constable, Pct. 4? Shall we eliminate it from that budget or transfer it to License and Weights?

7.A-12) Move to transfer the part-time traffic enforcement position in Constable, Precinct Four's budget to License & Weights, Constable, Pct Two by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. White.

Motion Carried 3-2-0 (Carter & Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0456

ITEM 18 COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES

Ms. Stewart: Page 676 is input regarding the impact of Senate Bill 7. I received only one from Judge Crouch that we might need to increase their line item by 10%. The others are saying they do not know. Judge Shipman told me if they could have what they requested initially, that might be enough to cover it.
Right now we have $200,000 in contingency.

Judge Armey: Are we waiting for additional information on SB 7?

Comm. Jacobs: Yes. I just handed out something today showing there is a definition by the state of an indigent. I would like to see this definition adopted by the county.

(End of recording tape #5 of 6)

ITEM 19 CAPITAL ITEMS (VEHICLES & OTHER ITEMS OVER $20,000 EACH)

Judge Armey: This goes on the board for potential reductions. Economic Development is already on the board.

ITEM FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Discussion - No action.

ITEM CUTS

Comm. White: Page 680, cut from County Operations - ¾ Ton Extended Cab; County Jail - 15 Passenger Van, Sheriff's Office - the second and third Patrol Vehicle and the fourth from the bottom and the two on the bottom. Page 682, cut one Patrol Sport Utility at 30,000 and put the other two as Patrol Vehicles for $23,500 each. Constable, Pct. 5, exchange the two Sport Utility for patrol cars.

Comm. Jacobs: Beth, you and Comm. Mitchell serve on the Vehicle Committee, what is your position on the cuts suggested by Comm. White?

Beth Fleming, Director of Purchasing: Many of those patrol vehicles are being transferred somewhere else as an administrative vehicle. Many of those are not going into surplus to be sold. We have eliminated many before and the next year we are overwhelmed - rather than having to expend $600,000, it is over 1.3 million.

Comm. Jacobs: What about replacing SUV's with patrol vehicles?
Ms. Fleming: I will try to answer for the committee because I, too, have been the dissenting vote many times on those SUVs. But over the years, they do last longer and the repairs are not as much - we do run them one year longer than the patrol vehicles. I can give you a history next week.

Comm. White: Repairs, gas and insurance are more costly.

Comm. Mitchell: But they do last longer.

Comm. Jacobs: At this point, I would lean toward not reducing these vehicles. I would lean toward replacing SUVs with SUVs. But I would not want to replace a patrol car with an SUV unless these was some extenuating circumstances. I do not think serving warrants is a reason to go from a patrol car to an SUV.

Ms. Fleming: I will track those vehicles for you. Donna has already cut 7 or 8 from our recommendation.

Ms. Stewart: Page S195 shows you last year's and this year's expenditure history on those vehicles and that is how we made our recommendation to reduce those 7 or 8. That gives you a year and a half history.

Comm. White: Why does Constable Pct. 5 need two SUVs?

Ms. Fleming: The committee's thought on that was because of the area and roads he traveled.

Comm. White: I understand that. Another point I need to discuss is the county's policy on taking these vehicles home.

Comm. Mitchell: They have to take them home. They are on-call.

Judge Armey: There is a concern that they go out again for non-county business. That is up to the elected official to police.

Comm. White: I've only been in office for six months and have gotten three phone calls from people who have seen vehicles out doing personal business.

Judge Armey: Do you forward that information?

Comm. White: Is that what I need to do?

Judge Armey: Yes. It is a violation of county policy. We need to review that personal use policy. Ultimately, the elected official is responsible. I do not object to take home vehicles. I do not even object to that being used for an extra job - like if someone works at a movie theatre. A county car indicates there is security and safety there. I do have a problem taking a boat to the lake or going to the grocery store.

Comm. White: I disagree. The perception is two-fold. You can look at it as increasing the presence of law enforcement or, the view more commonly held by citizens is, what are my tax monies going to him/her so she can work an extra job.

Judge Armey: I believe it has a positive effect to see patrol cars parked in a neighborhood.

Comm. Mitchell: Are you saying they should not be taken home at all?

Comm. White: Yes. It is too easy to abuse.

Judge Armey: Let me suggest that issue is somewhat aside from budget but we will place that on the briefing agenda. For the board, we have vehicle cuts and downgrades. More cuts?

Comm. White: Mobile phones. Donna had a report that suggested $110,000.

Judge Armey: Do we need an inventory?

Comm. Jacobs: At one point, Commissioners Court suggested that department heads, elected officials (outside of law enforcement) have cell phones but not their Chief Administrators.

Judge Armey: There is justification for cell phones in the law enforcement and information services areas. I believe there is justification for economic development.

Comm. Mitchell: We need to police them better because there is abuse in this area.

Comm. White: I use mine all the time but I pay for mine. I use mine for business all the time. That is a small price for elected officials, department heads to pick-up.

Judge Armey: I have made that same argument but my staff has beaten into me that they pay for their personal calls but for those that are business-related, they should not have to pay for.

Comm. White: I disagree.

Comm. Jacobs: I go through my phone list, and however small it is, I write a check to the auditor every month for any personal use. The services and equipment we provide should only be for county business.  That is a two-sided sword. I would not expect our department heads to pay for their own phone use when it is official business. I trust our department heads. Cell phones streamline their business. Any technological tool is worth the investment.

Judge Armey: We need an inventory. I think you will be surprised at how few department heads have cell phones. We need to see how they are being used to justify any cuts.

ITEM 4 COMPUTER SOFTWARE REPORT

7.A-13) Move to approve the Microsoft Master Licensing Agreement for an impact of $197,700 by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell with an amendment that this be put in the budget but if something comes up that is employee related, this motion can be revisited.

Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 01-0457

POTENTIAL ADDITIONS

Master Licensing Agreement $197,900
Roanoke Land $300,000
CCC #5 $110,800
R & B - Asphalt $300,000
Employee Clinic $186,000
Economic Dev. $ 25,000
Transportation Authority $100,000
Civil Attorney II $ 47,568
Office Support - Civil $ 30,948
OSS (PT) Constable Pct.1 $ 14,295
Comptroller - Tax $ 35,543

POTENTIAL CUTS/REDUCTIONS/REVENUES

Teen Court $ 30,000
Capital Items (financing) ?
Additional Revenues (fees, fines) ?
Vehicle Cuts/Reductions ?
Cellular Phones ?
County Jail Budget/Various SO ?

Move to adjourn at 10:30 pm by Comm. Jacobs, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0

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