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.
|
|
Denton County Commissioners Court |
Not Official Minutes. For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012. |
|
August 7, 2001
Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order at 9:02 am on the 7th day of August, 2001 with Judge Scott Armey presiding. Commissioners Jim Carter, Bobbie J. Mitchell and Cynthia White were present, along with deputy clerk Kathleen Bransford.
Court opened with an Invocation by Hank Scheible, Director of Veterans Services and was followed by the Pledges of Allegiance to the American and Texas Flags led by Dr. Bing Burton, Director of the Health Department.
Mr. Scheible: Most Gracious Heavenly Father, we praise Your name this morning and we lift You up. We thank You for Your Presence here where You state that where two or more gather, there You will be also. And we acknowledge Your Presence. And we ask that You help us be mindful of the things that we say in the presence of God. Help those who make decisions today to make decisions to glorify Your name. Help those who make speeches today to be able to state the purpose for which You would have them to speak. Help us to be mindful that You are almighty and all powerful and that we are only humans. Help us to spend this time deliberating over events that we have control over and acknowledge that You have control over everything. Lord, we praise Your name and lift You up because You are Almighty God. And we thank You for Your many, many blessings in our lives. And ask You to watch over us and guide us right now. In Christ's name, we pray. Amen.
ITEM 1 PUBLIC INPUT
Judge Armey informed the court that Comm. Jacobs was not feeling well and would not be here for today's proceedings. He also announced that Texas State Governor Rick Perry has called for a Special Election for November 6, 2001 for State Senate District 30.
ITEM 2 CONSENT AGENDA
(The following items were pulled for further consideration and/or separate vote: 14.L and 14.M)
PURCHASING
6.A) Discussion of renewal for Janitorial Services, Bid #05-99-1226, to Member's Building Maintenance Corporation. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.B) Discussion of exemption from bidding for Sole Source purchase of Unity Election Software from Elections Systems and Software according to the provision of Section 262.024(a)(7)(A) of the Local Government Code. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.C) Discussion of specifications and authority to advertise for Pharmaceutical Service-Jail Health, RFP # 06-01-1431. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.D) Discussion of renewal for Tax Statement Preparation and Mailing Service, RFP #3-00-1324, to Compass Print and Mail Services. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.E) Discussion of specifications and authority to advertise for Janitorial Paper Products, Bid #07-01-1440. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.F) Discussion to declare four (4) M7208 Digital Telephones; one (1) Nortel Norstar M7324 Digital Telephone, and one (1) Nortel Norstar Polycom Digital Conference Station as surplus and use as trade-in of these toward the purchase of four (4) Cisco IP 7910 Telephones and two (2) Cisco IP 7935 Conference Stations. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.G) Discussion of renewal for Medical Laboratory Services, RFP #03-00-1325, to Accu-Chem Laboratories for Item #2, and Clinical Pathology Laboratories for Item # 3. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.H) Discussion of specifications and authorities to advertise for Medical Laboratory Services-Human Resources Drug Testing, RFP #06-01-1429. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.I) Discussion of renewal for Detention Supplies, Bid #07-99-1237, to ICS for items #1 & 5; Leslee Scott, Inc. for items #2, 3, 6, 8, & 11; Action Team Medical for item #4; Bob Barker for items #7 & 9. (Briefing 07-31-01)
6.J) Discussion of renewal for Emulsified Asphalt, Bid #07-00-1387, to Koch Materials. (Briefing 07-31-01)
BUDGET
7.B) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101870 for Repair and Maintenance for various County Operation Budget's in the amount of $20,000. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.C) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101910 for Contract Labor for Constable, Precinct #2 in the amount of $3,629. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101920 to increase revenues and allocate expenditures for Public Health-Clinical in the amount of $3,500. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.E) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101930 for prior year purchases for County Operations in the amount of $27,490. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.F) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101940 for Microfilm Equipment for Records Management in the amount of $4,200. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.G) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101970 for Photographic Equipment for License & Weights in the amount of $3,500. (Briefing 07-31-01)
7.I) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101990 for Medical Expense for Post-Adjudication Center in the amount of $2,600.
7.J) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102000 for Medical Expense for Juvenile Detention in the amount of $2,000.
7.K) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102010 for Medical Expense and Vehicle Repairs for Juvenile Probation in the amount of $8,000.
7.L) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102030 for Uniforms and Gasoline for License & Weights in the amount of $4,524.
7.M) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102040 for Vehicle Maintenance and Tires and Tubes for Constable, Precinct #2 in the amount of $1,295.
7.N) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102110 for Interpreters for Judiciary Court Support in the amount of $10,000.
7.O) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #102150 for Office Supplies for Indigent Care in the amount of $1,335.
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.) Gary Roscher, Buyer/Purchasing; Pat Lemaire, Deputy Sheriff/Sheriff; Ryan Robertson, Deputy Sheriff/Transport/Sheriff; Pat Golden, Deputy Sheriff/Sheriff; Estevan Rodriguez, Deputy Constable/Constable, Pct. 3; Jenny Kimball, Deputy Clerk - Civil/Probate/County Clerk.
PUBLIC WORKS
10.C) Approval of Relocation of Fences on Trietsch Road. (Briefing 07-31-01)
10.D) Discussion of the final plat for the Bill Vick Addition, Commissioner Precinct 1. (Briefing 07-31-01)10.E) Approve the revision of the General Road Policies of the Road and Bridge Division. (Briefing 07-31-01)
COUNTY CLERK
11.A) Approve the minutes for Denton County Commissioners Court Meeting, and the County Clerk minutes for Budget Work Session for July 24, 2001, Formal Session.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
13.F) Approval of the revision of the order making policy to allow the order maker to be faxed or electronically sent to the elected official or hiring manager to sign and fax back to Human Resources-Commissioner Precinct 1. (Briefing 07-31-01)
13.G) Approval of the Appointment of Bullitt Lowery to the Denton County Historical Commission-Commissioners Court. (Briefing 07-31-01)
13.H) Approval of Building Usage requested by Natalie Massengale, for use of Southside of Courthouse Lawn and Commissioners Courtroom in case of inclement weather on Monday, September 17, 2001 from 3:00 p.m. to 4: p.m. for the purpose of Benjamin Lyon Chapter of National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, sponsoring Reading of the U.S. Constitution-Commissioners Court. (Briefing 07-31-01)
LEGAL
14.B) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of Justin. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.C) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the Denton County Fire District #1. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.D) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of Lewisville. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.E) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the City of The Colony. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.F) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and the Town of Trophy Club. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.G) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Trophy Club MUD #1. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.H) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Trophy Club MUD # 2. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.I) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Corinth MUD. (Briefing 07-31-01)
14.K) Approval of renewal for the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Tax Collection between Denton County and Argyle ISD. (Briefing 07-31-01)
Move to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 14. L & M by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0458
ITEM 5 AUDITOR/TREASURER
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 THE GENERAL FUND:
$350.00 to Kevin Hinzman, incorrect invoice;
$50.00 to Daniel Kossman, incorrect invoice;
$50.00 to the Texas Municipal Court, per department;
($56.80) credit to Boise Cascade;
$500.00 to J.T. Borah, incorrect vendor;
DELETION FROM JUVENILE: $3,328.74 TO Garden Ridge at Valley Co., incorrect amount.
ADDITIONS TO THE GENERAL FUND:
Elections, $299.00 TO The Election Center for registration fee for Don Alexander;
L & W, $775.00 to the Use of Force Consultants for registration fee for R. Hamilton;
JP#2, $50.00 to Rita Thomas for TMCEC registration fee;
Operations, $2,495.00 to Datatstream for Return Seized Funds;
ADDITIONS TO:
TNCP, $20,620.00 to Luz Maria Aguilar, Alejandro Valdez, and Mary Samaan for Return Seized Funds;
Public Health, $100.00 to Medical Services - M. Moctezuma for medical services.Move to approve the Bill Report, as amended, by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 2-1-1 (Mitchell nay and Armey abstains)
Court Order 01-0459
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7.H) Approval of the presentation of the effective and rollback tax rates for the tax year 2001. (Formal 07-31-01)
Move to approve this year's Effective Tax Rate at 0.21937/$100 and this year's Rollback Rate at 0.23475/$100 by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0460
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.
NO ACTION
ITEM 12 SHERIFF
12.A) Approval of acceptance of "Certificate of Substantial Completion" for the Denton County Enforcement Center at 1411 Troy H. Lagrone Drive. (Briefing 07-31-01)
Move to approve by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0461
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.13.C-1) Move to approve Al Bias as an alternate replacing for tonight's meeting Bernetta Henville-Shannon, the Mayor of The Colony, to the 2001 Redistricting Committee meeting by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-046213.D) Approval of appointment of Election Judges and Alternate Judges for FY2002 - Election Administration.
NO ACTION
13.E) Approve appointment process for the new County Court at Law #2 / Civil Court Judge-County Judge. (Briefing 07-31-01)
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0463
ITEM 14 LEGAL
14.N) Approval of Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County (Courthouse on the Square Museum) providing payment and use of Hotel Tax Revenue.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-046414.O) Approval of Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County (Bayless-Selby House Museum) providing payment and use of Hotel Tax Revenue.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-046514.P) Approval of Contract for Community Development Programs between Denton County, Texas and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-046614.L) Approval of : a) the project for road improvements to Litsey Road consisting of Phases I, II, and III, from State Highway 114 to I-35 W., and b) the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Fort Worth and Denton County, Texas. (Briefing 07-31-01)
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, second by Judge Armey.
Motion Failed 2-2-0 (Mitchell & White nay)
This item to be reposted next week.14.M) Approval of: a) the project for road construction, and b) the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Denton ISD and Denton County, Texas, for turning lane on Ryan Road. (Briefing 07-31-01)
Move to approve with the funding to come from Precinct One discretionary funds by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0467
ITEM 16 ADDENDA
16.A) Approval of exemption from bidding process for a Sole Source purchase of Vaccines from Aventis Pasteur in compliance with Section 262.024(a)(7)(A) of the local Government Code-Director of Purchasing.
Move to approve by Comm. Mitchell, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-046816.B) Approval of proposed tax rate for 2001 for Denton County, including:
1. determine the level of funding required for the FY2002 budget
2. determine the proposed tax rate for year 2001
3. take a record vote on the proposed tax rate
4. schedule a public hearing on proposed rate - Budget Officer.NO ACTION - REPOST FOR NEXT WEEK
ITEM 17 RECESS - 9:31 AM
ITEM 18 RECONVENE - 10:12 AM
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.13.C-2) Judge Armey announced that for this evening's meeting of the 2001 Redistricting Committee, Louis Jue replaces Dr. Ku and Carl Young replaces Dianne Edmondson. Both of these gentlemen have already been approved as alternates.
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.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.E) Consultation with Attorney: Contemplated Litigation, Texas Government Code, Section 551.071(1)(A), ACS Cabling.
NO ACTION ON ITEMS 15.B,C,D,& E
15.A) Real Property: Texas Government Code, Section 551.072: Real Property.
15.A-1) Move to approve the recommendation of the District Attorney, Civil Division, to accept the Representation Agreement from the law firm of Hilton & Davidge, P.C. by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0469
ITEM 7 BUDGET
ITEM 16 ADDENDA
16.C) Approval of any action related to Denton County's 2001-2002 budget:
1. Salary/Benefit Information
2. County criminal Court #5
3. Employee Health Care Clinic
4. Reorganization of Public Works/Road and Bridge/Planning Facilities
5. Jail Expansion
6. Transportation Authority
7. SB 7-Court Appointed Attorney's Fees
8. List of Potential Reductions and Additions
9. Economic Development Funding
10. Budget Planning Calendar Funding
11. Reallocation of Funding for Library and Ambulance Funding
12. Building Insurance
13. Report from Juvenile Board-Judge Windle's Proposal for Magistrate
14. Criminal D.A.-State Longevity
15. Impact of EMT and EMTP Pay-New Policy
16. MHMR Additional Funding Request
17. Janitorial Service Reductions-Page
18. Departmental Appeals-Impact Above Recommended Report on New Hire Appeals
Spreadsheet-Court Requests to Hear Appeals
No Time CHOS Museum-Additional Information1:30 Tax Assessor/Collector
1:40 Treasurer
1:50 District Clerk
2:00 Various Sheriff Department Budgets
2:30 Constable Precinct #6
2:40 Veterans Services
2:50 County Criminal Court #4
3:00 Teen Court
3:10 Child Protective Services
3:20 County Clerk
3:30 Human Resources
3:40 Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program
3:50 Criminal District Attorney-Civil Division
No Time Centralized Road and Bridge
4:00 Emergency Management
4:10 License & Weight
No Additional Requested For These Appeals:
Justice of the Peace, Pct. #4
Records Management
Constable Precinct #1
County Criminal Court #3
Alcohol Beverage Commission
Juvenile Post Adjudication19. Other Discussion Relating to the FY2001-2002 Budget
(The following is a paraphrasing of the
motions and salient points made during this budget work session.)Judge Armey: Ms. Stewart, could you give us an update on those departments that have not either signed the Budge Amendment Policy or indicated that they will comply with it?
Ms. Stewart: There is a handful left but I will have to get back to you on that request.
Judge Armey: We will need to take another look at those specific budgets based on the policy.
ITEM 1 SALARY/BENEFIT INFORMATION
Ms. Stewart: We provided to you the new scale that was approved last week on the raises - Pg. 692. That scale has been put on the intrasite so departments have access, as well. Pg. 694 is a report we prepared on those areas where the assistant's salary exceeds that of the elected official or department head.
Ms. Rivera-Worley: As to the questions asked of my department by the Budget Director: Does an elected official or department head have a discretion to reduce the proposed salary increase of an employee thereby reducing the increase provided by Commissioners Court? - NO. The 4% increase may be addressed by them because that is tied to merit but the 10% slide cannot be addressed by them. Commissioners Court has clear authority to establish salaries of employees. (She quoted from David Brooks, County and Special District Law, Local Government Code Section 152.011.) The second question from Ms. Stewart was whether the official or Commissioners Court may make adjustments to reduce the amount of increase that assistants would be entitled to receive? (Those assistants whose salaries would be greater than the elected official/department head.) Our response is that neither an elected official nor a department head can unilaterally make adjustments to reduce the salary increase of assistants - only the Commissioners Court can make those adjustments.
Judge Armey: Members, I asked for this report, starting on Pg. 694, when I became aware of a situation where some of the assistants are making more than the top position. Last year we did give additional consideration to the second positions in many budgets. So, I want to review last year's changes and the level of increase we are looking at this year and determine if, in fact, some of these positions were not overcorrected this year. The graph shows the top, second and third tier positions and their relationships. There are a number of positions where a more appropriate salary for the second position would be between the first and third.
Comm. Mitchell: I would be hesitant to reduce these salaries. I prefer that we look at the elected official/department heads.
Judge Armey: We have had four grievances filed: Constable Pct.2, District Clerk, County Treasurer and the Sheriff.
Comm. Carter: So three are listed on this report. What kind of control has the Salary Grievance Committee?
Judge Armey: If the nine-member committee has a unanimous vote to grant the adjustment, then it is automatically in the budget. Anything short of unanimous requires Commissioner Court action. The action I am asking us to review concern second positions which do not concern the Salary Grievance Committee although at least two of the appeals are predicated on the fact that their second in command is now higher than their position. Looking at the first in the graph - the Chief Deputy for the County Clerk - FY 2000 was $45,758. Last year was $61,358 - a $16,000 increase. With the additional this year, brings that position to $77,600, about a thirty thousand dollar raise over two years. So, taking into consideration what we did last year, this year is an over-correction for that position. The third position is being proposed at $48,959. The italics indicate recommendations from Budget/Human Resources and for court's consideration. The next position is Elections Administrator - not an elected position - his salary and longevity is tied to the County Clerk. His position is at $66,702 - the third position is at $33,713. There is a $33,000 range where we could find an appropriate level for the #2 position with that individual still receiving an increase. Last year this position received a $18,000 pay increase, coupled with this year would be a $32,000 increase in two years. I believe we can find a more equitable position and still satisfy our goal to reach market equity.
Comm. White: What does NG mean?
Ms. Stewart: Non-graded - all department heads are not classified.
Comm. White: What was the rationale at the time to make them non-graded?
Judge Armey: I do not recall.
Comm. White: Personally, I would like to adjust the second position down to the first recommendation in the column.
Judge Armey: For County Clerk, Chief Deputy, I would recommend the position be at 29/4, insuring an increase over a two-year period of $18,000.
7.A-1) Move to assign the Chief Deputy for the County Clerk at a Grade 29, Step 4 by Judge
Armey, second by Comm. White.Comm. Carter: I would amend your motion to make it a 29/5, that would reduce the amount of loss and still keep it below the Department Head.
Judge Armey: Is there a second for the amendment? The amendment will die for lack of a second.
7.A-1) Move to assign the position of Chief Deputy for the County Clerk at a Grade 29, Step 4 for a salary of $63,779 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0470Comm. Mitchell: I voted no because I would prefer to adjust the department heads and elected officials.
Judge Armey: The reason I am doing this is due to the fact that elected officials now have internal equity. Members, any objection to hearing from the County Treasurer?
Cindy Brown: Last week this court spoke of fairness and yet now you are decreasing some assistants and not others? Where is the parity in that?
Comm. White: Do you have a solution?
Ms. Brown: I don't have one. I agree that the raises given to assistants are great compared to the elected official. I, along with the District Clerk and Sheriff, only received one percent last year as others received four percent. That is part of the problem. But to take the money away penalizes my assistant because she works for an elected official.
Comm. White: What happened last year that some were given 4 percent and others not?
Judge Armey: It was based on a survey average and those three elected officials were already close to the 95% of the average.
Ms. Stewart: And it was capped at a 4% increase.
Judge Armey: Some assistant positions make more than others.
Comm. Carter: May I suggest we do a quick survey of those same counties with these positions to see what is the parity. I move that we rescind the action we just took.
Judge Armey: Is there a second on Comm. Carter's motion? Motion will die for a lack of a second.
Comm. White: I would like to see that information. I understand what Ms. Brown is saying. None of these raises have been given. We are trying to take care of everyone in a fair and equitable manner. Unfortunately, we can never get perfection so we must address those areas we can. The raise for the Chief Deputy, for example, is not a shabby raise. You do not see raises like that in the private sector.
Judge Armey: We need to look at all the second positions that received the large adjustments last year even if they are not close to the top position. We will return to this item later today.
Ms. Stewart: On Pg. 697 is another issue we have been asked to review and address. This is the Dentist in the Jail Health Department.
Judge Armey: Dr. Burton, do you have a recommendation?
Dr. Burton: Grade 41, Step 4 to achieve internal equity.
Judge Armey: Members, we have a Department Head that is requesting a more appropriate salary increase for a position.
7.A-2) Move to approve Grade 41, Step 4 for the dentist position in jail health by Comm. White, second by Judge Armey.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0471Ms. Stewart: Judge Armey had also requested on Pg. 698 a summary of Commissioners Court as compared to Department Heads. Page 710 - Juvenile Grant matching funds - the county is required to supplement several positions in Juvenile Probation. This area was not included in the scenario approved for raises last week and we did not want this to fall through the crack. The impact to the county is $126,987 and this needs to be included in the budget. We would transfer funds only as needed at the end of the year when we determine how much Juvenile Probation will need to supplement these salaries and benefits. I recommend that this be included in the raise scenario.
7.A-3) Move to approve the recommendation of the Budget Director to include supplement salary and benefits for Grant Funded Positions (Pg. 710) in Juvenile Probation to be included in the raise scenario as approved last week for an impact of $126,987 by Comm. Carter, second by Judge Armey.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0472
ITEM 2 COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #5
Ms. Stewart: We don't have any additional information under this item.
ITEM 3 EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE CLINIC
Ms. Stewart: Page 699 shows the impact to apply the raise to part-time health employees would be $196,890. The court asked for survey results - see page 700. Ms. Rivera-Worley has provided a memo regarding the county's liability in this area.
Ms. Rivera-Worley: The county would incur a tremendous amount of liability, in our opinion, to open a health clinic for employees. Our concerns are a couple - the initial liability for the county and whether or not there is specific statutory authority for the court to create a clinic. We have not found any authority for the county to do this. The use of public funds for an employee health clinic exclusively - not available to the general public - could present problems. We are not recommending that the court proceed in this fashion. (Refer to the memo.)
ITEM 4 REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD & BRIDGE
Ms. Stewart: Page 804 is Scenario Three. This shows in the left column the existing Recommended Budget for Centralized Road & Bridge. The funding is based on the fact that Precinct One has 62% of the road miles and Precinct Four has 38%. This proposal also included eliminating only the thirteen vacant positions. The one exception would be the Road & Bridge Manager position. This also includes the $500,000 each for Precincts Two and Three. Page 808 shows that the shortage in this scenario is $309,147.
Comm. White: It shows as a shortage but this scenario is actually equal, dollar-wise, to your Recommended Budget. Is that correct?
Ms. Stewart: No, it is a shortage because we only have $7.2 million budgeted. Your scenario would require about $7.5 million. Scenario Four shows a 0 impact. Scenario Three also includes three positions that are currently assigned to Road & Bridge that would be transferred to the General Fund: the Quality Control Technicians and the creation of a position for an engineer at $75,000. Page 809 is Scenario Four I tried to show what you could do and stay within the bottom line budget - 7.2 million.
Comm. White: For the last several years, Road & Bridge has had an ending balance of about $1 million from salary attrition. How will that impact going forward?
Ms. Stewart: This would have a tremendous impact and the court would have to consider alternate sources of funding for Road & Bridge because if those 13 positions are eliminated, you lose the fund balance. Would you agree James?
James Wells: I do agree.
Comm. Carter: So does that attrition roll-over into the Road & Bridge Fund?
Ms. Stewart: Everything always stays within Road & Bridge.
Comm. Carter: So the revenue will not decrease but the allocation of it will change drastically.
Comm. White: I have some concerns. The revenue generated, you said, is 6.2 million but we do not have the extra one million in salary attrition. Of that 6.2, one million goes to Precincts Two and Three so now we are only looking at 5.2 million.
Ms. Stewart: That would be my assumption.Comm. White: This year it is not that way due to the attrition we have.
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Comm. White: My goal in decentralizing Road & Bridge is to find more money to do more roads, which is critical. Secondly, allow Comm. Carter and myself some control. But, in looking at these numbers, I have grave concerns going forward. An alternate solution would be to look at Road & Bridge policy to address the control issue.
(End of tape recording 1 of 5)
Comm. Carter: The second scenario was looking at the work requirements and trying to keep crew intact. When this topic first came up about decentralization, the million dollars to the other two precincts was not mentioned. I was excited about the increase in control because at least 50% of the calls into my office are related to roads. People still consider us Road Commissioners. I see a problem in dedicating a half of million dollars to cities, not including the requests we will get from our cities in Precinct One and Four. To add to that is the natural gas exploration that is tying up our crews in patching jobs. I am not interested in decreasing our activities and so cannot support this scenario.
Comm. Mitchell: I am glad to see some wavering on this idea. I keep hearing about this lack of control and I don't understand - we have control over all of our employees. And if we don't, we need to fix the system. Our number one job is taking care of the county roads. Remember where the resources are coming from. I am not willing to give up that $500,000 but we do need to have the authority to get things done for your citizens. Perhaps it requires a policy change.
Comm. White: Let me clarify - Road & Bridge employees and management are responsive to us but the policy itself precludes the Commissioners from having control. We need to come up with proposals outside the budget policy to address these issues.
Comm. Carter: I think that is appropriate.
Ms. Stewart: My question is do you want to eliminate those 13 positions - I need direction on that.
Comm. White: If we eliminate those positions this year, are we seeing about $800,000 that could be put back into Road & Bridge for materials?
Judge Armey: It is six of one and half dozen of the other - if you don't need the positions, get rid of them and it goes into materials today. If you leave the positions in and they remain vacant, it accumulates as attrition and you move it over to materials later.
Comm. Carter: Have these attrition funds come out of the General fund?
Ms. Stewart: We have not supplemented Road & Bridge through General funding other than the $50,000 that the court transferred last year so that this department could do non-Road & Bridge functions, like working on parking lots on county property. Just under $500,000 could be re-allocated if you so chose.
Comm. White: May I ask what James Gibbs thinks?
James Gibbs, Assistant Road & Bridge Manager: We do need more material to keep up with the increased traffic. Our older paved roads need attention before we do new paving. We do not need to eliminate any positions because if we get the material, my staff will be stretched more than they are now. Increased material means more positions to apply the material.
Comm. White: I understand. Road & Bridge needs $300,000 more.
Comm. Carter: We also recycle our material but that too increases the need for manpower.
Mr. Gibbs: Our roads were not designed to handle 84,000-pound trucks. My crews are constantly repairing the truck damage done to the roads.
Comm. Carter: James, are we receiving any of the revenue from the state from overweight permits?
Mr. Wells: We do receive a portion from the state and have for many years but it is not a significant amount. It is currently budgeted at $35,000 before the expansion of that permit and that goes into Road & Bridge by statute.
Comm. White: I need to emphasize that our roads and bridges are in a critical state. We have roads we are going to lose. This is not optional. We need to get Road & Bridge more money and $300,000 will help but it is a drop in the bucket.
Comm. Mitchell: If we are not filling the vacancies in Road & Bridge, what good will more money do?
Comm. White: It is a Catch-22 position; we don't have enough money in materials, but if we get more money for materials, we will have more work and be short-staffed. You have to do both simultaneously.
Mr. Gibbs: The raises you're discussing will help the hiring shortage. Do not forget, material prices also go up and so the first priority would be to get the materials.
Judge Armey: We have been under this structure of Public Works for about a year. Prior to that, we were under the previous structure for only two or three years. An appropriate way to proceed on the structure of Road & Bridge would be to address concerns through policy for increasing input, control, decision-making and establishing some maintenance schedules. We need to move forward with the Recommended budget and make a determination of those vacant positions. The need of $300,000 for Road & Bridge is on the board so we will look at it among our other priorities. We need to recognize a citizen to speak.
Citizen Pendergrass: Our biggest problem is the trucks. Our roads were in perfect shape before these trucks began tearing up our roads.
Comm. Carter: Mr. Pendergrass is an uncompensated county employee who keeps us well informed of the activities out on North County Line Road. Let me ask Donna, what is in the Recommended Budget for Road & Bridge.
Ms. Stewart: $7.2 million with $107,000 supplement from the General Fund for the approved raises.
Judge Armey: We will recognize Mr. Gibbs for an appeal.
Mr. Gibbs: I have two employees that were a pay grade 23. One came from Environmental Health - a lateral transfer and the other is a Foreman that we upgraded to a Quality Control Inspector with foreman duties. DMG downgraded these two positions to Grade 20. We are requesting that they stay at Grade 23.
Judge Armey: This appeal is on Page 519.
Mr. Gibbs: If put at Grade 20, Step 12, they will be topped out, unable to go any further.
Ms. Phillips: We support DMG's analysis based on these positions not being comparable or competitive to the market survey.
Judge Armey: What is the fiscal impact of the requested appeal?
Ms. Stewart: It's actually a decrease in the Recommended Budget based on the fact that a downgrade does not mean their salary is decreased. So, to put them on a step in the classification system, it resulted in an increase over and above what they would have received staying where they are.
Comm. White: The concern I hear from Mr. Gibbs is that they are being placed at a higher step preventing them from progressing any further.
Ms. Phillips: They will see a 10% increase plus a step plus the increment adjustment.
Ms. Stewart: One employee is at the maximum and the other is at Step 11.
Comm. Carter: I would argue that the technical requirements for this grade should put it above Grade 20 to at least a Grade 22. I would downgrade them to Grade 22 at the appropriate step.
Judge Armey: Is there a second?
Comm. White: Yes, I will for discussion.
Ms. Stewart: For one at Grade 20, Step 12 the salary would go from $41,396 to $46,136. For the other at Grade 20, Step 12 the salary would go from $39,805 to $46,136. So they will cap out at the one-step.
Comm. White: So we could put them at Grade 22, Step 7.
Comm. Carter: I will amend my motion to a Grade 22, Step 7.
Judge Armey: I think we need to adhere to the work DMG has done so I will be voting in opposition. Motion fails 2-2.
Comm. Mitchell: I believe also we should stick with the DMG recommendation.
Comm. White: How many of the DMG recommendations were at the top step?
Ms. Stewart: Page 553 show there were 11 already at the maximum. One thing I failed to include on the change sheet - Page 519 - Plan B. Public Works has requested that we eliminate Contract Striping Line Item at $80,000 and provide a $50,000 increase to the Bridge Construction/Contract Labor Line Item. Under Consultants, reduce that by line item by $20,000 and add $10,000 to diesel for a 0 impact to the buget.
7.A-4) Move to eliminate the Contract Striping Line Item at $80,000 to provide a $50,000 increase to Bridge Construction/Contract Labor, $20,000 to Consultants and $10,000 to diesel for a 0 impact to the Road & Bridge budget by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0473
ITEM 17 RECESS 12 NOON
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 1:07 PM
Judge Armey: Ms. Stewart now has those who did not sign the Budget Amendment Policy.
Ms. Stewart: TABC, District Courts 16th, 158th, 211th, 393rd, CCC#5, the Sheriff and the Game Warden.
Judge Armey: A call is being made to those departments and for those we do not receive affirmation from, we look at their budget in light of a different set of policies. We need to keep the capital line items and salary attrition at a minimum. Money can be transferred into those line items as the need appears. We need to protect the budget process and fund balance.
ITEM 18 DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS
Judge Bridges: This is an issue of fairness. Every other county and district court administrator currently is being paid the same except for mine. My previous court administrator was also paid less than the rest of them. She was a new hire. Tracey Coin is doing a good job. The concern from Human Resources is she does not have a degree. I understand that but I have two degrees and some still question my abilities. I want someone with common sense. She is doing the job so I would like to see her pay comparable to the other administrators.
Comm. Carter: Is a degree required for this position, Ms. Phillips?
Ms. Phillips: No. This is not about a degree but a combination of education and experience.
7.A-5) Move to approve an equity adjustment for the Court Administrator for CCC#4 to be one step for a budget impact of $2,087 by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0474
ITEM 1 SALARY INFORMATION
Ms. Stewart: We have a handout summary for you of Elected Officials/Department Heads vs. Assistants Salary Information.
Judge Armey: For your information, the District Judges set the salary of the County Auditor as well as the court reporters for the District Courts. (The Judge reviewed the handout.) Members, I suggest we go through each of these and find a compromise.
Comm. Carter: Could we wait until we have the survey of the other four counties?
Judge Armey: OK. Before we get back to appeals, what is our running total presently?
Ms. Stewart: $354,326 including the action just taken.
ITEM 18 DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS
Judge Armey: Per the court's direction, we will hear the appeals first and then take motions.
Ms. Stewart: Page 454 or 4 of 9 shows what she is appealing. The Financial Administrator is top priority and the deputy clerk a close second. AS400 is being considered under Tax Notes.
Mary Horn, Tax Assessor/Collector read from her memo distributed to court for her appeal for the following: two additional employees, Office Supply request of $13,600, a Printed Material request for $8,278, Due and Subscriptions for $1,922, increased Tax Statement for $88,000, and Office Machines for $2,300.
Judge Armey: Ms. Horn, can you get together with Ms. Stewart to see if you have available funding for those cash registers from this year's budget?
Ms. Horn: I can do that.
Ms. Stewart: Page 408 and 4 of 9 shows the appeal from our County Treasurer, Cindy Brown.
Ms. Brown: On the car allowance, currently I receive $180 a year. I travel to and from the bank multiple times a day and in the past few years my traveling has increased around the county; for example, being the auditor for the Bail Bond Board - this year I have audited five bail bond companies. Also, we recently approved criteria extending our investments out to banks around the county requiring me to personally meet these people to whom I am entrusting county funds. Also, I do oversee the county payroll for 1300 employees so when there are problems of someone not receiving their paycheck, I do the running around to correct the mistake. My office also oversees the accounts of the six justices of the peace so I visit those locations occasionally to check compliance. I am asking for an increase of $560 in Dues and Subscriptions to compensate for an increase in dues and subscribe to payroll literature detailing changes in state and federal laws.
Comm. White: Do you have actual numbers of your travel from last year?
Ms. Brown: I do not - it is a mile here, two miles there - I have not ever tracked it but feel comfortable in an estimate of 530 miles per month.
Judge Armey: Thank you Ms. Brown.
Ms. Stewart: Page 409 is information on the District Clerk's appeal - also on Page 3 of 9 - it is a request for a new position.
Sherry Adelstein, District Clerk: My request is for a Grade 14 deputy clerk - I believe the last time we had a deputy clerk added was in October of 1998. Since then, in 2000 our office did over 108,000 Child Support postings. My two positions handling Child Support accounted for 70,000 of those with 38,000 being posted by other people in the office, taking them away from their primary job. This area needs constant maintenance. Also, we have had a new court added without any additional employees to my office. We also have started imaging - over 50,000 documents just since December. The Attorney General's office, Child Support Division, is going wild. They are doing at least 25% more filings which ultimately comes back to us. They do the filing, we do the paperwork. We are starting bar coding files, helping the case tracking and Records Management in locating files. I have very good employees. We have over 1100 hours in comp time amongst my employees and the supervisors. One more employee would help tremendously.
Judge Armey: Page 416 and 2 of 9 outlines the appeal from the Veterans Service Officer - welcome Mr. Scheible.
Mr. Scheible: We are asking for a new hire in our office for two reasons: there are only three of us. Luckily, Barbara has taken on counseling, even though that was not in her job description, she just picked it up along the way. It is a complicated process - we spend a lot of time studying federal regulations. Our numbers have increased - 1200 more veterans came into the office this year. We file 1,450 more claims a year. The paperwork load has increased not just because of the numbers but also because we must cite specific laws in supporting our cases. This year so far we have had 15 days in which only one person was in the office. One day we had 28 people come in; figuring an hour per claim is difficult for even a three- person office. The average is 6 people per day when there is only one person in the office due to the other two being at remote locations. We spend a half a day in remote locations because veterans cannot always get to Denton. We are also concerned about the safety of our staff with only one person in the office.
Judge Armey: Thank you Mr. Scheible.
(End of tape recording 2 of 5)
Ms. Stewart: Page 488 and 4 of 9 is the Sheriff's appeal for the Law Enforcement Facility. County Jail Budget is on Page 5 of 9. The six positions that were previously funded by attrition are fully included in your budget this year.
Sheriff Lucas: We are happy with the raises given but am looking at the two places causing the most problems, Detention Officer 1 and Patrol Sergeant. I requested that instead of giving the 4% on the end, bring that to the front giving a better hiring ability on the lower end. When you hire people on a low salary, it takes about 3 ˝ years for them to get to a point where they cannot be stolen. I believe shift workers need more money than others. This would affect about 130 people.
Ms. Stewart: Page 747 is the recap based on the individual spreadsheets we worked up. The impact to his request is $86,820.
Sheriff Lucas: CCC#5 needs new hires for Transport Deputy, a bailiff and an administrative assistant. I do not have any extra people for these positions. In the past, these positions were always figured in to the court's budget. This was cut in the Recommended Budget but that court cannot operate without these people. On Communications, I need those people but I understand the budget's tight so will not be asking for those positions now. On Replacement Vehicles, I am asking for four - two vans and two cars for warrant and extradition. The two vans are 11 years old and we only drive them a few miles a day because we don't trust them to go further.
Judge Armey: The Committee did recommend one of those vans.
Sheriff Lucas: I challenged the DMG on the reclass of my Chief Administrator to Chief Deputy. Her duties are varied and responsible but just because of no supervisory authority, she did not fit into DMG's pattern. I am asking her to be a Grade 20 with an impact of $1,608. I am not asking for the replacement vehicles.
Comm. Carter: Is there any opportunity for the five courts sharing responsibility among these 20 support staff thereby reducing the staff ?
Sheriff Lucas: There is plenty for all of them to do outside of their court responsibilities.
Judge Armey: Page 766a outlines line items for possible cuts.
Sheriff Lucas: Some of these I have already spent more money than is budgeted. Car allowance is up to $600. Gasoline is one we might be able to reduce. I have already moved money into some of these slots, otherwise you would be seeing 0 in a lot of these line items.
Ms. Stewart: I am comfortable with what I have recommended for all these departments.
Judge Armey: There are also cuts recommended in Cell Phones on Page 767. Also on Page 772 there is a report prepared by Purchasing providing how many phones to each department and to whom they are assigned.
Sheriff Lucas: We did not put radios in our jail due to the expense. Cell phones are necessary in the jail.
Ms. Stewart: Beginning on Page 776 are the suggested vehicle cuts.
Beth Fleming, Director of Purchasing: Page 778 identifies the vehicles to be replaced. I gave the committee recommendation and included the mileage and repair costs for the last 21 months, also I gave the anticipated mileage when they are to be replaced in 2002. The 1997 or 1998 models are going to a lower-use department and the 1995's are going out of service. Page 780 is a history of the replacement vehicles over the past eight years. Page 782 is a memo from Constable 5 regarding replacing SUVs to patrol vehicles; also documentation from the Sheriff's office on their use of SUVs.
Sheriff Lucas: SUVs do things other vehicles cannot such as pulling boats, getting to difficult places, etc.
Judge Armey: Page 411 and 6 of 9 concerns the appeals of Constable Pct.6 related to operating supplies and gasoline. Jim Davis, Constable Pct.6: We requested $9,000 in gasoline and to date we have spent $9,917.36. We are requesting $13,800. The other item is the equipment for our new recommended vehicle.
Ms. Stewart: Would you be willing to cut the remote access charges for your requested ruggedized laptops that have been cut to offset for the new equipment? That would be a $3,525 offset for the equipment at $3,458.
Constable Davis: Yes.
7.A-6) Move to approve the increased Operating Supply for Constable Pct.6 by $3458 and delete the Remote Access Charges @ $3525 for a savings of $67.00 by Comm. Mitchell, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0475Judge Armey: License and Weight Department is Page 616 and 7 of 9 of the worksheets.
Constable Floyd: We are requesting a new hire in the Lieutenant position, then we can move another person into another slot giving us two people on each side of the county and also to be used on those days my staff is short due to illness, vacation, etc. There is a savings of $37,452 by keeping the vehicle we were going to replace and we knocked out the scales. This new position will pay for itself and may save a life or two. We do need the remote access fee or our computers are shut down. Equipment maintenance of $1500 is our oversight - the scales have to by law be calibrated every year.
Comm. White: Does the salary for the lieutenant reflect the benefit package?
Ms. Stewart: It is $56,512 for that pay grade at a Step One.
Constable Floyd: We had asked for a Step Four, Grade 25 but we dropped it to a Grade 23, Step Seven.
Ms. Stewart: That is $71,687 total impact.
Judge Armey: Constable, we took action last week to transfer a part-time traffic enforcement position in Pct. 4 to License & Weight. Could that offset the lieutenant's position?
Constable Floyd: The lieutenant is more important right now but I need both.
Ms. Stewart: The $46,846 for Operating Capital has been revised to $9,926 with this request and the Operating Money of $12, 395 would be $5,249 for a total of $71,687. The bottom line request is $126,746.
Judge Armey: Human Resources is Page 447 and 753 and 1 of 9 of the worksheet.
Ms. Phillips: I am providing some more information today. My department's workload is directly impacted by the growth of the county staff. I have some graphs to demonstrate this fact. We have added only one clerk position in the last ten years. Typically, a human resource department is staffed with 0.8 people per 100 employees and we are at .53 per 100. We have also added new programs and extended our existing programs, adding to our workload. One of the programs we added is Training which helps performance, retention and reduced liability. Our department does not bring in revenue but if we can prevent one Fair Labor Standards lawsuit, this position would pay for itself. We are requesting a part-time trainer. Also, I am requesting a Benefits Coordinator position. The Benefits position has grown into a full-time position on its own making it almost impossible to do safety, worker's compensation, injury prevention or anything on the risk management side. Both these positions would pay for themselves through the savings the county would realize on keeping claims down.
Judge Armey: Teen Court is next.
Judge Gailey, JP Pct.5: We want to appeal the decision on cutting Teen Court. The parent organization is Juvenile Diversionary Services. Sgt. Roland Jones is here as our Executive Director. Also, Mayor Pierce from Aubrey and Diane Owens of Ryan High and DISD board member Virginia Galleon would like citizen input. I am passing out historical data and support letters.
Sgt. Jones: There is a misconception that the Denton Teen Court is a City of Denton Teen Court only. We represent courts all over Denton County: Pilot Point, Krum, JP#4's court and Roanoke, to name a few. It is one of the few teen courts in the State of Texas that does take in more than one municipality. Our concern is for those smaller cities that cannot afford Teen Court on their own. We offer a lot more than just the teen court.
Comm. Mitchell: I did not have a misconception. I have a problem with the county providing for this court when other cities are funding teen courts on their own. I see a letter here about Joshua House. You have pulled out of that organization?
Sgt. Jones: We have pulled out temporarily. We were told that the house was in an unincorporated area but now we know it is in the City limits of Argyle. Until we are sure that it can be funded as a non-profit organization, we have stepped back.
Judge Gailey: Teen Court provides programs not only for the teens but also provide programs through the Texas Youth Commission and social programs for the family.
Comm. Mitchell: Do any of these cities contribute any amount?
Judge Gailey: Besides the City of Denton, no.
Comm. Mitchell: How much does the City of Denton provide?
Judge Gailey: They provide the office space, computers, telephones and courtrooms.
Citizen input for support of Teen Court.
Judge Gailey: Thank you for your time. Teen Court is a program that works. We are looking for other funds. In the six years of establishment, Denton County has provided $35,000 to date. We have been operating on a grant and we do not want to shut it down at the end of September.
Comm. Mitchell: I am not against Teen Court. It is not about the money to me. It is about fairness.
Judge Armey: On Page 7 of 9 are two no-impact items we want to address - one for library funding. Roanoke library has opted out of the library funding proposal so we could reallocate $10,000.
7.A-7) Move to delete under Appropriations the Roanoke Library Matching Funds and reallocate per capita funding for a savings of $10,000 by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-04767.A-8) Move to adjust under Appropriations the reallocation of funds for Ambulance funding with 0 impact by Comm. White, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0477Judge Armey: Next is Child Protective Service on Page 441 of your packet. Page 7 of 9 on your worksheet. Diane Costa, VP of CPS for Denton County: I will be introducing Brenda Brooks who is one of the supervisors and offices in Lewisville. Thank you for the opportunity to appeal your decision on the Family Outreach of America Caseworker position. At last year's luncheon, we explained to you how we were having trouble providing our services due to the growth of the county. You had good suggestions and one was to look at volunteers within our community. I met with Sen. Jane Nelson and she came up with the same suggestion. After some research, we found a great match in the Family Outreach of America. Our goal is prevention to keep families from having children at risk. I am asking you to reconsider this position.
Ms. Brooks: Recently there have been many high profile child abuse cases in the news. We have been very fortunate because none of those cases have occurred here; that is because of the hard work we do at CPS. This position we're asking for is a casework position. This would be the only paid staff in the Outreach Center and would train the volunteers to work with families at-risk for abuse. This position falls under Title IV-E and the county would be reimbursed a percentage of the funds you allocate to us. The gap in child abuse today is prevention.
Comm. Mitchell: What is the percentage of reimbursement provided by Title IV?
Ms. Brooks: They have redone that so I do not know at this point. It is not 100 or 50%.
(End of tape recording 3 of 5)
Judge Armey: County Clerk is on Page 443 and 752 and pg 1 of 9.
Ms. Stewart: Could you address the part-time to full-time first?
Cynthia Mitchell, County Clerk: This position is in our Vital Statistics area of our Recording Department. Currently, this clerk processes and issues birth/death certificates and helps with overflow from other areas. All of the clerks in the Recording Department are cross-trained. Currently, there are two ˝ employees dedicated to this area. In October of 2000, we became the local registrar for the City of Denton's birth and death records generating approximately $45,000 per year in revenue. Last July we issued six death certificates. This July we have issued 104. Birth Certificates have also increased - this calendar year we have issued 5,111 birth certificates and 566 death certificates. Additionally, we have been requested to become the local registrar for Judge French, JP#4. Others may follow suit. Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics would like one local registrar in each county. Currently there are JPs, city administrators, even hospitals that do that work.
Comm. White: What is the process for them to hand that work over to you?
Ms. Mitchell: When the City of Denton petitioned us, their request was in writing to me and I forwarded that to Carmen. We worked together to draft a resolution to get court approval and Commissioners Court adopted it.
Comm. White: Do we have to adopt it?
Ms. Mitchell: It is cost effective - the cost was $11,000 and it generates over $40,000 a year.
Judge Armey: A preferred situation for our citizens would be to have one local registrar.
Comm. Mitchell: That would not be convenient for all people.
Ms. Mitchell: One of our goals is to set up a link with the City of Carrollton. The budget impact for this request is about $15,794. That number is large because the position is filled by a 24 year employee of Denton County.
Ms. Stewart: Regarding the Document Imaging Stations, those are new stations approved last year. I am recommending this item.
7.A-9) Move to approve the Budget Office recommendation for two document imaging stations for the two new courts, CCC#5 and the Civil Court by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0478Ms. Mitchell: The Computer Service Expense Line Item is our computer link to the Texas Dept. of Health Bureau of Vital Statistics data-base. Currently, we have $5,718. Our monthly bill is about $1500. So we already have $4500 coming out of the $5700 in this line item. The Recommended Budget has cut this line item in half. This is a great revenue source.
Ms. Stewart: It is currently budgeted at $10,000, you requested $15,000.
Ms. Mitchell: OK, then we can address that at this time next year as a budget amendment and ask James to redo our revenue.
Judge Armey: That sounds good to me. Last item is the modular furniture for civil court at $1500.
Ms. Mitchell: This budget year we redid Judge Windle's staffing area and with the modular furniture we increased the work-space from five clerks to seven. We can staff the window and another 2 work-spaces for this $1500 investment. We are a "go" for the remodel.
Judge Armey: Sheriff has three more items to address.
Ms. Stewart: There are three items not included under the Tax Notes: the sally port repairs at $20,207, the replacement of carpet throughout the building is $90,538 and the parking lot repairs are $30,000. This is on Page 640 of your book or 4 of 9 on the worksheet. This is all included in the Recommended Budget for a total of $44,000
Comm. Mitchell: I think we promised to do the parking lot.
Judge Armey: Matt Marick is here for JJAEP on Page 471 and 8 of 9.
Mr. Marick: I am not here to ask you for any more county funds. I want to use the funds that the program generates specifically in contract services for education personnel that we use through DISD to teach students whom are in JJAEP. We are required to maintain a certain student/staff ratio and last year we exceeded that ratio by a little bit. I am requesting that line item be reinstated for $278,000. Donna and I have discussed setting up a contingency fund. We cannot forecast how many students will come but when they do, we must serve them.
Ms. Stewart: On today's Briefing Agenda we had an emergency budget amendment on this item. It is my recommendation that we reduce their fund balance and I have spoken to James about this. The fund balance in Juvenile Probation really belongs to JJAEP. We could reduce the fund balance to offset this cost as well as setting aside an additional $25,000 to $50,000 for the unforeseen.
7.A-10) Move to approve the Juvenile Probation contract services for $43,000 and draw down the fund balance $100,000 with $43,000 being for contract services and $57,000 earmarked for contingency with 0 impact to the budget by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0479Judge Armey: Let us take Emergency Management next.
Ms. Stewart: Page 604 is the appeal memo and impact, also on pg. 7 of 9.
Jody Gonzalez, Fire Marshal: Page 609 is a memo requesting the replacement of a 1996 Ford Bronco with current mileage of 95,354. The Vehicle Assessment committee did not recommend its replacement although it does exceed the criteria according to their own policy. It is a canine transport unit and cannot operate without the air conditioning.
Judge Armey: The Vehicle Assessment Committee is recommending a transfer of a 1997 Expedition to replace this vehicle in question.
Marshal: We would still need the replacement equipment. That $630 for TSG Able Term Software can be cut but we still need the $1140 on the computer software. Operating Supplies on Page 607 we need $1800 for ballistic vests and $900 for the Fire Protection Gear. For Training, we need an increase of $1250 to cover mandated schools for a total of $3950. Also an increase of $203 in mobile phones and $600 for lap top computer fee also known as Remote Service Fee. Page 604 shows my appeal is just for the Assistant Emergency Manager Coordinator/Investigator. The need is for increased area and duties. My priorities are Operating Supplies for $2700 and $2369 then Training for $1250.
Judge Armey: Next is Criminal District Attorney, Civil Division, Ms. Lee Ann Breading.
Lee Ann Breading, Assistant District Attorney: I do not have much to add from our rather lengthy discussion from last week.
Ms. Stewart: We do need to speak about the State longevity pay for prosecutors. We may hold off on this and consider it as a budget amendment as we go through the year.
Ms. Breading: We do have a finalized list of our people to be signed by Mr. Isaacks. The legislature only put $200,000 for the biennium which is only $100,000 for one year. Our impact alone is over $50,000.
Ms. Stewart: We can hold off until we receive some word from the Comptroller. The only impact on the county side would be the benefits and that is about $3,600.
Judge Armey: We have Constable Dotson here to speak on a part-time position.
Ms. Stewart: There is some information on Page 754 or 6 of 9. Currently, Constables Pct. 3 & 5 have part-time positions with similar duties based on 25 hours per week. The actual cost of his request is $17,758.
Constable Dotson, Pct. 1: I will distribute some supplement information. My office needs a full-time Office Support Specialist but I will accept a part-time.
Judge Armey: That takes us through the appeals list. There are some housekeeping items throughout the worksheet. Page 2 of 9 - Non-departmental - Building Insurance.
Ms. Stewart: Our Building Insurance premiums will increase $18,700 based on the figure in the Recommended Budget.
7.A-11) Move to approve an increase of $18,700 in Non-Departmental for Building Insurance by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-04807.A-12) Move to approve a 0 impact to the budget for the Courthouse on the Square Museum to add back in postage and reimbursable car allowance offset by the City of Denton HOT funds picking up a portion of the Director's salary by Comm. White, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0481Judge Armey: Page 4 of 9 under County Operations, we have two janitorial service reductions for the Annex and for the Cole Building for a total of $9,800.
7.A-13) Move to accept deduction for janitorial services to the Cole and Annex Buildings in the amount of $9,800 by Comm. White, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0482Ms. Stewart: Page 8 of 9 under Other Motions is to approve new hires recommended by the Budget Office. Included in the Recommended Budget are the 4 positions for the
County Clerk: two for CCC#5 and 2 for the Civil Court. These are based on the start date of January 1, 2002 for CCC#5. This also includes the County Court Judge, court reporter and a court administrator for the new civil court beginning May 1, 2002. It includes a court administrator and court reporter for CCC#5 with an effective date of January 1, 2002. Also, three employees for the Criminal District Attorney: one Misdemeanor Prosecutor I, one Misdemeanor Prosecutor II and an Investigator for the new court with a start date of January 1. There is also a legal intern - in the Child Victim Intervention Specialist grant. Page 58 shows two bailiffs for the Sheriff's Dept. with one starting May 1 and one January 1.
7.A-14) Move to approve the 17 new hires as reflected in the Recommended Budget by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0483Judge Armey: Transportation Authority is on the board. Senate Bill 7.
Ms. Stewart: We do have some new information on Senate Bill 7. Page 704 is an email from Judge Gabriel on court appointed attorney's fees indicating their initial budget request took in Senate Bill 7 and they indicated if that funding is restored, that should be sufficient.
Judge Armey: How much do we have in the court appointed attorney contingency?
Ms. Stewart: $250,000.
Judge Armey: I do not believe we need any additional funding at this time.
ITEM 13 REPORT FROM JUVENILE BOARD
Ms. Stewart: Page 716 is action from the Juvenile Board. They voted to approve Judge Windle's proposal that he made to this court a couple of weeks ago in designating the Probate Master as the designated hearing referee for adjudications, etc.
Judge Armey: This was the one component we were looking for from Judge Windle to be sure the Juvenile Board agreed with utilizing the magistrate and master into one position. The other area to address was weekend arraignments. I visited with Judge Marchant and, in concert with Comm. Jacobs proposal on using cameras, he was interested in that proposal and felt the other justices would be also. I feel this would be a good step into a new area at a minimum cost. If it works, this would eliminate the need for the magistrate agreement for weekend arraignments.
ITEM 16 MHMR ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST
Ms. Stewart: There will be a budget amendment on next week for $30,000 additional funding for apprehension and detention. This is the Millwood Hospital contract. This request is also for next year's budget in the amount of $30,000. Page 722 or 8 of 9.
ITEM 8 POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS
Ms. Stewart: Page 757 of your packet. This is the list that was on the board last week.
Judge Armey: First up is Teen Court.
Comm. Mitchell: Can I ask Barbara Gailey a question? Judge, will you be trying to get some funding from these small towns - $1,000, $2,000 - whatever they can afford to give?
Judge Gailey: Absolutely. We just need a little breathing room.
Judge Armey: The Recommended Budget carries $30,000. No action? OK. Capital Items - financing.
Ms. Stewart: Comm. Jacobs had requested for all vehicles and items over $20,000 to be financed. I spoke with the Auditor and it is our recommendation that we not finance the items due to the short term nature and the recurring cost associated with vehicles.
Judge Armey: New Vehicle Reductions?Comm. White: Pages 778 and 779, I move to approve these reductions at $354,500.
Judge Armey: These are the vehicles that Comm. White addressed last week. Is there a second on the motion? Hearing none, the motion fails for lack of a second. The next item is Mobile Phone reduction. Is there a motion?
Comm. White: Page 767 and 772, I move to delete all mobile phones for $125,072. Is there a second?
Comm. Mitchell: I'll second it for discussion. From where are you deleting these?
Comm. White: From each of the department's line item for mobile phone expense.
Judge Armey: The motion is to cut all mobile phones from the county.
Comm. Mitchell: I am rescinding my second.
Comm. White: I'll redo my motion to cut all cell phones except for the jail because they do not have radios. This is not a ban on cell phones but if they want them, they can pay for them like I do.
Comm. Mitchell: For the record, I do pay for my own also.
Comm. Carter: Me too.
Judge Armey: The motion will die for lack of a second.
Comm. Mitchell: I would like for us to take a look at cell phone expenses. Every week the Bill Report reflects a horrendous amount spent in this area but how can we do that? I do think some are taking advantage but that doesn't mean we should cut everyone.
Comm. White: My philosophy is that with this salary increase for everyone, we are now paying a very fair wage, plus benefits and car allowances, each person can pay for their own cell phone.
Comm. Carter: I disagree. This is required to help our people be more efficient. I do believe we could save some money - the usage varies greatly.
Judge Armey: Next item is County Jail - Various Line item reductions.
Comm. White: I would move to reduce these items by $81,127.
Judge Armey: Page 758 and 759 is the list of the line items. Is there a second?
Comm. Mitchell: I'll second it for discussion. Ms. Stewart, would you address these items again?
Ms. Stewart: I have addressed that and did not recommend these cuts.
Comm. Mitchell: I do agree with some of the items but not all of them.
Comm. Carter: How did you arrive at this figure to cut?
Comm. White: I went through the line items and looked at what had been budgeted in the past and what has actually been used.
Comm. Mitchell: I would not have a problem in reducing Training & Education, Law & Reference Books, and Food for Jail but not by $50,000 - perhaps $35,000.
Ms. Stewart: If I could remind the court, we have a renewal for the food contract. Prices are going up 2 cents per meal and 3 cents for trustees.
Judge Armey: The motion now is to reduce, under the jail line item, Law & Reference Books by $3000, Food for Jail by $35,000 and Training & Education by $1500. Discussion? The motion fails two to two. Next area is Jail Health.
7.A-15) Move to reduce Training & Education under Jail Health by $2000 by Comm. White, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0484Comm. White: I would move to reduce the various line items in the Sheriff's Dept. by $36,000.
Judge Armey: Is there a second? Motion fails for lack of a second.
Comm. White: On the DARE Positions, I would move to delete those two positions for savings of $95,581.
Comm. Carter: I'll second for discussion. I believe this is a positive program for our youth. I cannot support your motion although I did second it.
Judge Armey: There is a motion and a second. Motion fails one in favor, three opposed.
(End of tape recording 4 of 5)
ITEM 1 SALARY INFORMATION
Judge Armey: We will now review the second position salaries beginning on Page 694. There is also a handout from today that includes a number of other positions.
Ms. Phillips: I'd like to explain about the survey being circulated right now. This is a survey of actual salaries in the four counties: Collin, Fort Bend, Jefferson & Montgomery. The results of this survey are different from the employee surveys because we did not include the surrounding cities.
Judge Armey: It is my position that several of the second positions last year received extensive salary increases and coupled with the additional increases this year has actually provided for an over-correction. If you look at the two-year average, you will see some of these positions receiving over a $30,000 increase. The only way to correct this is to look at each individual second-in-command position and find a more appropriate salary between the first position and the third yet still providing an increase. For example, we have already acted on the first position - County Clerk Chief Deputy - and assigned it a Grade 29, Step 4, at $63,779 providing for a $2400 increase, setting it below the County Clerk's salary and above the third position.
Ms. Mitchell: Since starting with the Step Plan, every year we have made exceptions, discarded it and have done what we wanted. We are not utilizing it as our standard. When you arbitrarily decide to downgrade the second-in-command without any regard for size of office, the responsibilities of that administrator, or the credentials of that position you are creating an unfair system.
Judge Armey: I believe the arbitrary decision was made last year leaving us the responsibility to correct. The next position is the Elections Administrator position, which is tied to the County Clerk salary at $66,702. The proposed salary for the second is $69,468, being a $14,000 increase and a two-year increase of $32,000. Being offered for consideration is Grade 27, Step 5 or 6. Step 5 would be an increase of $4,000 and a two-year increase of $22,000.
Comm. Carter: I think this needs to be said one more time - we have handled this terribly. All the good we have done in the last couple of week about salary increases is going down the drain.
Judge Armey: These people are still seeing a huge increase over the past two years. I know this is an extremely difficult discussion and vote to make but I do not see any alternative. If we do not do this, then not only will there be second positions making more than the top position - and not all top positions will care, for example the County Clerk - but the inequity still exists.
Comm. Carter: The problem is that our payroll system stinks. We do not reward people for the job they do, we just reward them hit or miss.
Judge Armey: I agree but, looking at the survey, a Deputy Elections Administrator's average salary is $43,400 so I do not think that a salary of $59,382 is underpaying a position. Sheriff Lucas would like to speak.
Sheriff Lucas: What people are going to remember about this court is not what a good increase they received but the salary that was taken away. Can you not address this issue next year?
Judge Armey: I appreciate that, Sheriff. Again, what I hope they would remember is that they got a $22,000 raise over a two-year period. I recognize Ms. Adelstein, our District Clerk.
Ms. Adelstein: When you did the survey for department heads, did you use these same four counties?
Ms. Phillips: When we surveyed for employees and department heads, we included cities and counties because that is our competition. When we surveyed for elected officials, we did not use cities because there are no matches in the cities. Earlier, last week the Commissioners pared down the list of counties in considering elected officials. For the report today, we were asked to use the same counties even though these are employees and not elected officials. I did point out that difference to the court.
Ms. Mitchell: As Mr. Wells tells me, you cannot run your office like you are making a profit - you have to do it according to the law. So, in effect, we are non-profit, despite the fact my office is the second largest collector of revenue outside of the Tax Collector. Using that analogy, I am an Executive Director of a non-profit with the second-in-command executing the wishes of the board - the board being the taxpayers. Our office is run to the maximum in efficiency and output and I credit that to an excellent Chief Deputy.
Comm. Mitchell: But there are some elected officials who do have a problem with it.
Judge Gailey: I agree with the arguments given - there might be 20 or so unhappy employees - however there are a thousand more employees who will see these 20 employees and ask what is going on here? I believe there is an inequity, someone made a mistake and I appreciate the fact that you can say we are wrong and we are correcting our mistake.
Judge Armey: Thank you Judge. Members, I think the salary survey, even if just these four counties, indicates that the proposed salary for many of these positions are far in excess of the prevailing market, and we need to proceed.
7.A-16) Move to set the Deputy Elections Administrator at a Grade 27, Step 5 for $59,382 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 01-0485Comm. Mitchell: I will be changing by vote to abstention because I appreciate what you are trying to do but I cannot take the salary away from these employees - even though they do not have it yet.
7.A-17) Move to set the position of Senior Chief Deputy of the District Clerk's Office at a Grade 28, Step 5 for $62,856 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-0486Judge Armey: Next position is the First Assistant District Attorney. I recognize Ms. Breading.
Ms. Breading: Mr. Isaacks asked me to make sure you understood he does not want either Mr. Jones or my salary to be reduced. Our department discussed this issue and he made clear that in no way does he want the second and third's salary based on his salary. It would create a domino effect thereby disrupting the whole system.
Judge Armey: How were these salaries determined?
Ms. Breading: Based on last year's salaries plus 14%.
Judge Armey: When were worked out the scale for the District Attorney's office, did that bring those positions up to market at that time?
Ms. Breading: It brought it up to the market prior to raises from last year.
Judge Armey: Did we look at market for attorney positions for this year?
Ms. Phillips: We did include some in the salary survey. On the Misdemeanor/Prosecutors ours were 1.5% over market. On the Chief Misdemeanor/Prosecutor, ours were 33% below market. Felony Prosecutors were 13.3% over market. Chief Felony Prosecutor was 6% over market. Chief of the Civil Division was 24% over market. Chief of Misdemeanor/Trial Division was 22% over market. These are the minimums and maximums - the actual salaries differ by 4% one way or the other.
Ms. Breading: I would support the Sheriff's suggestion that these salaries be corrected next year.
Judge Armey: We may return to the Assistant District Attorney. The next is the Assistant County Treasurer position.
7.A-18) Move to set the position of Assistant County Treasurer at Grade 27, Step 5 for $59,382 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04877.A-19) Move to set the position of Chief Deputy of the Tax Collector's Office at a Grade 27, Step 6 for $61,757 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04887.A-20) Move to set the position of Assistant Manager of Facilities at Grade 31, Step 7 for $79,260 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-0489Judge Armey: (After some discussion with the Sheriff, the Judge decided to postpone the decision on the Chief Deputy of the Sheriff's Office; also, the positions of Chief Deputy Constables.)
7.A-21) Move to set the position of Assistant Director of Juvenile Probation at a Grade 29, Step 10 at $80,702 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-0490Judge Armey: Court informs me they do not see a problem with the Health Authority so let us proceed to the handout of the remaining positions.
7.A-22) Move to set the position of Chief Assistant to the County Auditor at a Grade 28, Step 6 for $65,370 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04917.A-23) Move to set the position of Assistant Budget Officer at a Grade 28, Step 6 for $65,370 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04927.A-24) Move to set the position of Road & Bridge Manager at a Grade 34, Step 2 for $74,410 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04937.A-25) Move to set the position of Road & Bridge Assistant Manager at a Grade 31, Step 2 for $65,146 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-0494Judge Armey: The next position is Chief Administrator for County Commissioners. These positions were not given additional consideration last year. Director of Administration for the County Judge was reclassed last year but not given additional consideration last year; neither were the Director of Economic Development, Aide to Commissioners Court or Administrative Specialist.
7.A-26) Move to set the position of Director of Human Resources at a Grade 28, Step 6 for $65,370 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04957.A-27) Move to set the position of Director of Purchasing at a Grade 28, Step 6 for $65,370 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04967.A-28) Move to set the position of Assistant Director of Information Services at a Grade 30, Step 8 for $78,522 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-04977.A-29) Move to set the position of Technical Services Manager of Information Services at a Grade 28, Step 7 for $67,985 by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-0-1 (Mitchell abstains)
Court Order 01-0498Comm. Carter: We are looking at second and third levels, what is the compression between these and the ones below these. Are we creating additional problems?
Ms. Stewart: I think you will have other positions to look at.
Judge Armey: The rest of the positions have either been addressed or did not receive additional consideration last year. In light of the testimony we have heard, I would like the court to consider that we provide these positions with at least a 14% increase because that was given to the employees.
Comm. White: The reason I am supporting the action just taken is because it is my understanding that the seconds were all addressed last year. This has put me in an uncomfortable position when we voted on raises last week without my knowledge of action taken last year. We cannot make everyone's raise equal.
7.A-30) Move to approve a 14% increase to all the recently adjusted positions and for Human Resources and the Budget Department to prepare a report to see if this motion creates any additional problems with 3rd and 4th positions and include other positions, such as Planning, to see if all were addressed, by Judge Armey, second by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0499
ITEM 15 EXECUTIVE SESSION
15.A) Real Property: Texas Government Code, Section 551.072: Real Property.
15.A-2 Move to approve for the Trietsch property by Comm. Carter, second by Comm. White the recommendation of the District Attorney, Civil Division, to authorize the County Judge to execute all necessary closing documents and direct the County Auditor to issue warrants in the amounts listed for the following:
J.P. Griffin Tract…$604.37
Paulson Tract……...619.37
Wilmoth Tract…….954.37
Cunniham Tract….. 606.37
Attaya Tract I…….. 602.37
Attaya Tract II…… 604.37
Weaver Tract……. 619.37
Nee Tract………….619.37
Wiseman Tract……617.37
Smith/Rapp Tract…604.37
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 01-0500
ITEM 19 ADJOURNMENT
Move to adjourn by Comm. White, second by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court adjourned at 6:30 pm.This set of minutes prepared by deputy clerk Kathleen Bransford and reviewed by County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell.