 |
Denton County Commissioners Court |
Not Official Minutes. For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012. |
|
July 22, 2003
Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order on the 22nd day of July, 2003, at 9:08 AM in the Denton County Pre-Trial Facility, 1406 Troy H. LaGrone Drive, Denton, Texas by County Judge Mary Horn. Commissioners Sandy Jacobs, Jim Carter, Cynthia White and Bobbie J. Mitchell were present along with County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell's representative, Deputy Clerk Kathleen Bransford.
Court opened with an Invocation by Pastor Tim Taylor, Trophy Club First Baptist Church, followed by the Pledges of Allegiance to the American and Texas Flags led by Danny Brumley, Manager of Facilities Division of Public Works.
Pastor Taylor: Dear Father in heaven, we thank You so much for this opportunity to have a day to devote to You and to honor You. We thank You for Your provision for us, for our life and for everything. We thank You for Your protection, for our families and for us. Lord, we again thank You for Your mercy and grace that profoundly affects us. In this day, we ask for wisdom, we ask for the blessing of Your guidance and Your hand as we seek to do Your will and to perform the tasks that we've been called to do. We thank You so much for all that You have done for us and we ask that this day would be in honor to You and that You would crown it with Your presence, with Your blessing and protection. In Jesus' name, Amen.
ITEM 1 PUBLIC INPUT
Commissioner Cynthia White
Willie Hudspeth
ITEM 6 PURCHASING
6.D) Approval of Evaluation Committee recommendation to award the Direct Recording Electronic Voting Equipment and Counting System, RFP #01-03-1536, to ES&S; to determine the funding mechanism; authority to negotiate a contract; and any appropriate action.
Move to reject all bids and approve that this item go back to the Elections Committee to ask them specifically whether or not the County should go forward with touch-screen voting at this time; their recommendation will then be forwarded to the Elections Commission who, in turn, will make their recommendation to this court on the specific question of going forward or not by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0378
ITEM 2 CONSENT AGENDA
PURCHASING
6.A) Approval of renewal bid for Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete, Bid #03-02-1472, to Jagoe Public, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
6.B) Approval of renewal of contract for Janitorial Services. Bid #06-02-1494, Group 1 and 2 to Members Building Maintenance, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
6.C) Approval of renewal of contract for Detention Supplies, Bid #07-02-1499, to ATD-American Company for items #6, 8, and 11, Leslee Scott, Inc. for items #5 and 10, ICS for item #3 and Moore
Medical Supply for item #4, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
BUDGET
7.B) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101470 for Computers for County-Wide Technology in the amount of $2,530, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
7.C) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101510 for Computers including the transfer of funds from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Regular Contingency for 16th District Court in the amount of $1,470, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
7.D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101480 for Comprehensive General Liability including the transfer of funds from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Regular
Contingency for Non-Departmental in the amount of $4,075, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
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.) Andrew M. Lloyd, Misdemeanor Prosecutor II/Criminal District Attorney; Eddie Sebastian, Mechanic - Welder/R & B; Paul Jaworski, Sergeant-Investigator/Narcotics Task Force Grant; William Rogers, Sergeant Assistant Commander/Narcotics Task Force Grant; Michael Martin, Lieutenant - Commander/Narcotics Task Force Grant; Robin Barrow, Financial Manager/Narcotics Task Force Grant; Tiffany Beaudry, Administrative Specialist I/Narcotics Task Force Grant; Donald Jones, Corporal - Investigator/Narcotics Task Force Grant; Tony Bybee, Detention Officer 1/County Jail; Michael Thompson, DO 1/County Jail; David Brunner, DO 1/County Jail; Dustin McConnell, DO 1/County Jail; Dusty Dwyer, DO 1/County Jail; Earl Govan, DO 1/County Jail; Deborah Landry, Office Support Specialist II/Sheriff's Dept.; Michael Sibley, Communications Officer; Ashley Johnson, DO 1/County Jail.
HEALTH
9.A) Approval of TDH contract revision for Public Health Improvement Innovation grant, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
PUBLIC WORKS
10.D) Approve the Final Plat of Heritage Lantana, Phase Two - Lantana Project, Precinct #4, and any appropriate action.
10.E) Approve the Final Plat of the Crescent Addition, Phase B - Lantana, Precinct #4, and any appropriate action.
COUNTY CLERK
11.A) Approve the transcribed minutes and the County Clerk minutes for Denton County Commissioners Court Meeting, July 1, 2003 - Formal Session, and any appropriate action.
SHERIFF
12.A) Approval for Sheriff Weldon Lucas to use one pod in the West Wing of the Pre-Trial Facility for
training use. (Briefing 7-15-03)Move to approve the Consent Agenda by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0379
ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.A) Approval of any action related to the creation of a Restricted Traffic Zone for the enforcement of parking restrictions pursuant to Texas Transportation Code Section 251.152, Section 251.155, and Section
251.156. Civil DAMove to Open Public Hearing by Comm. White, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0No one spoke either for or against the enforcement of this Restricted Traffic Zone.
Move to Close Public Hearing by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 5-0-0Move to approve by Comm. White, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0380
ITEM 5 AUDITOR
5.A) Approval of Bill Report/Payroll.
(Payments from Adult Probation, Community Corrections, Pre-Trial Services and District Attorney Check Fee Fund are presented for recording purposes only.)DELETIONS -
GENERAL -
$ 400.00 to Hardy Burke, Attorney, incorrect invoice number;
$ 150.00 to Henry Paine, incorrect invoice number;
$ 94.52 and
$ 127.14 &
$ 94.52 to Holiday Inn, per department;
$ 25.00 to Aurora Nunez, Interpreter, Duplicate Payment;
CSCD -
$ 265.00 to Tami Russell, per department.
ADDITIONS -
GENERAL -
D.A., $ 80.00 to Barnstable Deputy Sheriff for Evidence Expense;2002 Tax Notes, $354,743.00 to Joe R. Jones Construction, Courthouse Contract Fees - June billing.Move to approve amended Bill Report by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0381
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7.E) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101570 for Cars/Small Trucks including the transfer of $14,331 from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Alternative Vehicle Contingency and
$9,169 from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Vehicle Repair Contingency for License & Weight for a total amendment of $23,500, and any appropriate action.Move to approve as amended: $8,240 from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency - Vehicle Repair Contingency for License & Weight for a total amendment of $22,571 by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0382
ITEM 16 ADDENDA
16.A) Approval of award for Charlie J. Cole Building, Security Renovation, Bid #05-03-1558, to DBR Construction Company for the base bid of $319,520.00 and Alternates 1, 2, 3 and 4 for a total of
$342,150.00, and any appropriate action. Purchasing DepartmentMove to approve by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0383
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7.F) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101610 for Repair and Maintenance including the transfer of funds from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Regular Contingency for Charlie
Cole Building in the amount of $40,000, and any appropriate action.Move to approve as amended: including the transfer of $33,500 from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency - Regular Contingency; $4,000 from Juvenile Detention and $2,500 from Juvenile Post Adjudication Center for the Charlie Cole Building in the amount of
$40,000 by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-03847.G) Approve the designation of the Tax Assessor/Collector to calculate and publish the effective and rollback tax rates for Denton County for tax year 2003, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0385
ITEM 10 PUBLIC WORKS
10.A) Approval of Potential Change Order #4 for the Courthouse on the Square Restoration, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve P.C.O. # 4 to provide OSHA regulation ladder in the tower and electrical conduits, additional setting bed material to corridor spaces on the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd floors by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-038610.B) Approve Tuesday, August 12, 2003 at 9:05 a.m. as date and time to conduct a Public Hearing to consider a Special Use Permit for Lot 4, Block B, Butterfield Junction in the Lake Ray Roberts Land Use District as requested by Mr. Bob Cates and recommended by the Lake Ray Roberts Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Department, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. White, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-038710.C) Approve August 26, 2003 at 9:05 as date and time to conduct a Public Hearing to consider and approve the Replat of Lot 50R & 51R, Block 23C, of the Larkspur Addition - Lantana Project, Precinct #4, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0388
ITEM 13 OTHER DEPARTMENTS
13.A) Approval of any action related to the 78th Legislative Session.
NO ACTION13.B) Approval of Sub-recipient Agreement between Denton County and TEEX for State Homeland Security Grant Program to improve Denton County's ability to respond to potential terrorist use of Weapons for Mass Destruction, and any appropriate action. Fire Marshal, Emergency Management
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0389
ITEM 14 LEGAL
14.A) Any appropriate action on Executive Session matters - Legal Department.
NO ACTION14.C) Approval of the Chapter 381 Tax Incentive Agreement between Denton County, Texas, and Granite Properties, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-15-03)
NO ACTION - REPOST
ITEM 16 ADDENDA
16.B) Approval of : (a) resolution regarding the Office of the Attorney General's Other Victim Assistance Grant for an intern and (b) the approval of the submission of a grant application for the Criminal District Attorney's Other Victim Assistance Grant for Denton County, and any appropriate action. DA
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-039016.C) Approval of the License Agreement between Denton County, Texas and Galatyn Park Corporation, and any appropriate action. DA
Move to approve and authorization for the County Judge to execute same on date to be determined by Operations Manager by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-039116.D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101620 for Contract Labor including the transfer of funds from Non-Departmental Unappropriated Contingency-Regular Contingency for Print/Mail
Department in the amount of $4,000. Budget Office.Move to approve by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0392
ITEM 17 RECESS 10:40 AM
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 10:48 AM
ITEM 14 LEGAL
14.B) Approval of Addendum #3 to the Agreement between County and Engineer, between Denton County, Texas, and Halff Associates, Inc., for FM 2499 Section 4, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve as amended: all services to be Additional Services and amounts to be paid shall not exceed $58,930.00 by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. Jacobs
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 03-0393
ITEM 15 EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Commissioners Court reserves the right to exercise 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.
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.
Court Convened in Executive Session 10:55 AM
Court Reconvened in Formal Session 11:40 AM
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); Luther Joe Lee, individually and as Trustee of the Dorothy LaVerne Lee Testamentary Trust, Frankie Jo Robbins, individually, as Trustee of the Jason Lee Robbins 1994 Irrevocable Trust, and as Trustee of the Jon Mark Robbins 1994 Irrevocable Trust, Jon Mark Robbins and Jason Lee Robbins v. Town of North Lake, Texas, Denton County, Texas and the State of Texas; Cause No. 2001-40730-362, pending in the 362nd District Court of Denton County, Texas.
15.D) Consultation with attorney concerning pending litigation, pursuant to Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A); Tarrant County v. Denton County, Cause No. 02-00-00358-CV, pending in the 2nd Court of Appeals of Texas at Fort Worth.
16.E) EXECUTIVE SESSION: Personnel Matters, Texas Government Code, Section 551.074 (a) (1) and Conference with Attorney, Section 551.071 (2): Discussion regarding duties of Civil Division Chief.
16.F) EXECUTIVE SESSION: Security at Denton County Tax Offices, Section 551.076, Texas Government Code, Deliberation Regarding Security Devices.
NO ACTION ON ANY OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEMS
ITEM 17 RECESS
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 1:40 PM
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7.A) Discussion of any action related to Denton County's 2003-04 Budget.
1. Appeals: Dept. of Information Services and Road & Bridge Reorganization District Attorney and
Emergency Management
2. Appeals: District Attorney and Emergency Management
3. Raises for Employees & Elected Officials
4. Reclassification Recommendations
5. New Hires included in Recommended Budget
6. Non-Profit Organization Funding Proposal
7. Review of Various Reports:
A. Collection Reports - County Auditor - Page R-1
B. Court Appointed Attorneys - Page R-25
C. Elected Official Survey Average - Page R-26
D. Bond Forfeiture Collection Report - Page R-33
E. Road & Bridge Staffing Reorganization - Page R-37
8. Appeals/Revisions
9. Reports Requested for Next Meeting
10. Other Discussion
(The following is an attempt to provide only the highlights of this budget work session. The motions are official upon review by the Budget Director, the Chief of the Civil Division of the Criminal District Attorney's Office and the approval of Commissioners Court. For a viewing of the entire proceedings, please contact the Information Services Department for a video, the website at dentoncounty.com or the County Clerk's office for the audio tapes.)
Judge Horn: Commissioners Court is now back in session in our Budget Workshop. Donna, you have the floor.
Ms. Stewart, Budget Director: Thank you, Judge and Commissioners. Let's take a moment to identify all the information handed out to you:
Agenda - two appeals added for today
Appeals Schedule for Thursday & Friday
Changes Sheet - Legal Sheets
Appeals Packet
Reference Section including reports, information requested.
We'll begin by covering some reference material and reports. Mr. Wells has prepared a lengthy Collections Report that you requested and begins on Page R-1.Mr. Wells, Denton County Auditor: In your packet from Pages R-4 to R-20 are the Collection Analysis Reports - court by court information - summarized in a couple of reports that we need to go over on the first three pages. Page R-3 is the Complete Status Report of Fine Collections in the three levels of court for the last five years. The first section is five years of information for all six District Courts. The next section is for the five county Criminal Courts excluding Probate Court and County Court at Laws. The last section is five years from all Justice of the Peace Courts. For your information, under District Courts in the first line, the fines assessed were from fiscal year 1998 but the Paid Column indicates what has been collected to the date of June 30, 2003. This is true for all the courts - we felt this was the most effective way to give you a picture of Collections.
Comm. Carter, Pct. # 4: Does that Assessed Amount all go to the county or is some of it allocated to the state?
Mr. Wells: This is just fines so this is all coming back to the county. Court costs are split between the county and the state.
Comm. Jacobs, Pct. # 2: Why is there such a huge difference between District Courts & County Courts as far as the percent collected?
Mr. Wells: There are some bullet points on Page R-2 that might explain that.Comm. Carter: What are the terms we give people to pay off these fines?
Mr. Wells: There are no general terms - length of probation can vary from 6 months to ten years. According to Mitch Liles, Director of Adult Probation, you cannot make generalizations about the terms.
Comm. Mitchell, Pct. # 3: Please explain the Laid Out Waivers/Credits.
Mr. Wells: You'll see this mostly in the county and JP courts. A defendant whom has been assessed a fine has the option of paying off his fines by laying them out in jail. In District Court, if they do not meet the terms of their probation, they are sentenced to prison with their fine remaining uncollected but on the books, contributing to the low percentage of collection in District Courts. In County and JP Courts, instead of paying their fine, the defendant may choose jail time with a statutory amount of credit per day. As the chart indicates, the percentages are much higher for the County Courts than for the District Courts. The JP Courts have higher case loads indicated by the assessed value and their only sentencing options are to assess fines. Total of All Courts' collection rates over the past five years is almost 89%.
These numbers need some explanation and analysis so please refer to Page R-2 for some bullet points. (1) The unpaid balance of 1.9 million should not be considered delinquent or uncollectible. These are fines still being paid on and not necessarily in need of collection efforts. (2) JP Courts allow people to pay out their fines and their restitution in installments accounting for almost 20% of the outstanding amount. (3) The revocation rate of 10% in Adult Probation has an effect on the unpaid balances. These are most often revoked for failure to pay fines and court costs. Once revoked, the outstanding fines become uncollectible but remain on court records and the defendant is re-jailed or imprisoned. (4) Also in District Courts, the chances of collecting from a defendant being sentenced to prison are almost nil but the amount remains on the court records. (5) In Justice Courts, some of the unpaid fines are from people who do not live in the state and these are rarely collected without some mutual enforcement agreement with the other state. (6) The policy of Adult Probation is to not allow a defendant's probation to expire as long as they owe fines, court costs and/or restitution. At any given time their caseload is 8,000 probationers, for whom they will file a motion to revoke if the probationer's payment exceeds their probation time. Court does not always grant the revocation leaving small amounts of fines or costs unpaid. By last accounting, four people were let off owing small amounts. I spoke to the Office of Court Administration this morning - a statewide office that works in court fine collections - and they are reporting a statewide collection rate far beneath ours, about 50%. I have asked them to send me some of their survey information to give you some bench marks.
That is the status of the fines. This information was pulled directly off the Criminal Justice System.Comm. Jacobs: Referring to Page R-3, can we determine from this report the amount of the 1.6 million that is not being paid on but still could be collectible?
Mr. Wells: I don't believe that could be determined from this report. There are just too many variables to get to that information within the next two weeks.
Comm. Jacobs: As to the low collection rate in District Courts, do the Judges have the authority to take away a defendant's property - like a car, their house - to pay off their fines?
Mr. Wells: I do not know the answer to that question.
Mr. Keever, Chief of the Civil Division: I suspect that is not possible unless you had a civil judgment.
Ms. Breading, First Assistant District Attorney: Costs and fines are supposed to be paid prior to sentencing but this is not enforced.
Judge Horn: About collections, the JP's seem to prefer the MSB Program over the Omni-base for several reasons: one, there is a $30 charge up-front for Omni-base and two, it is tied to the Department of Public Safety so when a person owes fines, their driver's license is un-renewable until those fines and costs are paid. The problem is in enforcement again - my understanding from several constables I have spoken with is that Dallas's DPS chooses not to enforce this rule. Added to that is the fact that a person renews their driver's license only once every six years. I also understand there are some problems with the MSB Program in merging the information with our system. Kevin, is that correct?
Mr. Carr, Director of Information Services: As I understand it, there is a problem using Omni-base and MSB at the same time. Right now the County owns the interface to Omni-base. We do not yet own an interface for MSB. The MSB Interface would cost approximately $3500 each for JP and County Court cases. No one has asked to have it implemented.
Comm. Mitchell: Don't we have a contract with one of them?Judge Horn: We do with MSB but without the software it is unusable. We've had the contract for a couple of years without implementation at our end.
Comm. White, Pct. 1: So we have a contract with both but only an interface for Omni?
Mr. Carr: Correct. JP # 2 asked for the interface to Omni.
Comm. White: Are they going to have a choice - can we use both?
Mr. Carr: We cannot use both at the same time so it will have to be one or the other.
Comm. White: So will it be up to this court as to which one we are going to use?
Judge Horn: In defense of JP # 2, Judge Hollifield was designated as the JP to determine for all the JP's which system was best.
Comm. White: Did we move prematurely on the Omni-base?
Judge Horn: Probably. We need to hear from all the JP's collectively.
Comm. Jacobs: Can the JP's fund this?Mr. Carr: We have funds available to do this project but no one has asked us to implement one or the other.
Judge Horn: I don't know if we have a consensus of opinion between the JP Courts and the County Courts.
Mr. Carr: I believe that Omni-base is due to be installed for JP # 2 this week. Due you want me to delay that?
Judge Horn: Yes.
Ms. Stewart: The next report is regarding Court Appointed Attorneys on Page R-25. This is a recap of what has been expended, what each court requested and what is included in the Recommended Budget.
Comm. Jacobs: Are we saying that the initial request was 2.6 million dollars? This is for attorneys appointed by the court because the defendants cannot afford one. You have recommended 2 million?
Ms. Stewart: Actually, we had 2.8 million in the initial request - the other figures are revenue reimbursements. We are recommending 2.2 million which is consistent with the current budget - maybe $60,000 more than current.Comm. Jacobs: Let me ask again - as I have asked every year - are we ready to look at a hybrid public defender system? By statute we could do this so what are the financial impacts associated with that?
Ms. Stewart: We have not looked at that for some time now. My understanding is that the Judges have to agree to that before we can even look at implementation and no one has expressed any interest in it.
Comm. Jacobs: I would still like to see figures on what that cost would be. It wouldn't have to be a full-blown public defender system because obviously not every judge is going to use it. But there may be some judges that would appreciate the potential cost savings, if that can be shown.
Ms. Stewart: I guess I am not sure how to begin that - we could contact other counties that are similar in size and see what they have.Comm. Jacobs: That would be great. Also, I would like to look at the possibility of hiring a firm or two firms to do all the court appointed attorney work.
Ms. Stewart: I could send an email out to all the courts for their feedback.
Comm. Jacobs: I know what their input is and I am not saying we should do this without their input. But at this point in time, I would just like to see some numbers, to have some comparisons. Only if a cost saving is demonstrable, then we can ask for their input and the reasons they would not want to adopt something that is less costly.Ms. Stewart: The court had asked for a summary of Elected Official salaries based on the survey average using the smaller survey of the four counties - Collin, Fort Bend, Jefferson & Montgomery. On Page R-26 you will see a recap including each Elected Official and their current budgeted salary. It shows the survey average or the current, if higher, and their car allowance. I need to ask our attorneys, their salary is set by statute - they have a maximum amount - and I am assuming car allowances is considered a personal expense as is salary. That's the way we handle it for all other officials.
Mr. Keever: I am not sure about car allowances - let me check on that.
Ms. Stewart: The next report is Bond Forfeiture on Page R-33. This was received from David Finney. In summary on Page R-34, you'll see a recap of collections.
Comm. Jacobs: Was this drop in collections anticipated?
Ms. Stewart: It was expected to be lower this year. If either of the attorneys have more information to add on this subject, please do so because I am not real familiar with this subject.
Ms. Stewart: The court asked me to look at all vehicle appeals and our report is on Page R-55. This is a complete list of all vehicles being appealed and you will be hearing from departments on Thursday and Friday regarding these appeals. In best case scenario, we would always like to recommend what the Vehicle-Radio Assessment Committee recommends but funds are tight and I have expressed my concerns about this area earlier. The graph shows one group of vehicles being appealed and these were recommended by the committee - if funds are available, the Budget Office recommends that these vehicles are replaced. The second group is vehicles being appealed that are tied to new hire requests, so if the new hires are approved, the vehicles would be approved along with them. The Sheriff will be appealing the SUV's for patrol vehicles. We made our choice based on cost of repairs but he will bring other factors to the table. That is the court's final decision.
The next section is a vehicle for Constable, Pct. # 3. My understanding is that a repair history had not been submitted to the Vehicle Maintenance Dept. so it was not recommended by the Vehicle Radio Assessment Committee and is another one for the court to decide. On Vehicle # 23, the Sheriff has withdrawn his appeal for this vehicle.Ms. Stewart: The next report on Page R-57, the court had asked for a prioritization from our office on new hires. We did not put them in priority order but are saying that all of those are of equal priority - 8.5 positions for a cost of $370, 295. Priority # 2 is 6.5 positions for $290,121. Priority # 3 is 8.25 positions for $442,346 for a grand total of $1,102,762.
Comm. Jacobs: And how many new hire positions have you placed in the recommended budget?
Ms. Stewart: We placed nine from expiring grant positions only.
Ms. Stewart: In the Recommended Budget is the Breakdown of County Services on Page S-66. We are now providing you a written report on Page S-66(A) in which we tried to categorize all the non-mandated expenses.
Comm. Jacobs: About the fire and ambulance funding and a five-year plan for increasing the per call rate at 20% per year. I don't believe that was in the form of a contract but rather a commitment.
Ms. Stewart: The intent was to raise it up to $500 per call and we are up to $363.
Comm. Jacobs: I would like to see the minutes regarding this issue as to how we agreed to the five years and how the motion was worded.
Ms. Stewart: We will try and get that for you.
Ms. Stewart: Pedi-place is the only social service agency requesting an appeal and will be addressing the court later this week.
Ms. Stewart: On Page S-75 is the Summary of Reclassifications & Equity Adjustments. All that have been recommended by Human Resources are included the Recommended Budget. The total impact is $89,000 - 65 positions requested and 26 are being recommended.
Comm. Jacobs: I think it is very important that we do our equity and internal adjustments prior to talking about any raises. When we do across-the-board raises for those positions out-of-line, we are just adding to the problem. After several years of these raises, we are facing positions way out-of-line, costing us more in the long run. Let us adjust these external and internal problems prior to discussing any raises. Does the Director of Human Resources agree?
Ms. Phillips, Director of Human Resources: Yes, we have looked at quite a few equity adjustment requests and the salary surveys are meant to address internal equities also.
Ms. Stewart: New Hires included in the Recommend Budget are listed on Page S-73. Comm. White had requested the priority of the departments. The District Attorney's Office prioritized as follows: Felony Prosecutor I, Felony Investigator, Family Violence Intervention Specialist, Child Victim Intervention Specialist and Legal Intern. The Sheriff's Office prioritized as follows: Warrant Research/Detention Officer 002-WR, Warrant Research/Detention Officer 001-WR, Deputy Sheriff 001-GB, Deputy Sheriff 003-GB, Deputy Sheriff 002-GB and Investigator Underage Drinking. And one correction - under the Underage Drinking Investigator - the amount of $23,500 listed for the vehicle should be 0 changing the total for that position to $64,976. The positions on Page S-74 are being appealed except for the Juvenile Detention position. These positions have been vacant since at least the end of March.
Ms. Stewart: Court did have a question concerning non-profit funding, as to whether or not funding for MHMR is mandated.
Mr. Schell, Assistant District Attorney: At this time in reading the statutes, I cannot find any mandatory funding requirement for MHMR. I still need to look at the agreement between the county and MHMR concerning its creation. I will get back to you on this.
Ms. Stewart: We have some additional information for Page R-26 - Elected Officials Survey Averages. On the current car allowance totals for Denton County - $34,660 for salaries, including benefits for a total of $40,513. Looking at the third column from the right, the Grand Total would be $40,513. Looking at the Car Allowance Survey Average, leaving in the judges, that total is $270,967. Excluding the judges, the total is $208,128.
So, taking the survey average of $113,167 for salary and the amount for the car allowances including the judges would be $343,621. Excluding the Judges it would be $280,782 - car allowance and salary without the Judge's car allowance.Comm. Jacobs: So for $280,782 both the car allowance and the salary adjustments could be made for 37 Elected Officials.
Ms. Stewart: Yes, excluding the judges because their salaries are capped and excluding the Criminal District Attorney and the Sheriff based on the survey average.Comm. Jacobs: My point is that it would cost $280,782 to put our elected officials up to the lower end of the survey average for both car allowance and salary with the exception of the judges because we do not know about their car allowances.
Ms. Stewart: Correct. There would be 21 Elected Officials from the 37 that would receive an increase in salary .
Ms. Stewart: We can start hearing appeals today beginning with Information Services which also involves County-Wide Technology, Telephone Department and the Justice Information Systems. Page A-16 is where his appeal begins - on the Changes Sheet it would be 1 of 10, 2 of 10, 3 of 10 and 5 of 10.
Mr. Carr: My first request is for a Network Manager specializing in Security including a deletion of a position for the total impact being $21,000. We have discussed this position with the Sheriff's Office and the DA's Office for a long time. We requested some help last year but did not get it. Besides network security, there is telephone security, increased internet usage, an increase in our connections to other entities for transference of data, increased social engineering attacks and overall a lack of training within the county on detection. This position would also be dealing with privacy issues like HIPAA and with network management in general for over 50 file servers supporting over 1300 computers.
Comm. Mitchell: Can you not use the present position rather than creating a new one with more money?
Mr. Carr: The existing position is a non-technical position.
Comm. Mitchell: Do you have any other Network Managers?Mr. Carr: We have two positions called Network Managers - one handles our Network Servers and the other one handles infrastructure issues like UPS's, network routers and cabling. One Network Manager has been out on Medical leave for a long time so our only Network Manager is having to do both of the jobs. All three of them would back up each other.
Comm. Jacobs: What can happen if we have a breach of security?
Mr. Carr: There is a range of possibilities - the worse being taking down the whole network including phones, computers. There could be a loss of data from our servers, our criminal records, etc.
Comm. Jacobs: What is the position of the Sheriff and DA on this?
Mr. Carr: We have been talking with them about the need for this position for at least two years. There is also theft of information by key loggers and spyware that is available now and very easy to use.
Comm. Jacobs: Would this new position be able to catch these before they happen?
Mr. Carr: Yes, by monitoring the updates on a daily basis and instituting improved security policies. We have some security policies now but few employees are really aware of them. This position could create policy and start some security training classes for our employees on how to detect social engineering in which people are tricked into giving out information.
Comm. Jacobs: Do these security breaches invade the back-ups that you perform?
Mr. Carr: If the worm is present before the B/U, then it is being included with the good data. By the time the operator realizes the worm, the B/U is already gone.
Comm. Jacobs: Is there any insurance for this? What can we do to protect ourselves besides spending $21,000 for a new position?
Mr. Carr: Back-ups protect data but there is no protection from down time. There is no good answer except for everyone keeping up with the latest security patches.
The second request is for a Part-time Intern for the Application Development Team. Currently we have a temporary position that is helping out. This team does all the county websites, the internet site, the intranet site and develop applications for various departments. Page A-17 demonstrates the value of the in-house Application Development - $765,000. They created the Budget System we use every year and I believe the County Internet Site is among the best in the nation. They are also working on a lot of new applications like vendor applications on-line, an Economic Development website, etc. This Intern is lower paid so they can also help with simpler tasks. Listed are a couple of off-set line items making a 0-dollar impact by adding those new positions.
Also part of our appeal is the Dell Lease for 2004. One of the county policies - 3.6 - is a replacement of all of our computers every four years and we are in our third year. Failure to do this would put us on a five year program which I believe would be a big mistake. Older computers break a lot, causing a lot of down time. They are slow and unable to run a lot of the newer software leading to inability to patch allowing network vulnerability. I strongly recommend funding the 4-year lease.Ms. Stewart: The cost for that is $46,773 on Changes Sheet, 2 of 10.
Mr. Carr: In the Telephone Department, 5 of 10 of the legal sheets, the first request is for $14,717. We feel this is the amount we will be under budget. Certain services were implemented later that were not added to the budget and are now showing up; for instance, the new network service from Lewisville and Carrollton. This amount would be just to maintain the current level of services we have today. The second request is for $24,780 to upgrade the phone lines for the Sheriff's Office. Their phone system is about 20 years old. It is an analog system which is a much slower connect. This is desperately needed. Actually, these funds were included in this year's budget but because of delays in purchasing a new system, we have not implemented it yet.
Comm. Mitchell: So what did you do with this year's funds?
Mr. Carr: It's still there. There is an RFP in process right now for the purchase of a new system. The $24,000 represents a continuing yearly cost.
The Human Resource System is a software program just for HR. They need this so I was willing to appeal this item along with Amy. Theirs is still a manual process. The cost is $150,000 so we are looking to this year's budget for a down payment perhaps and finance the rest of it.Ms. Stewart: The court could lease it for three years. I believe this system is needed.
Comm. Jacobs: Can we look at this next week for funding it either as an alternative through tax notes or other types of funding?
Judge Horn: For a lease-purchase, what would be the annual amount?
Ms. Stewart: $55,000.Ms. Phillips: The system that was installed in 1995 has never worked well - does not link well to other systems and Kevin has tried to help us. It's hard for them to offer us support. We are not able to produce simple HR reports or provide other entities with required reports so it holds up all the other departments. We would be much more efficient with a new system.
Mr. Carr: Part of the reallocation request is for mobile phone expense - wireless data. We have had requests from Commissioners Court for wireless email.
Ms. Stewart: His reductions are: $10,070 for computer software and $10,970 for computer wiring on Page 2 of 10. And on Page 3, $22,282 for software in the Justice Information Systems.
Ms. Jacobs: I would like to throw in my two cents here because I know as we get to the end of the process, we all go a little wild. My philosophy is that when we look at our central departments, those that the entire county utilizes - for instance, just to name a few, Purchasing, Budget, Human Resources, Auditor, Information Services, Treasurer - these offices need to be looked at closely, especially their appeals, because what affects them affects the entire county.
Ms. Stewart: Road & Bridge Appeal Data is on Page A-196, initial information in R-37 and on 9 of 10 of the changes sheet. One correction to the Changes Sheet - Account # 4611, Decreased Asphalt Products, that amount needs to be changed from $220,000 to $220,809. That will change the bottom line to a savings of $1654 which is tied directly to a reclassification revision requested by this department.
Mr. Zwinggi, Director of Public Works: In our initial budget request, we requested approximately 9.4 million dollars. The Recommended Budget came back with 8.2 million dollars. Road & Bridge is agreeable with this figure although if anything is left over, we would like to see it in raises. We do have about $489,000 to be reallocated as seen on the hand-out (Pages A-196a, b, c).
Comm. Carter: What is the shortfall from the $10 fee collected?
Ms. Stewart: James is projecting $6,950,000 in the supplemental vehicle registration fee and the additional 5% registration fee. There are other fees such as Excess Vehicle Weight fees, Flood Control which totals $115,000. $35,000 is included for Subdivision Inspection fees. We're anticipating about $30,000 in interest earnings and a transfer from General Fund of approximately $100,000.Comm. Carter: The increase on Ad Valorem taxes on natural gas production is over a million dollars. This is coming at the expense of our residents as we heard from Mr. Bateman and the deterioration of our roads in the western part of our county. I believe it would be prudent to consider putting a portion of that tax revenue back into our roads. Three or four years ago these taxes amounted to about $60,000 so the huge increase justifies putting perhaps $500,000 back into the roads.
Ms. Stewart: Meaning we would have to cut that much in other areas in the Recommended Budget.
Judge Horn: Let's wait on that until we have the tax rate information next week.
Mr. Carter: My intent is just to keep it in front of the court.
Comm. Jacobs: Mr. Zwinggi and I are also addressing some areas in the information being put together for our August 5th meeting. That may change some of these figures as well.Ms. Stewart: We have provided in the Reference Section a breakdown of the Reorganization requests for the two different divisions - one for Kelly's and one for Jack Dyer's division - taking into account all the revisions that have been recommended by R & B. That meant adding back two of the four positions cut in the Recommended Budget - Engineer-in-Training position and the additional Administrative Manager position for one of the divisions. Please remember that the Recommended Budget did not encompass the Reorganization information that we received late. Page R-38 is the staffing breakdown assigned to Kelly's division and Page R-42 is the staffing breakdown for Jack Dyer's division.
Comm. Jacobs: My question regards staffing - initially we agreed with your reorganization based on the fact you were cutting four positions and now you're saying you are adding back two.
Ms. Stewart: As it was explained to me, they have made reductions in other areas so are still working within budget even after these two positions are added back.
Comm. White: Originally, we had discussed a savings of about $15,000. The plan submitted to Commissioners Court never discussed - and I read the minutes - specific positions. The more important aspect here is that we are addressing productivity and efficiency. We actually ended up voting on the Ex-Officio System without regard to salaries or positions. We agreed to come back later to vote on those issues. The bottom line is there is still a savings.
Comm. Mitchell: We were told at some point that there would be some positions cut and that was the impetus to proceed with this scenario. There will be savings, as far as I am concerned, when some of these salaries are cut because of less responsibility.
Comm. Jacobs: My point is that a cut of four positions would add up to a lot more than $15,000.
Ms. Stewart: Except that they were asking for several positions to have higher salaries and considering reclassifications, that $15,000 is feasible. My question to court is do we want three separate budgets for Road & Bridge - that would be for the two divisions plus the Engineering Division? Also, please disregard the information on Pages R-52, 53 & 54 as this plan was not ready to be brought before court.
Comm. Mitchell: How did they get three?
Ms. Stewart: They talked about the two divisions plus an Engineering Division under Jack Dyer.
Comm. Carter: That still retains the Planning Division as well?
Ms. Stewart: Planning would still be a separate department.
Comm. Carter: So, half of Jack's and Kelly's time would also be spent in Planning.
Ms. Stewart: Right, which is why we included $100,000 from General Fund so they could legally do work on non-R & B functions.
Comm. Jacobs: When did court vote on dividing this into three sections"
Ms. Stewart: You have not but that question of three budgets was asked of me.
Comm. Jacobs: I am opposed to adding more departments. My idea to make it more efficient is to have one department divided by functionality.
Ms. Stewart: And I need input from the court because we need to have the R & B budget finalized within the next couple of weeks.
Comm. Jacobs: I am opposed to a separate Engineering Dept. - we do not need anymore engineers. If one budget overlaps into the other that should tell you that your reorganization plan is not working. Also, you're taking even more money out of the General Fund which we cannot afford to do.
Ms. Stewart: Their intent was to be able to see exactly what the full impact of providing engineering services is.
Comm. White: I was not looking at three separate budgets. We did look at separating out Commissioners 1 & 2 and 3 & 4, so that would involve two separate budgets. So Jack Dyer would be over 1 & 2 and Engineering. Kelly would be over 3 & 4 and Planning.
Comm. Jacobs: When are we going to vote on the percentage of the money that goes to each? That is not reflected here and it needs to be addressed.
Comm. White: I was expecting it to be on the agenda this week to be determined today. In all our meetings with Kelly and Jack and Comm. Carter, we broke it down into a 55/45 split on capital, personnel, equipment and funding.
Comm. Carter: With some flexibility in that split, that is what we agreed upon. I had remembered a $20,000 savings and believe we had some figures supporting that amount.
Comm. White: I will make the motion of a 55/45 split.
Judge Horn: Is there a second?Comm. Jacobs: Point of order. We have nothing in front of us that demonstrates these numbers to us. We need this in black and white on paper before a vote can be taken.
Judge Horn: How long before this can all be pulled together?
Mr. Zwinggi: We had planned on presenting all this in two weeks.
Comm. White: We need and Donna needs a vote on the percentage before we can finalize anything.
Comm. Mitchell: I am not voting on percentages today because I have not been presented a plan that I can agree to.
Comm. Carter: Can this be presented next week?
Mr. Zwinggi: We can do that.
Judge Horn: So this is to be presented next week on July 29th?
Mr. Zwinggi: Yes.
Comm. White: Comm. Carter and I have been involved deeply in this process because we have the largest unincorporated areas and the most county roads. I am curious, Comm. Jacobs, how many calls does your office receive, percentage wise, on roads since you have only 3 miles roads and I have 400 plus and Comm. Carter has 200 plus. Obviously that is going to dictate the amount of interest that a Commissioner has in this project.
Comm. Jacobs: 75% of the calls I get relate to transportation.
Comm. White: My question regards county roads…...
Comm. Jacobs: …..relate to transportation.
Ms. Stewart: The next appeal is from the District Attorney's Office on Page A-84, and 3 of 10.
Ms. Breading: Let me stress first the grave importance of Kevin's request for County-Wide Technology. Mr. Isaacks has talked to him a lot about security and he does not want to see a breakdown of phones or computers at any time. The Administrative Specialist position is one we ask you to reconsider and/or earlier than April 1 if at all possible. We have needed this position for a long time. In Juvenile Probation, there are two fulltime and an assistant working on the same number of cases and in the courts there are three clerks and a supervisor working on the same number of cases that we have one person working on. If we ever lose that person, we are in deep trouble. We cannot continue to work her like we have been - something has to give. Other work is piling up in the meantime such as the gleaning of files necessary in juvenile cases - all these files have been transferred to a conference room which is now locked until those files can be dealt with.
The second issue is on the evidence expense. I agree with Comm. Jacobs's suggestions that another line item be created for capital cases. So, if you could put the additional money that was not in the Recommended Budget into this line item since this year our evidence expense is already at $33,000.Comm. Jacobs: So the Evidence Expense line item - 5610 - the amount of $17,000 would be transferred to a Capital Case line item.
Ms. Stewart: Referring to Page 2 of 10, Judiciary Court Support, we have on the agenda a line item to create with one dollar in it. So we could move that $17,000 to there.Ms. Breading: Our greatest increases over the last three years have occurred in this area.
Comm. Jacobs: This new hire you mentioned would cost $20,293?
Ms. Breading: Correct, with the position beginning April 1.
Ms. Stewart: The last appeal we have is Emergency Management on Page A-188 and 8 of 10.
Mr. Gonzalez, Denton County Fire Marshal: This will be a brief appeal for two items. My main concern if operating supplies which has been traditionally about $5500. Because of certain assets we have gotten in the last two years - hazardous materials equipment, personal protective gear - our initial request was for $11,500. The Recommended came back with $1800 so I am asking for half of my initial request or $6000 and with the difference of $1800, my request is for $4200.
My second request is for a Part-time Emergency Management Specialist. We need this to assist in producing emergency management plans, research grants and attending county and regional workshops that are meeting much more often. There is a great need for a Facilities Emergency Plan as our duties in Homeland Security have increased greatly. Also, with the county's purchase of AED's - Automated External Defibrillators - this position will help with the training of county staff in use of this equipment around the county. This person will also assist in managing grants. Our staff is overextended now in trying to deal with all these issues.Ms. Stewart: At our next meeting we will be discussing R & B, retirement options, fire call funding and suggested reductions from our court members. Also, I will work on some numbers for a public defender system. You have your schedule of appeals for this coming Thursday and Friday.
My good news - Pages 1 of 10 of the Changes Sheet - we are going to add a reduction to Non-Departmental. We will be reducing the Tax Rebate Line Item by $140,353.Judge Horn: We are adjourned.
ITEM 19 ADJOURNMENT 4:30 PM
This set of minutes for July 22, 2003 was prepared by Deputy Clerk Kathleen Bransford and reviewed by County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell.