Denton County Commissioners Court Denton County Pre-Trial Facility 1406 Troy H. LaGrone Drive, Denton, Texas * * * * * Formal Agenda Minutes
Not Official Minutes.  For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012.

July 24, 2003

Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order for a Budget Workshop - Appeal Hearing - on the 24th day of July, 2003, at 10:00 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.

ITEM 7 BUDGET

7.A) Discussion of any action related to Denton County's 2003-04 Budget.

Judge Horn: We will turn it right over to you, Donna.

Ms. Stewart: I gave you a new Changes Sheet and some handouts. Before you is a new Budget Appeals Schedule for today with Judge Windle filling in the 1:50 PM time slot. First appeal this morning is from the Print/Mail Department, Page A-39 and on the Changes Sheet, Page 1 of 10.

Ms. Reese, Print/Mail Manager: I am requesting an increase of $500 in our Operating Supplies to purchase anti-fatigue mats. The Print/Mail budget was submitted by my predecessor and these were not included. I am also requesting $2,740 in Training & Education for two employees. This training was attended in 2001 by the previous Supervisor and Skip Allcorn. These seminars provide vital training in changes to the Postal Regulations and mail service management for governmental organizations. In prioritizing my requests, I would place the anti-fatigue mats first, then training for one employee and then training for both, if the funds are available. Thank you.

Comm. Mitchell: Cindy, do you not have money in your budget this year for those mats?

Ms. Reese: No, Ma'am, I do not.

Ms. Stewart: Next appeal is the District Clerk, Sherri Adelstein, Page A-63, Page A-201 and Page 2 of 10, encompassing two separate departments: the District Clerk's Office and a new fund created through the Legislative Session this year - District Clerk Records Management Fund.

Ms. Adelstein, District Clerk: In explanation of this new fund, there was a bill passed that allowed for our Records Preservation fee to go from $5.00 to $10.00. Five of the ten will continue to be collected and go into the county's General Fund. The other five that we are going to start collecting September 1, 2003, will go directly into the District Clerk's Record Preservation Fund. We believe it will accrue approximately $27,000 per year.

Ms. Stewart: That summary information is on your Changes Sheet Page 9 of 10. We have included revenue @ $28,000. This money is included in Unappropriated Contingency since we received this at the last minute - the bill was just signed. The money will have to be allocated later through the Budget Amendment Process or, if we know before budget adoption, we will do line item appropriations, all offset by revenue.

Comm. White: What is your proposed use of these funds?

Ms. Adelstein: Since this is such a new fund, I am still in the learning process.

Ms. Stewart: And this funding can be used only for the specific purpose of records management.

Ms. Adelstein: Similar to the County Clerk's Record Preservation fund, which has existed for many years. This is not an optional fee - our filing fees for every new case are going up $5.00.
Second issue - I initially had asked for two new positions in the District Clerk's Office. That request was cut in the Recommended Budget. I understand the fiscal constraints of the county so have revised my request to two part-time positions. Without some more help, our service to the public will suffer. As the population grows, more suits are filed, more crimes committed. It's important to my office that when someone calls in, that call is answered by a clerk; also, that we do not have long lines of people waiting for service. If we just had help with the filing. I have had a few complaints from the judges because cases have gone to trial before the file has been updated. Felony Records has three clerks and a Chief Deputy - no new help for the last twelve years.

Comm. Jacobs: When was the last new position created for your department?

Ms. Adelstein: We got one last year and I believe one and a half positions three years ago.

Comm. Jacobs: Does your staff do a lot of copying for our constituents?

Ms. Adelstein: Some, but we have Public Access Copiers where they can make their own copies. If we do it, it is a dollar per page.

Comm. Jacobs: We do not have those in a lot of our departments and a lot of time is being spent on staff making copies.

Ms. Adelstein: The public can use quarters for small copy jobs or purchase debit cards and those are popular with our Title Companies, etc.

Comm. Jacobs: I'm looking at a contract with a vending company where we might reap a percentage of money collected through them.

Ms. Adelstein: We get 25 cents per copy.

Comm. Jacobs: Perhaps we could expand on that so these copiers could be utilized throughout the county.
In reading through the budget, it appears that a lot of county offices are falling behind on basic office maintenance, such as filing, answering the phone, etc. Other government agencies have a pool of staffers who do just this type of work. These workers would be on county payroll and therefore familiar with the type of work done.

Ms. Adelstein: That is an excellent idea, keeping in mind that I would not be able to deputize them unlike these two part-time people that could be deputized and eventually do more than just the simple tasks. The two part-timers I am requesting would help out with Felony records and the filings from the Attorney General's Office.

Ms. Stewart: I do have Sherri's two part time positions as top priority.

Ms. Adelstein: One more thing I wanted to present to you is a comparison with other counties in similar size and workload. Our office is a much lower court to staff ratio than any of the other counties. For instance, Collin County has a staff of 56 with the same number of Districts Courts as we have - six. I have some excellent people working for me but they could use some help.

Ms. Stewart: The next appeal is from JP # 6, Judge Marchant on Page A-79 and 3 of 10. His request is for an equity adjustment and an increase in office supplies.

Judge Marchant, JP # 6: We are asking for an equity adjustment of $2,443 for our Senior Court Clerk who has been with us for three years. This would bring her from a Step Two to Step Four pay grade 16 for an annual salary of $28,062 which is still $624 less than the average senior clerk. We understand other clerks may have more tenure. This is important to me because I finally, after doing this for eleven years, have a staff that works as a cohesive unit. Our office space is small so it is vital that we all work well together. I do not want to lose my Senior Court Clerk because she is very qualified.
My other request is for some new desks. They are too much to ask for in my regular budget although we have found $1,076 to offset the cost. The total amount for the new desks is $2,723 so we are asking for $1,647. To date for this year, we are the highest civil filing court in the county but every area of our court is increasing.

Comm. Jacobs: I also office in the same facility as Judge Marchant and I can verify that he needs these desks. If there is a way to get the desks in this year's budget, I would urge the court to do so. These desks are in a public area. New desks would also alleviate some of their space problems. When was the last time you got a new employee?

Judge Marchant: Three years ago I got a part-time. Presently I have three and one-half employees.

Comm. Jacobs: I believe the average number of employees for our JPs is five.

Ms. Stewart: Next up is JP # 5, Judge Bateman - Page A-77 and Page 3 of 10. His appeal is for a new hire - Court Clerk @ Step 1.
Judge Bateman: My appeal is for a new Court Clerk. In the past six months, as compared to the last six months of last year, traffic citations filed in our court have doubled. As of March 31, our over all revenue for the county has increased by 29% and as of June 30, we're up to 38% above where we were at the same time a year ago. We are just continuing to grow. My present staff of 5 ½ since January has accumulated approximately 357 comp hours just to try to stay afloat. A new hire plus benefits would cost $31,692.

Ms. Stewart: I have placed this new position in top priority. JP # 5 brings in approximately $94,000 per employee compared to others in the $48,000 range. Their civil is lower than the other courts but they do have a ton of criminal cases.

Comm. Jacobs: In determining whether or not a court needs new employees, I am more interested in seeing the number of cases that each clerk is doing.

Ms. Stewart: I will have a time comparison report for the court to study regarding our JP courts, similar to the report from JP # 1.

Comm. Carter: Judge Kirkland did prepare a good breakdown of time spent by a clerk on each case.

Comm. White: It would be helpful to have the information presented in one format.

Judge Bateman: My office also registers vehicles and issues death and marriage certificates.

Ms. Stewart: Bing Burton is here representing the Health Department, Page A-205, A-212 & Page 9 of 10.

Dr. Burton, Director of Health: In our initial request, we had asked for a position for the Clinical Program, also one for Environmental Health and also $50,000 for our physician's liability insurance. The Recommended Budget did not grant either of those positions and $30,000 for insurance. We could settle for one position and share it. As for our liability insurance, we have to have the $50,000 just to keep our doctors practicing and protected.

Ms. Stewart: I was unaware that the liability policy was only for a two-month period.

Dr. Burton: So we had some costs our Budget Office was not familiar with. We would put the new position in Environment Health. Their whole budget for this year is $105,000 but we are projecting their revenue will be $140,000 this year. I don't know how many programs pay their way, but I am real proud of this one. If you'll recall, we raised the Septic System fee last year for aerobic systems - 3,293 have been installed in Denton County. We would share this Environmental Health position with Clinical Health enabling us to better protect public health overall and improve customer service. In talking with our Auditor this morning, it looks like for this budget year we will be increasing our Medicaid revenue from $300,000 to $450,000. So, my thinking is, we have already funded this position.

Comm. Mitchell: Dr. Burton, what happens if the projected revenue does not come in and even if it does come in, what about the next year?

Dr. Burton: Our revenue history reflects a continued growth.
Comm. White: I deal with Environmental Health a lot. There are still areas of the county that have septic systems on small lots. We do not issue permits for those anymore but there are many still remaining from past years. My office gets a lot of calls and even though there are only two people working Environmental Health, I have heard a lot of positive things about their courtesy, helpfulness and working knowledge.
Judge Horn: Are there limitations to what the county can set in permit fees?

Dr. Burton: There is an amount we have to pay to the state. We charge $300 for an aerobic system and $200 for a standard system.

Judge Horn: Is our fee structure in line with other counties?

Dr. Burton: Overall, yes, although not many counties do the number of permits that we do.

Ms Stewart: His total request is for $55,278 for the new hire and the insurance.

Ms. Stewart: Theresa Rogers is here to appeal for Records Management, Page A-208 and 9 of 10.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you for the opportunity to appeal. My department services all departments for the county except for a couple of the Constable's Office and Road & Bridge. Staffing has not been added since 1999. Last year in my appeal I told you how we were being flooded with records. This year I am here to tell you our Records Warehouse is at capacity. Two years ago when we moved to the lower level we had 8,000 cubic feet of records - we now have 13,000 cubic feet, about a 72% increase. With every box we receive, we do the following: index every file within the box, enter file record into data base and verify every file prior to destruction, when that time comes. Along with the internal work done on every box, departmental records' requests have increased 94% over the past two years. On top of that, we handle requests from the public.
Customer service was not a factor when this department was originally formed in 1991. This service has increased by 86% since our move to the lower level two years ago. Copies made for just the public have increased 132%. The Public Information Act requires us to process requests within X amount of days. To comply, I had to move 1½ bodies from my regular processing to Customer Services, leaving me short on the processing end. Another concern is that the permanent records are not getting microfilmed, leaving them vulnerable to destruction in a natural or other kind of disaster. The situation is snowballing because as I wait for more staffing, the records needing microfilming increase thereby increasing the need for further storage space. I have turned down some departmental requests for taking their records. Without a place for departments to send their records, they sit on the floor somewhere in that department causing us problems when public or departmental requests are made for that material. It's difficult for my staff and I to do the work under these constraints. I am begging for one body - originally, I asked for two. Please consider this as a priority.

Judge Horn: Is there a department making more requests of you than others?

Ms. Rogers: The departments requesting the most records are the JP offices, the DA's office, County Clerk and District Clerk.

Judge Horn: So these departments need the original document or a microfilmed copy?

Ms. Rogers: The DA's request will usually be for the original and depending on the need of the County and District Clerk's Office - if they are going back to court in a case - they will also need the original. For the JP's, a copy will do.

Judge Horn: I am confused as to why you are having so many public requests. There is a public access area for them to look up stuff for themselves.

Ms. Rogers: Many from the County Clerk's Office will come down to look at the original deed books. Perhaps the microfilm in the County Clerk's office is old and faded. From the District Clerk's office, they are searching divorce decrees on the microfilm for which we have to make the copy for them. If there are only paper records, we have to search the box ourselves because there may be confidential papers intermingled.

Judge Horn: Is there not a way to connect the District Clerk to that information so they could handle their own requests?

Ms. Rogers: We only have one copy of the microfilm.

Comm. Carter: Are you using the same number of inmates that you had before?

Ms. Rogers: We use 3 - 4 inmates for most of the microfilming for non-sensitive items and for prep work - removing staples, placing in numerical order. We do use them on a daily basis. We could use more except for space limitation. In my original budget request, besides asking for two bodies, I had also asked for renovation for expansion of my office space in the lower level.

Ms. Jacobs: I would like you, Theresa, to meet with Kevin Carr to see if there is any technological way for other departments to be able to read the microfilm screen you are seeing in your office. Secondly, who is sending the public to your office?

Ms. Rogers: It began when we were in the Government Center. If the District or County Clerk did not have the record, they would send them over to us. Title Companies use us a lot.

Ms. Jacobs: Judge, I know this is your department but I believe we need to look at that policy and why it's a problem for the County and District Clerk's Offices getting their own records. I never foresaw your department dealing directly with the public. My third question is what are other counties of our size doing in this area? How are they handling the implementation of this Public Access law?

Ms. Rogers: I have visited several other counties around the state. For instance, Collin County's Records Management does not handle any of their County or District Clerk records. They only handle administrative records and have eight staff members. Everything is being done through a third-party vendor.

Comm. Jacobs: That's what I discovered also in some calls I made - a lot of Record Management duties based on the statutes are being bid out. As we look at building bigger facilities for holding records, we need to also look at other alternatives.

Judge Horn: Why cannot the title companies, for instance, wait for a day or two? Perhaps we need to give the public advance notification that any record request will have a two or three day delay. According to the Public Information Act, we have 10 days.

Comm. White: Why are microfilm copies not legible?

Ms. Rogers: The District Clerk does not have microfilm - they send all their records to us. The County Clerk uses a third-party vendor to microfilm their records.

Comm. White: But if their work is not legible then we are paying twice. Once for the microfilming work and again when they come to you for the original.

Judge Horn: Who is the third party vendor providing this illegible microfilm and have we addressed this problem with them?

Mr. Keever, Chief of the Civil Division, D.A.'s Office: There have been various vendors over the years. There is some problem with deterioration of the microfilm.

Judge Horn: Can these records not be put on CD?

Ms. Rogers: There are problems with CDs such as migration and possible alterations whereas on microfilm the document is permanent. Our imaging system does both so we have the permanency as well as being able to be viewed throughout the county.

Judge Horn: Sounds like we need Kevin to get even more involved in this process.

Comm. Jacobs: My suggestion would be to let Theresa, Kevin, Beth and others discuss this issue and place it on as a regular agenda item in the next few weeks for our discussion. Could we put this back on for August 5th?

Ms. Fleming, Director of Purchasing: ACS is the third-party vendor for the County Clerk. We spend about 1.1 million dollars with that company each year for both microfilming and digital records. That is paid for through a fund of the County Clerk's. It is the same company we've had since I've been here - 17 years. The company's name has changed twice but they have held the contract all that time based on a five year contract.

Judge Horn: Do you know what year they began using digital?

Ms. Fleming: Probably in the last five - eight years.

Judge Horn: Prior to that time is the period in which you are having difficulty.

Comm. White: From what I heard, the microfilm is not permanent.

Ms. Rogers: If processed within the strict guidelines of state law, the microfilm is considered permanent. Then we make a copy for viewing purposes while the original is locked away in a vault, available if another copy is ever needed.

Judge Horn: Thank you, Theresa.

Ms. Rogers: I have one more appeal for the service contract. These funds are required to continue the maintenance agreements related to licenses and technical support of our imaging software and equipment. Total cost is $47,577 of which $40,000 was in the recommended budget. I am appealing the $7,577.

Judge Horn: I need to examine our expansion options with Danny in order for you to have more trustees working over there.

Ms. Stewart: We may have that information back at the office. I will check on that.

Judge Horn: You would need one more person if you expanded. In order to supervise more trustees you would need another DO.

Ms. Rogers: Correct.

Judge Horn: Thank you.

Ms. Stewart: Next up is Steve Mossman, our Tax Assessor/Collector on Page A-92 and 3 & 4 of 10 on the Changes Sheet.

Mr. Mossman: Our greatest need is for staffing. We requested two more clerks for Ad Valorem and one for Motor Vehicle. Let me preface my remarks with the following information: a Bill - HR 1040 - is moving through congress right now that will limit overtime or comp time for those employees who have an annual income of greater than 3 times the minimum wage. That could severely impact our staffing and payroll issues. We requested, and it's being recommended, the promotion of two Assistant Supervisors - one to Senior Supervisor and one to Financial Administration.

Comm. Carter: How many people do they supervise?

Mr. Mossman: As assistants, they were supervising four clerks. We are doing away with those Assistant Supervisor positions. I have requested two additional clerks so, if those are granted, they would be supervising 6 clerks in that area. Four clerks cannot do all the work that comes through the door in Ad Valorem. Only one of these ladies would be in a supervisory position - the other is going into financial administration, dealing with research and record keeping. I would like to share some pictures with you of our mail in the office on February 4 - this volume of mail cannot be handled by just four clerks; 30 trays of mail waiting to be processed past the delinquent date of February 1.

Comm. Jacobs: Is this seasonal work?

Mr. Mossman: Primarily, December through March.

Comm. Jacobs: What is the process involved in opening these?

Mr. Mossman: Take the check out and write the account number on the check. There are many variables here: if they return their payment coupon with the check, then we can process it by scanning it. If it is a partial payment, then it becomes a manual process all the way through the system plus returning to them a receipt and an invoice for the remainder. The mail is done in batches according to the category it falls under.

Comm. Jacobs: Could a lot of the menial work be done by just pulling someone from a labor pool?

Mr. Mossman: We try to use temporary help.

Comm. Jacobs: This is another area where a Denton County Office Pool could be just as efficient and less expensive. Hiring contract labor always cost us about 40% more.

Mr. Mossman: We would have no problem with that. Our six clerks - hopefully six - cannot keep up with the payments as they come in. They do not even start opening current-day-mail until March 11 of this year. That mail started backing up around December 15 of 2002. Not only is this inefficient, but also the county is losing interest on the money as long as it is sitting there unprocessed. Another question you might ask is, what do you do with those six clerks the rest of the year?
We have received initial approval from the Texas Department of Transportation to put in at their expense two RPS terminals for doing Motor Vehicle Registrations. Those would only be used eight months out of the year so we could double up on staff in that area. We are also asking for one clerk in the MV area. Internet registrations are growing and they don't appear to save any time. It is the same as a person walking in except that you also have to prepare and mail stuff back to the internet registrar. This new clerk would assist us in that area. The average wait time in line is 20 minutes at the slow time of the month.
As to our Postage Budget - line item 4230 - postage expenses increase exponentially with the increase of tax payments and MV registrations that have to be mailed out. This year's postage will total approximately $84,000. We anticipate at least a 10% in that line item this next year. Please consider that. On our software line item - if more staff is added and we're able to upgrade our one clerk, we will need $1170. In Training and Education, we definitely need the amount we requested in order to get people trained in a timely manner and ready for their required CEU's. The minimum we will need for Tax
Statement Preparation and Mailing is $116,000 - that is based on no more than a 10% increase in our number of accounts and no increase in cost per unit in preparation and mailing. At this point, that is first class mail at 37cents. That is out for proposal now so we really don't know what cost will come back to us.

Judge Horn: By state law, tax statements have to go first class mail.

Mr. Mossman: Computer Hardware Maintenance - line item 6660 - the contracted amount on that is actually $34,190. We have requested funds @ $4,950 to replace three failing fax machines. Items removed from the budget that we requested of Facilities Management: (1) construction of shelving in the MV area where our specialty license plates are stored - right now they are stacked on the floor, under tables, etc. and my fear is that someone is going to hurt themselves by pulling on one of these heavy boxes; (2) construction of a wall in our out-going mail area to keep the public out and make the area more user friendly for us; (3) we need more shelves built in our storage area.
We've requested the installation of an electronic access to the back doors of Lewisville and Denton offices because they are being used by the public even though there are signs saying "Employees Only". We also discussed the possibility of using name tag pass keys. In the Sandy Jacobs Government Center and The Colony Tax Office there are RTS router boxes sitting on the floor which, if they get wet, we are shut down from the state system.

Comm. Jacobs: Talk to Kevin about this - he might have something he could provide you.

Mr. Mossman: There is a need for a work shelf for the public outside The Colony tax office. There is no place for them to complete forms. Also, a counter is needed inside the office for all the typewriters, etc. that are lined up in the hallway.
That concludes my presentation. Please consider staff pay increases - the cost of living continues to rise.

Ms. Stewart: Next up is Peggy Fox and Bobbie Hanford for Juvenile Probation, Page A-99, 5 of 10.
Theirs is a facility issue rather than the actual Juvenile Probation budget itself: replace carpeting in gym and detention center. They are here at Danny's request because he has no funds for this, this year or next.
Ms. Hanford, Deputy Director: This carpet has been there since the building was constructed and is the only carpeting in the building that has not been replaced. We have made that area into a dining room so it is really more like a multi-purpose area than a gym. The capacity is up to 96 kids plus JJAEP eats their lunch in there and that can be over 100 kids. We cannot keep that carpet clean and sanitary. We're not even asking for tile - we would be happy if the carpet could be taken out, the sticky stuff cleaned up and the floor painted.

Judge Horn: As anyone checked into using inmate labor for this job?

Ms. Fleming: Danny does not have access to those inmates at this time so it would take a specific request for this project. Also, remember that you cannot have adult inmates anywhere close to juvenile detainees.

Comm. Jacobs: Is this something that the kids could do?

Ms. Hanford: They are committed to doing community work so as long as someone would supervise the job, I have no problem with that and the kids would love it.

Comm. Jacobs: Could this project be completed this year?

Judge Horn: We will talk to Danny about that possibility.

RECESS 11:50 AM
RECONVENE 1:10 PM

Ms. Stewart: Judge Kirkland is here for JP # 1, Page A-68 and 2 of 10 on the Changes Sheet.

Judge Kirkland, JP # 1: I am here to appeal to you for a new hire. If you will refer to the graph I handed out in which I tried to set down how many hours it took for my clerks to do the job. I believe this would be relevant for all clerks in all of the JPs. For example, small claims, justice, and forcible cases all take a certain amount of time to do and that is quantifiable to all JP clerks, although I have only demonstrated here my own clerks' work hours. One more person on my staff would be able to handle the 650 hours of overtime that my staff has accrued. Also, I inherited a back-log of many cases, several of them still outstanding. I simply do not have the manpower to get to those cases at this time. Also, we inherited a bond account with about $200,000 in it that belongs to the county. A couple of my clerks are working on recouping that money and this project is time consuming, involving research, tracking people down for signatures, etc.

Comm. White: So we could consider that money you're recouping as paying for your new hire?

Judge Kirkland: That is correct. And this is a continuing bond account that must be maintained - it should never have gotten this big.

Ms. Stewart: We tried contract labor here but they can only do so much of the work without being deputized. My office places this new hire in our top priority category.

Judge Kirkland: My request for Training & Education would be for the new hire.

Ms. Stewart: Barbara Looper has an appeal for Commissioners Court, Page A-1 & 1 of 10.

Ms. Looper: My appeal is for Computer Supplies - toner cartridges. These are used by everyone and one cartridge costs $813. We need two for a total additional cost of $1,590.

Ms. Stewart: Cathy Allcorn is here for County Planning, Page A-40 and Page 1 of 10.

Ms. Allcorn, County Planning Manager: I am here to request two positions: one would be a G.I.S. Technician in Storm Water Management at a Step Five and including the computer lease and software for a total of $55,853. We are still waiting for our Storm Water permit which was to be issued in December of last year and now we're being told it will be in September. As soon as that permit is issued, we have to be ready to operate. We must create a map of our Storm Water System which we will be doing in-house. This is a mandated program that will continue forever and my department must be able to handle all the issues involved. Included in your back-up is a fold-out of how I think the permitting process must be handled in our County.

Comm. White: My concern is the County does not have the authority to enforce this program at this time. So I do have a problem with spending the money required in this tight budget year.

Ms. Allcorn: I agree but we still have to participate as far as issuing permits, making reports, etc. even if we cannot fine people for non-compliance. The enforcement authority lies with the T.E.Q.C. - the Texas Environmental Quality Commission. We will have to report problems to them.

Comm. White: Maybe it is just a timing issue - we will have to comply but when?

Ms. Allcorn: That's true - we have five years to put the program into place.

Comm. White: As I understand it, you cannot be held responsible until you turn in a plan and, in my opinion, the Best Management Practices in that plan should be fairly broad.

Ms. Allcorn: Ninety days after we receive our permit, we must start complying with the program in terms of annual reports of how many Storm Water Permits are issued, money collected, etc.

Comm. White: This plan we turn in will be the standard to which we will be held.

Ms. Allcorn: That's correct.

Comm. White: We can put down our own deadline.

Ms. Allcorn: By year five, we have to have all the details worked out so we can be in compliance with the major factors involved such as water sampling, illicit discharges, etc. But it is up to the court to decide how you want this program implemented - we could hire consultants and I just believe the cost will be higher by not training in-house since this will be a permanent program we must follow from now on. I have a very capable staff who, at present, is overworked with the G.I.S., which we are doing in-house at a savings. It is impossible for the county to grow and not to increase staff.

Comm. White: We have a large window and I just don't want to be boxed into spending this money right now.

Ms. Allcorn: I will follow court's direction because if we are not in compliance, the court will find itself fined $27,000 a day or you'll have the option of putting the County Judge in jail.

Comm. White: That is not an option.

Judge Horn: Come to think of it, that's where I am right now anyway….
Comm. Mitchell: Could you start with a part-time person this year?
Ms. Allcorn: I will take anything you will give me. And I could use some help from Human Resources with this job position - they may find a way to hire someone at a lesser salary.

Ms. Stewart: Next up is Sheriff Lucas on Page A-107 and Pages 5, 6 & 10 of 10 on the Legal Sheets.

Sheriff Lucas: Let me first address a cut in Computer Supplies, line item 4270 - as outlined on Page A-108. I was advised by my Chief that we have a 95% guarantee of a grant for this item, so that $35,000 is not being requested today. Also, the new vehicle for Underage Drinking Deputy will also not be requested.
We need the Warrant Research Officer and Extradition Deputy for all the warrants the county and felony judges are issuing. There has not been an increase in personnel in extradition since 1989, so we are pulling our Warrant Officers from doing warrants to helping out with extradition, causing a back-up of un-issued warrants. As for the two deleted DO positions, I do not remember ever having a position deleted before - I need all my positions because they eventually will be filled.
The funding for Training & Education and Law & Reference Books is mandatory. We need back $5,000 for the books and a little over $3,000 for T & E. We will lose our supplemental funding we get if these funds are cut.
I am asking for a lot of the cars back - if you'll recall, last year I asked for 19 and only got 7 so that's 12 we're automatically coming back to you for. Some of these cars are six-seven years old and all my requests have been OK'd by the Vehicle Assessment Committee. We need the Expeditions as demonstrated by the material in your back-up. In the last ice storm we had, they were invaluable for pulling Tarrant County patrol cars and a lot of other cars out of ditches. I'd like the two Crown Victoria's replaced with Expeditions.

Ms. Stewart: Judge Windle is here to discuss the Probate Court and the Guardianship Program - Page A-52 and Page A-62-a, and on the Changes Sheet, Page 2 of 10. Also, we gave you some supplemental material on a reclassification request.

Judge Windle: I have two separate issues to talk with you about: first, the Probate Auditor and the reclass. It does not necessarily have to be a reclassification if you're worried about a future long term impact. I am concerned about the compensation for the current holder of the position to justify what he does and what he has recently achieved with his credentials and how beneficial he is to the Probate Court. There are a couple of ways to do this: reclass the position from Probate Auditor/Law Clerk to Probate Auditor/Staff Attorney thereby bringing him to a salary level comparable to Attorney II. Since taking this position, Dan Japhet took and passed the Texas Bar Exam. As a member of the bar, his functions and value to our Probate Court has increased; for instance, he can now perform some functions for the Court Investigator which before had to be done by court-appointed ad-litems. Now, he can also review Summary Judgment Motions, assists users of the system who do not have counsel and handles show-cause hearings of which there are many.
Other Probate Courts in the state have similar positions. On the last page of the application for reclass, there is a sampling of the counties that have Statutory Probate Courts and the make-up of their staff excluding court reporters, bailiffs and associates judges: Bexar County has six staff and an attorney. Collin County is a brand new court and they will be asking for an attorney. Harris County has four probate courts and two of then have three and two have two attorneys on staff. Tarrant has two on staff, Travis has three.
Amy could not recommend this reclassification on her basis: she asked about the DA's office doing it. Their office does not have the jurisdiction to represent anyone in Probate Court. Even if the DA's office did it, they would have to work through the Civil Section who, in turn, would have to hire an attorney. Why do that when we already have one? All it requires to keep him is stepping his pay up a bit so he doesn't have to go looking for a misdemeanor-prosecutor job.
The legislature did accomplish a couple of good things. One was to change the name of the Probate Master to Associate Judge, making the distinction for that position being a judicial role and not an attorney role. Judge Whitlock cannot perform attorney services any more than I can. Besides, he's already doing all he can to save the county money: jail arraignments every weekday morning, running the Mental Health side and juvenile detention hearings.
Probate Court has now been charged with, by the Legislature, of reviewing the legal validity of every investment plan by guardians in the Guardianship Program. I want someone doing it who is knowledgeable and careful. My current Auditor used to be a Chief Financial Officer for a start-up company and I would like to keep him. Law school isn't cheap and he cannot work for what I am paying him now. We would be happy if you did not reclassify him but make him a Step 10. I do not care how you get there, we just need to pay him what he is worth.
Our workload is up and our Show-Cause Hearings will just increase. I believe I'm accurate in telling you we have over 1500 active guardianships in this county. We have as many guardianships per court as Fort Worth and Dallas due to the fact that we have only one court whereas they have 2 or 3. We have a state school in this county and they do not. Everyone in the state school has to have a guardian if they are over 18 years of age or if they are minors and do not have living parents. The number of contested guardianships is increasing due to the aging population. I have one guardianship in existence since 1955. Many Probate cases will operate in our court for ten years.
Another argument for raising Dan's salary is that the person serving as Probate Auditor before Dan was at the salary level that I am now requesting you bring Dan up to. He needs to make in the 52,000 range. I believe this would be a well invested $16,000 plus benefits and I need that, my office needs it. Please vote in favor of this.
The State Legislature cut state agency budgets by 20% including Protective Regulatory Services which includes Adult Protective Services. Probate Courts had been appointing APS- Legal Protection Specialists - to handle indigent wards in our county who are without any family. We are the only court in the state that has the statutory duty to initiate our own case: if we learn from an individual, an institution or health care agency that someone in our county is in need of a guardian, we have to send out a court investigator. We may have to commence our own guardianship. No other court has this responsibility. The number of people without family support - indigents, older people with dementia - is huge and growing in this county. Presently, there are nine applications pending now that are unsatisfied because we do not have a local guardianship program and PRS either can't or won't do it.
I can present you with two alternatives: one is a county operated guardianship program of which there are several models. Travis County funds $340,000 to their program. Harris County's funding is about 1.2 million. Dallas County has a privately grant-funded program operating through their Probate Courts and is facing sharing a portion of that operation. Tarrant County funds around $200,000 which is otherwise grant funded. Most of these programs are funded through public-private partnerships or they can be done inside county government.
We gave a proposal to Donna which indicates our need for seed money of $150,000. If it is a public-private partnership couched in the 501C.3 entity we can apply for grants that we, as county government, could not apply for. These grants are available but only through this public-private partnership. This is crucial, Commissioners & Judge. This is mandated by the 1875 Texas Constitution which says the county will care for lunatics, paupers and idiots - not the phrasing we would use now but the point is well made. Hence our reason for establishing MHMR years ago to discharge the county's constitutional obligation. Just as indigent health care is a county responsibility. So are indigent guardianships. For these many years, this county has been dodging it by finding private people to do it or forcing PRS to do it. That is not an option anymore. We need that seed money of $150,000.
We will fund it in alternate ways: with the seed money in place, either put an RFP out to get a private concern to bid for that service then they will be able to go after the grants or, not as good an alternative, is to establish it through the County Health Department, not allowing us to go after the grants.

Ms. Stewart: Let me also add that the proposal on Page 62c does not include benefits for those two employees so we would need to add $22,040.00 to that bottom line total.

Judge Horn: Thank you Judge Windle.

Ms. Stewart: John Looper is up next to discuss Medical Examiners Office - Page A-83 and 3 of 10.

Mr. Looper: One of our requests was in Operating Supplies for $4,000 to fund five digital cameras for our investigators to use at crime and incident death scenes. These pictures I am showing you were taken with a digital camera - a 3.1 mega-pixel capacity. The larger photograph has been blown up 200% and you will notice little squares beginning to show through, affecting the clarity of the photograph. Court presentations of photographs are blown up to a higher level than that and therefore, for us to go to digital cameras, we must go to at least 5 mega-pixel capacity. These cameras are used to record every scene we go to. Our new system in Tarrant County is a digital system and it will, in October, provide for the direct down-loading of our incident photographs directly into the case file for the doctors to study without them having to go through the color lab. Please reconsider our appeal for $4,000.

Judge Horn: On our Changes Sheet it says you are requesting $4500 for three digital cameras. Has that changed.

Ms. Stewart: $4500 is correct for three because there is one already in the Recommended Budget. They asked for a total of four.

Mr. Looper: I have a bid price here of $800 per camera including the ancillary equipment and we're requesting five cameras for a total of $4,000. I will go back and check my figures.

Comm. Mitchell: Do you have any money this year to purchase them?
Mr. Looper: No Ma'am.

Comm. Carter: Would it be possible to share these cameras - is it necessary to have one for each investigator.

Mr. Looper: They are called out of their home and that would leave us a camera short.

Ms. Stewart: Next is Constable Hatzenbuhler, Pct. # 4, Page A-178, Page 8 of 10 on the Legal Sized Sheets. There is some information on Page 8 of 10 that will not be addressed today by the Constable; court had requested earlier that the NWISD ASAP position be transferred to a separate budget as we have on all the other contracts. We can take this matter up later.

Constable Hatzenbuhler, Pct. # 4: I am here to talk about two vehicles that need to be replaced; one is actually a surplus vehicle and is presently being used for the Bartonville contract with 92,000 miles on it. It is in and out of the shop a lot. The other one is a Crown Vic with a 116,000 miles on it, well past the established time to change vehicles. Its problems are more electrical than mechanical so it to stays in the shop a lot.
We're doing two contracts - one for ASAP and the other for the City of Bartonville. We also have a letter of agreement with the City of Argyle and are starting to work their warrants. For every warrant served, the County reaps $50 from the City of Argyle. We just got our first stack, representing $12,000 in income, once all of them were served. The $50 is also good if contact is made and the fine paid.

Judge Horn: My question concerns the Crown Vic. It's been in the news a lot due to the controversy in Dallas. And Constable Floyd, I'd like your input on this also since you have requested the Dodge Intrepid rather than the Crown Vic. What are your opinions on this item?

Constable Hatzenbuhler: The Crown Vic has been a good vehicle for us but this year we requested two Dodge Intrepids ourselves. If we get 2003 models - as of yesterday there were 25 left on the lot - we can get for around $16,900. The 2004's will be around $23,000.

Judge Horn: Of course, price is important but just from the law enforcement standpoint, what is your preference?

Constable Hatzenbuhler: For some of the larger-sized deputies, the Crown Vic is more comfortable, easier to get in and out of. I still bang my knees on the door post on the Intrepid.

Comm. Mitchell: Are they faster than the Crown Vic?

Constable Hatzenbuhler: Well, we do not get out and run them that hard.
Judge Horn: It is a lighter vehicle.

Constable Hatzenbuhler: I believe the 2004 models are coming out with 4-wheel drive and V-8.

Comm. Carter: I spoke with the Sheriff about this just yesterday and it is their contention that with the number of Crown Vics on the road, there are obviously going to be a few problems. Anytime you park a fully gas-loaded vehicle on the side of the road and it gets hit, there will be a catastrophe. More investigations need to be done and less attention paid to the press.

Judge Horn: Someone may be seeing dollar signs - I am more concerned with the safety of our officers.

Ms. Stewart: I have a question regarding the cars being replaced belong to the Constable and Chief Deputy. Is that not correct?

Constable Hatzenbuhler: That is not correct.

Comm. Carter: Donna, the criteria used by the Vehicle Assessment Committee when a vehicle needs to be replaced is 100,000 miles and more than $500 in maintenance the previous year?

Ms. Stewart: It is less than $1,000 in repair and over 100,000 miles.
Comm. Carter: So the Constable's vehicles qualify?

Ms. Stewart: They weren't included in the Recommended Budget because they did not fit the criteria. When asked to bring back a recommendation on the appeals, our position is, if we have the money available, we would certainly support the Vehicle-Radio Committee's assessment which was a replacement of these particular vehicles.

Judge Horn: So it is a priority.

Ms. Stewart: (nodded agreement)

Ms. Stewart: Constable Floyd is here - Page A-146 of Page 7 of 10 on the Changes Sheet.

Constable Floyd: I do have a concern with the safety of the Crown Vic and is the reason I asked for the Dodge Intrepid for the traffic man - he is behind cars all the time. I will continue to utilize them for the Civil Section.
I have made some changes here, trying to help out with the budget. I do need an Office Support Specialist. We have just one female on the civil side - traffic side is a whole different department - I'd like a part-time just as three other constables have. Our workload has increased considerably as you can see from the chart we prepared for you. Our Spanish speaking lady spends a lot of time in the court with the tax office, also. Instead of asking for a clerk on each side, we then need a part-time to work both sides. Senator West created a lot of problems when he started the racial-profiling law. There are a lot of stats to keep without any back-up funding. The reporting is time consuming with over 7400 violations reported last year and is expected to increase.
My other request is for a Civil Deputy. Again, our workload increases as our growth as a county increases. I believe all our Constables are facing this. Currently, we have over 1500 open warrants. Bailiff services have increased with an average of one deputy in court everyday for half a day. Lot of this is overtime but we do not put in for it - 12% increase in that. There's been an increase in the civil docket - 12% in attempts on civil process.
Evictions have really gone up - this is a problem. Evictions are always hard and have the potential of becoming dangerous. We need two deputies to go out on each of these - the other constables will agree with this. When you're setting people's belongings out on the road, the situation is difficult, at best. Comm. Mitchell has witnessed some of these. When our two deputies are doing that with another one in court, might have one in school, things get tight. Our Vehicle Maintenance people do a good job, but it's time consuming for us to take a car in for repairs. Our arrest time is up to two hours to get prisoners booked into the jail here. Our research time has increased also.
We've not added anyone on the civil side since 2000 and this Civil Deputy will bring money into the county if you'll grant us the position. On our spare vehicle, if we can just get the body, my office will equip it the vehicle.
On License and Weights, I would appreciate a reconsideration of the vehicle that was cut. It is high on mileage. If you do not grant it, I would ask that you replace the $4500 cut from my vehicle maintenance because we will need increased repairs for this car.

Ms. Stewart: Next is Danny Brumley, Facilities Manager, Pages A-101 & 105 and Pages 4,5,9 & 10 of 10.

Mr. Brumley, Director of Facilities Management: My request is for reallocation of funds - approximately $75,500 - within all of my line items.

Ms. Stewart: On Page A-103 is a better recap perhaps than looking on the Changes Sheet.

Judge Horn: He re-prioritized so the bottom line is we're not discussing a dollar difference.

Mr. Brumley: Correct. I am reallocating money for re-striping of parking lots, upgrade of door alarms and carpeting at the Denton County Courts Building, install new sprinkler system, trash cans and benches at the Courthouse on the Square, etc.

Ms. Stewart: The court had a question earlier about the Charlie Cole Building regarding the carpeting in the multi-purpose room.

Mr. Brumley: I spoke with Bobbie and I believe we can do what she is requesting. We could use community service people on a weekend to do a job like that. Bobbie has been real helpful in keeping the juveniles separate.

Comm. White: Bobbie agreed that we could use the kids but there is a timing issue and their only free time will be a couple of weeks in August before school begins.

Judge Horn: Also the question of can we leave it as a concrete floor or should it be tiled?

Mr. Brumley: Probably the only expense will be the materials if we can use the juveniles to strip the carpeting and community service to sand the floor before we could paint it.

Judge Horn: Are you saying we could work on that sooner rather than later?

Mr. Brumley: There is some contingency from the renovations that would pay for the materials. We will work on that.
Regarding my reclassification - DO1 Groundskeeper - that we discussed in June, I believe. I would like to upgrade this position to a DO1 Maintenance Tech 1 allowing me more flexibility. One reason I have not filled this position this year is, I wanted to make sure we got the contract for the lawn maintenance. When I had the inmates, I could send one tech and some inmates to furniture moves, etc. Now I'm sending two of my techs to do the more minor chores, creating a lot more work for us. I need to keep this position.

Ms. Stewart: Judge Shipman is here for various district courts, Page A-49 and Page 2 of 10.

Judge Shipman: I am here requesting increase of $400 per court for Dues & Subscriptions. So far this year we're averaging an expense of $1678 per court just to keep up in this area. Dues and Subscriptions keep rising and yet, these magazines continue to be our only sources of information and updates. (presentation largely inaudible) Our budget has already been decreased by $10,000 in the Recommended Budget this year leaving few places from which to pull funding for Dues & Subscriptions.

Ms. Stewart: I need to make the court aware of our process for listing new hires as you seen them on your Changes sheet. We have them budgeted at the requested step of the departments and so they vary from one department to the other. What we have traditionally done is budget a new hire at Step One with contingency funds set aside in non-departmental that if the department finds someone who exceeds the minimum requirements, we can process a budget amendment for that during the year. I am asking the court if they'd like us to change all of the new hires to Step One knowing contingency funds are there, if needed.

Judge Horn: Yes, we would like you to make those changes, Donna.

Ms. Stewart: We will adjust those accordingly. Judge Shipman asked me to speak for him and bring before the court a request from Judge Worley. She has requested a reallocation of funds within her own budget for a pager for her court administrator. It is a $40 expense that she is pulling from another line item.

Ms. Stewart: We have more appeals beginning at 10 AM tomorrow. We should be finished in the morning.

Judge Horn: Court is adjourned.

ITEM 19 ADJOURNMENT 2:50 PM

This set of minutes for the Budget Work Session on July 24, 2003 was compiled by Deputy Clerk Kathleen Bransford and reviewed by County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell.