 |
Denton County Commissioners Court |
Not Official Minutes. For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012. |
|
August 3, 2004
Be it remembered, Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas was called to order on the 3rd day of August, 2004, at 9:02 a.m. in Commissioners Courtroom, 2nd Floor, Courthouse on the Square, Denton, Texas by Denton County Judge Mary Horn. Commissioners Sandy Jacobs, Jim Carter, Bobbie J. Mitchell and Cynthia White were present, along with County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell’s representative, Senior Administrator to Commissioners Court, Kathleen Bransford.
Court opened with an Invocation by Jim Heath, Denton County Historical Commission Liaison, followed by the Pledges of Allegiance to the American and Texas Flags led by Mayor Olive Stephens, Town of Shady Shores.
Mr. Heath: Our Heavenly Father, thank You for this day. Thank You for this Country we live in. Thank You for our County and for this Court. Be with us today as we go through the deliberations of this body and may all of our decisions be in Your name. In thy name, we pray. Amen.
ITEM 1 PUBLIC INPUT
Comm. Jacobs announced that she received a refund in the amount of $830.10 from unspent funds for the urban Counties CIJS Project Phase II with Denton County Phase III beginning soon.
ITEM 17 RECESS 9:05 a.m.
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 10:55 a.m.
ITEM 2 CONSENT AGENDA
(Item 7.D was pulled for further consideration and/or separate vote.)
PURCHASING
6. A) Approval of renewal of Property Insurance, RFP #04-02-1484, to Scarbrough, Medlin and Associates, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. B) Approval of renewal of Uniforms-Sheriff’s Department, Bid #04-03-1557, to Sterling’s Public Safety Uniform & Equipment, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. C) Approval of renewal of contract for Janitorial Service, Bid #06-02-1494, to Members Building Maintenance, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. D) Approval of renewal for Tax Statement Preparation/Mailing Service, RFP #06-03-1566, to ADS MB Corp; d/b/a The Mail Box, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. E) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for CMAP (Cold Mix Asphaltic Pavement), Bid #06-04-1624, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. F) Approval of renewal of bid for Lubricants and Oils, Bid #07-03-1571, to Jessie P. Taylor Oil Company, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. G) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Gasoline, Bid #07-04-1627, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. H) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Emulsified Asphalt, Bid #07-04-1630, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. I) Approval of renewal of Medical Laboratory Services-Human Resources, RFP# 09-03-1582, to Pinnacle Diagnostics and Laboratories, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. J) Approval of renewal for Detention Mattresses, Bid #10-02-1526, to Robinson Textiles, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. K) Approval of renewal for Voice and Data Cabling, RFP #11-02-1530, to Richmond Communications Group, Inc., and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
6. L) Approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Office Furniture, Bid #06-04-1625, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
BUDGET
7. A) Approval of Intra-Departmental Transfers, and any appropriate action.
7. C) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101620 for Cars and Small Trucks for Road & Bridge, Precinct’s #3 & 4 in the amount of $26,562, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
7. E) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101670 for Computers and Medical Supplies for the Federal Health Care Facility Grant in the amount of $11,353, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
7. F) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101680 for Overtime-Cash Option for County Jail in the amount of $2,000, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
7. H) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101690 for Dues & Subscriptions and Computer Maintenance Hardware for Tax Assessor/Collector in the amount of $12,552, and any appropriate action.
7. I) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101700 for various line items for County Operations and Recycling Department in the amount of $24,083, and any appropriate action.
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.) Retta Shepard, DO III-Medical/Jail Health; Susan Watson, Chief Court Clerk, JP#1.
HEALTH
9. A) Approval of a renewed Texas Department of Health contract for Service Delivery Integration, which helps to fund our primary cares services, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
COUNTY CLERK
11. A) Approve the County Clerk’s minutes from Commissioners Court Formal Agenda for July 20, 2004, and any appropriate action.
11. B) Approve the County Clerk’s minutes from Commissioners Court Budget Workshop for July 21, 2004, and any appropriate action.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
13. B) Approval of sub-recipient award offer from TEEX, US Department of Homeland Security, and Office of Domestic Preparedness entitled FY 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative II 48121. Fire Marshal/Emergency Mgmt (Briefing 7-27-04)
LEGAL
14. B) Approval of amended and restated joint Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Peace Office and Patrol Services between Denton County and any appropriate action. (Briefing 2-27-04)
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 8-A
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 8-B
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 8-C
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 9
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 10
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 11-A, and
Denton County Fresh Water Supply No. 11-B14. C) Approval of: a) the Project for “Engineering Services to acquire plans, specifications and estimates (PS & E) for FM 2181” located within the City of Corinth and b) the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Denton County, Texas, and the City of Corinth for “Engineering Services to acquire plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for FM 2181” located within the City of Corinth, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)
Move to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 7. D by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-1 (Carter abstained)
Court Order 04-04387. D) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101640 to transfer funds from Public Works
Admin/Engineering to the 2000 Road Bond Fund in the amount of $50,000, and any appropriate action.
(Briefing 7-27-04)Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0439
ITEM 5 AUDITOR
A) Approval of Bill Report.
(Payments from Adult Probation, Community Corrections, Pre-Trial Services and District Attorney Check Fee Fund presented for recording purposes only.)DELETIONS –
GENERAL - $ 275.00 (total 3 payments) to Henry Paine, Atty., incorrect amount;
$ 350.00 (total 2 payments) to C. Burkett, Atty., incorrect amount;ADDITIONS –
CH SECURITY - $ 106.00 to Texas Dept. of Health/Radiation, appl. for certification;
DA CHAPTER 59- $ 65.47 to Sun Badge Co., Badges;
99 ROAD BOND - $ 26,109.21 to TxDot for BUS 333/Pilot Point High School.Move to approve amended Bill Report by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0440
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7. G) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101660 to increase revenues and allocate expenditures for Salary, Assistants/benefits for Immunization Grant in the amount of $5,622, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-04417. J) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101710 for Court Reporting for Commissioners Court in the amount of $7,500, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-04427. K) Approval of Budget Amendment Request #101770 for computers for Records Management in the amount of $5,311, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0443
ITEM 9 HEALTH
9. B) Approval of application for Texas Department of Health Preparedness funding for 2005 (formerly referred to as Bioterrorism), and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0444
ITEM 10 OTHER DEPARTMENTS
10. A) Approve any road and bridge differences between Ex-Officio Road Commissioners that need to be addressed by the Commissioners Court, and any appropriate action. Commissioner, Precinct #2
10.B) Approve internal procedures for the workings between the Ex-Officio Commissioners and central departments, and any appropriate action. Commissioner, Precinct #2
10. C) Approval of any appropriate action including all legal requirements to make any necessary changes to the Centralized Road & Bridge System versus the Ex-Officio Commissioners Road System. Commissioner, Precinct #2
10. D) Approval or any action concerning the reorganization and positions within Engineering, Planning, Facilities or Road & Bridge. Commissioner, Precinct #2
NO ACTION
ITEM 11 COUNTY CLERK
11. C) Approval of calling a public hearing on August 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the County Clerk’s Record Archive fund, fee and plan, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-044511. D) Approval of calling a public hearing on August 17, 2004, at 9:40 a.m. to consider the County Clerk’s Record Management fund, fee and plan, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0446
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
13. A) Approval of the request from Goodwill Industries of Dallas, Inc. to be included on the list of organizations that may accept donations from juror’s pay, and any appropriate action. District Clerk (Briefing 7-27-04)
Move to deny the request by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-1 (Carter abstained)
Court Order 04-044713. C) Approval of any action related to Members of Commissioners Court serving on Evaluation Committees. Commissioner, Precinct #2
Move to approve that a Commissioner selected by the Court serve as a non-voting member of every evaluation committee within the County by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion RescindedMove to approve that County evaluation committees consist of county staff and other necessary governmental agencies - i.e., TxDot and City governments directly involved with the project - as voting members, with consultants, such as Innovative Transportation Solutions (ITS) serving as non-voting members; Commissioners will not be serving on any county evaluation committee by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0448
ITEM 14 LEGAL
14. A) Any appropriate action on Executive Session matters - Legal Department.
NO ACTION14. D) Approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Property Tax Collection between (1) the Town of Flower Mound and Denton County, Texas; (2) The City of Oak Point and Denton County, Texas; (3) The Town of Marshall Creek and Denton County, Texas; (4) The Town of Copper Canyon and Denton County, Texas; (5) The City of Hickory Creek and Denton County, Texas; (6)The City of Roanoke and Denton County, Texas; (7) The City of Justin and Denton County, Texas; (8) Northwest Independent
School District and Denton County, Texas; (9) Ponder Independent School District and Denton County, Texas; (10) Little Elm Independent School District and Denton County, Texas; (11) Corinth Municipal Utility District and Denton County, Texas; and (12) Denton Municipal Utility District No. 4 and Denton County, Texas, and any appropriate action. (Briefing 7-27-04)Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-1-0 (Jacobs nay)
Court Order 04-044914. E) Approval of the Contract of Employment and Authorization between Wood, Thacker, & Weatherly and Denton County, Texas to provide legal services regarding any claims brought by James Paton, and any appropriate action.
ACTION POSTPONED14. F) Approval of Letter of Understanding for Services between Cardtranz, Inc., dba Certified Payments.net and Denton County for credit card payment services for Tax Assessor Collector’s Office, and any appropriate action.
Move to approve by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-0450
ITEM 16 ADDENDA
16. B) Approval of use of excess 2004 Tax Note funds for the purchase of a Commercial Refrigerator for the Pre-Trial Center for $5,348.00, and any appropriate action. Purchasing
Move to approve by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 5-0-0
Court Order 04-045116. C) Approval of the cell phone assignments in Public Works/Engineering, and any appropriate action.
County Judge
ACTION POSTPONED
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 12:20 p.m.
Court Reconvened in Formal Session 12:33 p.m.
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 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 43rd District Court.
16. A) EXECUTIVE SESSION – Consultation with Attorney: Contemplated Litigation; Texas Government Code, Section 551.071 (1)(A); Edward Wolski v. Denton County, City of Sanger Industrial Development Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Cause #RT-2004-343, pending in the Probate Court of Denton County, Texas. DA/Civil Division
NO ACTION
ITEM 17 RECESS
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 1:40 p.m.
ITEM 7 BUDGET
7. B) Approval of any action related to the 2004-2005 Denton County Budget.
1. Tax Rebate Update
2. Raises/Revised Salary Survey for Elected Officials – Page R-8
3. Financial Trend Analysis – County Auditor – Page R-10
4. Car Allowance Reports – Page R-24
5. Pre-Trial Facility – Additional 48 Beds for Inmate Work Release Program Pg. A-130
6. Health Insurance
7. Departmental Changes & Appeals
New or Updated Appeals
NTC Membership Dues – Page A-124
Road & Bridge Pct. #1 – Page A-125
Commissioner, Pct. #1 – Page A-126
County Judge – Page A-127
Criminal DA Equity Adjustments – Page A-128
Director of Planning – Page A-129
8. Other Discussion
Statistical Data for Constables – Page R-34(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.)Donna Stewart, Budget Director: Comm. Carter has requested that we hear his appeal first. Please refer to your Changes Sheet – Page 5 of 6. His appeal is for additional road material and equipment.
PRECINCT FOUR APPEALS
Comm. Carter: Thank You. First I would like to compliment the court on the budget work done so far. It is excellent. I appreciate working with all of you on Road & Bridge matters – especially my partner, Comm. Bobbie J. Mitchell. Both she and the Judge have traveled the roads with me and seen firsthand the damage done by gas well activity. I have learned from Comm. Jacobs experience in this field and appreciate Comm. White’s attention to her expansive area with some of the same problems I face in my precinct. I also want to thank a couple of people from Road & Bridge West that are here in court – Danny Smith, Chief Mechanic, and Dianne McNeil, our Administrator, one of the smartest ladies I have ever met, and very competent in her job and her knowledge of the County. Two people not here that I’d like to recognize also for their hard work: Mike Riley and Mike Burton, Foremen.
This is a good news/bad news presentation. The Good News: Mineral account revenues have gone up in the County. The tax received from our Mineral accounts in 2001 was $6,854; 2002 - $78,122; 2003 - $1,398,822. There is a $1,071,000,000.00 worth of taxable inventory according to our Tax Office. If we collected that at our tax rate for this year, our excess would be approximately two and one-half to 3 million dollars in revenue next year. The Bad News: In 2001, there were about 519 gas wells, 2003 – 1280 gas wells; 2004 thru June – 1401 gas wells. That increase indicates almost one new gas well per working day for this year. If you’ll refer to the map we gave you indicating the location of all these new gas wells, you’ll see the inundation of all these wells on the western portion of the county. Each one of these wells have a shaft – the residents in the western part of the county are “getting the shaft”. Gas wells can be dug in the unincorporated area within 200 feet from a residence. Each gas well when drilled requires 400 trips of water trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds – that applies to all active wells each year – representing a tremendous amount of weight and traffic on roads built to handle 25,000 lbs. with some of our bridges being able to handle only 10,000 pounds. We’re generating the revenue from the county’s western portion but the residents are paying the price.
Our appeal is for additional material. In the 2003/04 Pct. 3 & 4’s budget was $287,500 in HMA materials. We’re trying to go to HMA which costs about $65,000 per mile – Chip Seal costs $35,000 per mile, both with the same amount of manpower to lay them. But a Chip Seal road, under these current conditions, will last about two years – an HMA road with three inches of asphalt can last up to ten years with a sealer applied after five. There is a real economic advantage to laying down HMA as opposed to Chip Seal. In addition to the initial $287,500, we have transferred this year $92,105.00 into this line item from other line items such as dust control, asphalt products, etc. Court approved a transfer from my Discretionary Fund of $157,000 to HMA a few weeks ago. So far this year, we will have spent $536,605 in HMA; and, we will be requesting another budget amendment this fiscal year for $60,000 for HMA. Our Recommended Budget is $292,000 – about 50% of our expenditures for this year. It is estimated that the price of petroleum products will increase by 14% in the next year due to the cost of delivery and production bringing our costs for this year up to $668,000 as opposed to the $292,000 in the Recommended Budget. We are appealing the $171,244 for a total request of $463, 244 which will still be $200,000 short of what was spent this year. Also, we tried to save as much as possible in our other line items to beef up this need for material. Our estimated cuts in other accounts – fencing, concrete products, etc. - $157,000.
Referencing our graphs, you can see that the cost of materials per mile in 2000 was about $60,000 and increased to this year of about $72,000. Our projection for the next year is $82,000. The revenue in this area is skyrocketing and more than offsets my request for $172,000.
Comm. White: I support your arguments because they can be used for needs across the entire county. Precinct One also has its share of gas well drilling along with other issues such as sand pits, 10,000 new homes going up along the 380 Corridor. I understand the demands being placed on our county roads. Where do you think you’ll find the money?
Comm. Carter: Out of the Budget…..and still leaving us short…
Comm. White: I could have spent a whole lot more than what was allocated….I’ve also had substantial transfers into my material line items. Donna, where in the Budget do you see this money coming from?
Ms. Stewart: It is up to the court as to the tax rate or find additional cuts….
Comm. White: So we have to find more cuts or raise the tax rate more than we have already?
Ms. Stewart: With action already taken by the court, there is a 2.79% increase above the effective rate at this point in time.
Comm. White: And we’ve taken no action an any of the appeals yet?
Ms. Stewart: A few minor things have been voted on – jail magistrate, for example. I’d like to present a few other issues that have not been before court yet.
Comm. Carter: Most appeals heard by this court are granted if it can be shown that the revenue offsets the cost of the appeal. I believe I have demonstrated that fact. And this problem is soon going to affect the entire county – projections for the Barnett Shale, which is what this County is sitting on and, according to the geologists, is the largest deposit of gas in the world. Additionally, new evidence indicates this may be just the tip of the iceberg. They have discovered another deposit beneath the Barnett Shale that may be larger.We have one more appeal and I ask Danny Smith to come before the court to state his case. This appeal concerns two 1987’s mowers – Danny has had to take the parts from one to keep the other going, due to the age of the mower and the difficulty in finding parts, at a cost of $15,000 a year just to keep the one operating. For $78,000 we can purchase two 2005 mowers – the payout could be less than five years.
Mr. Smith: As the Commissioner stated, we’re robbing from one to keep the other going. Mowing has been tough this year with all the rain. Neither of these tractor-mowers is worth the $15,000 it will cost to keep them going.
Comm. Carter: The fact that Danny has kept one mower going is a testament to his expertise.
PRE-TRIAL FACILITY
Ms. Stewart: Our office has been working with Sheriff-Elect Parkey and Captain Davenport for a proposal as seen on Page A-130 for opening up one of the jail barracks of 48 beds for a Worker-Inmate program. The proposal is to hire 15 employees to open the jail March 15th with a hiring date of February 1st for training. The bottom line impact to the 2005 budget would be $480,307. The impact for next year would be $745,000. We estimated the impact of having an Inmate Worker Program, figuring a cost of $7.00 per hour, at $376,000 of additional work performed for the County that we do not have today. Over an annual period, it would be in the range of a $670,000 impact. Also, there is some savings in the tax note issuance which we could use to buy the mattresses, etc., revising that $480,307 cost to $465,378.
Comm. Carter: If we did not do this and we had to house those prisoners off-site, how much difference would it cost? I have to believe there’s going to be a savings plus the work done by the inmates.
Ms. Stewart: Based on 200 days of them working would cost $476,160.
Comm. Carter: So it is an offset. We can either send them someplace else or house them in our facility for the same amount with a bonus of them working for us.
Ms. Stewart: That amount would be $701,000 over an annual period to house them elsewhere for 365 days. So it’s pretty close to the actual cost.
Judge Horn: Plus the bonus of them working…..
Comm. Carter: Doesn’t seem like much of a decision….I see it as an innovative program and I would like to see it expanded for the next year.
Ms. Stewart: On an average, our inmate population is growing by about 50 per year. This proposal also includes two corporal positions to be overseers of this program.
Comm. White: I believe the original impact of losing this program two years ago was around $600,000. Is Operations contracting out some of this work that was originally done by the inmates?
Ms. Stewart: We have a lawn service contract that we did not have before.
Comm. White: Are there other identifiable cost savings if we went with this proposal?
Ms. Stewart: We can check with Operations and other departments for possible reductions, keeping in mind this would not be effective until the middle of March, 2005.
Comm. White: There will be some unidentifiable savings for things that simply have not gotten done to the level they should have, especially in Road & Bridge, such as the mowing and litter abatement.
Ms. Stewart: Any questions for Captain Davenport or Sheriff-Elect Parkey?
Judge Horn: No questions, so apparently Donna covered this subject well for us….Sheriff-Elect Parkey, did you wish to address us?
Sheriff-Elect Parkey: I appreciate your time and consideration of these issues. I understand my place on the food chain – I speak to you from the future. Right now I have no substance here but your decisions impact my future plans. I have been blessed by receiving so much cooperation from the Sheriff’s Office, particularly Captain Davenport, and they have been educating me. I believe in the Trusty Program but there are valid issues such as safety and security. That is why the need for the oversight of the corporal positions.
Comm. Jacobs: You are the sixth Sheriff I have had the pleasure of serving with. It has always been my contention that any newly elected official - after coming into office and getting your feet wet – has a grace period for making and suggesting needed changes. Please feel free to come back to the court for any suggestions after the first of next year.
Sheriff-Elect Parkey: I appreciate that. I have been visiting with other Sheriff’s and facilities to maximize my knowledge of how to make our Sheriff’s Office more effective and efficient. I want to do the best job I can for the employees and the taxpayers and look forward to a cooperative working relationship with the court.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Ms. Stewart: Diana Kongevick is here with the PEBC.
Ms. Phillips, Human Resource Director: Every year in this area we have good news and bad news. The good news is that we do not have a lot of changes; also, the changes we made last year alleviate some of the bad news we have this year. Our costs have increased due to a doubling of large cases from this year over the previous year, impacting our Planning/Claims cost and also our Stop-Loss. Provided to you are some different scenarios (Page R-39) we’ve prepared with increases in premiums for employer, employee and retirees. Diana is here to answer your questions and address the increases.
Ms. Kongevick: I will expand on what Amy mentioned – a couple of key items for 2003. Denton County had a lot of sick folks in 2003 - $1.2 million just in large claims. Take that, plus the impact of approximately 13% more dependents enrolled in your plan than before, you have a significant volume of additional costs.
Comm. White: You identified over a million increased costs. What types of claims were they – heart, cancer?
Ms. Kongevick: A little bit of everything. A large claim is 50% of your Stop Loss deductibles which is at least $87,000 in one year. Some of the diagnoses were cancer, large accidents without reimbursement capability, and several very difficult back situations. Unfortunately, some of the people with these large claims are no longer with us. In our projections, we take out those large claims that we know will not be reoccurring next year. At the same time, we factor in a certain number that we know will be there to replace them. One bad year does not mean that in the next year you’ll have to make up for all of them. It’s all factored in as averages. With a group of your size, you have to expect to see some years of high claims.The other factor is the increase of eligible dependents. Sometimes that’s a function of employee turnover, or this insurance is more attractive than the spouse’s insurance. More dependents equal more cost. When I discuss self-funded plans, keep in mind I am not referring to profits but to claims. Finally, with your transition from your former administrator – LifeRe – we expected some of this but the pent-up demand was larger than we had anticipated. This should not be hitting you again next year. All together, there is an increase in your self-funded plans.
Last year, we discussed your goal of an 80/20 split – employer 80%, employee 20%. The options Amy has presented to you would achieve that goal, barring unforeseen circumstances. Even with all the large claims, the county is still bearing the greatest cost to arrive at this 80/20 split.
Comm. White: Can you briefly summarize and differentiate for us the three options?
Ms. Kongevick: First of all, let me point out that you have a lot of people enrolled in the PPO Plan. Perhaps the enrollment for this next year will see a drop in that as people realize the other options give them higher levels of reimbursement thereby saving everyone some money. The large claims came from the PPO’s.
Comm. White: To clarify, the PPO gives them their choice of doctors.
Ms. Kongevick: They can go out of network. Most choice offered so they pay more.
Comm. Jacobs: They pay substantially more for that plan.
Ms. Kongevick: Right. If folks are able to find a physician in-network, there are significant discounts that are not there with the PPO plan. It is truly an employee-physician choice. The employee-only rate on Option One (Page R-39) for the EPO has no increase, with the PPO and HMO going up $15.00. The premiums for Employee-Spouse, Children & Family for the EPO goes from $18 to $29/month, PPO from $35 to $58, and the HMO from $56 to $92. Last year was the first year you had HMO so there was no solid evidence to base their projections – they looked at the age of your group, the census, etc. So the HMO is going up due to the number of enrollees, even though the number is not as large as we had hoped. The real basis for the increase is the aging of the group and the volume of claims.Option Two (Page R-40) achieves within a tenth of a percentage point an 80/20 split. EPO cost to employee stays the same, PPO & HMO goes up $15.00. Dependent tier increases on the EPO and the HMO are about 10% above each other, with the PPO being 10% above the HMO – like a stair-step approach. Option Two presents an 8% differential.
Option Three’s EPO maintains the 80/20 split with the PPO and HMO going to 70/30 – employer pays 70%, employee 30% while still meeting the goal of 80/20 overall.
Keep in mind that every year medical costs go up no matter what we do. Our projection for the inflationary rate is about 12% which is much less than in previous years. There are many things you are doing wonderfully here that have kept the increases low.
Comm. White: Let me understand, Option One offers a 10% difference between the EPO, PPO & HMO?
Ms. Kongevick: To the employee dependent tiers….meaning if you are Employee-Spouse, Employee Children, Employee-Family. HMO is 10% above the EPO and the PPO is 10% above the HMO.
Comm. White: Option Two, same concept but it’s 8%.
Ms. Kongevick: Right. 8% to the employee, meaning the county bears a little more of the cost.
Comm. White: So that is not keeping the 80/20…
Ms. Kongevick: Based on the census, it goes from 19.8%-employee/80.2%-employer in Option One to 19.1%/80.9% in Option Two. We calculate based on how many people are enrolled in each Tier in each Plan.
Ms. White: Right off the bat, I will say that Option Three concerns me. Basically the EPO stays at 80/20 but the HMO & PPO is 30/70 with the employee bearing a higher percentage.
Ms. Kongevick: Correct. Overall, that yields a 19.5%/80.5% with each plan being treated a little differently in Option Three. I never know what each county is facing budget-wise, so I bring three varied options for you to choose.
Comm. White: ….and I appreciate that. I would not want to see the plans treated differently as they are in Option Three. I’m looking at Option One or Two.
Comm. Carter: Last year some legislation was passed in the Texas Legislature reducing the amount of claims made against physicians for malpractice claims which should have resulted in a reduction of their premiums. Is that reflected in these figures?
Ms. Kongevick: In my position, I do not see each individual provider contract so I can only present you with anecdotal information. I am aware that the insurance companies are slow to pass on the savings to the providers. If one part of their overhead goes down, my own personal belief is they may look for recouping other increased costs. Is it reflected in our claims cost? Our claims cost are a function of what provider costs are but they are also a function of how your employee uses these plans, how many doctor visits, how many eligible dependents are enrolled, etc. So it’s difficult to say if it is reflected. I think our Legislature is studying how to quantify that.
Comm. Carter: Questions for Donna….what is included in the Budget?
Ms. Stewart: About a million and a half over what we budgeted last year.
Comm. Carter: Does that pay for Option One or Two?
Ms. Phillips: The money in Recommended would fund any of these options. All of them come to a similar amount and Donna has provided certain contingencies also.
Ms. Stewart: We have $450,000 in contingency which will be allocated to the departments. We’ll be handling the distribution of funds differently. There will be a pro-rated 124% of the department’s budget that will be going into the insurance fund versus the way we do it now, dependent on position vacancies. This allows us to put more money into the fund based on our allocations.
Comm. Jacobs: Diana, are you recommending the same kind of increases for the other counties in this program?
Ms. Kongevick: They have not had the same kind of claims experience that you’ve had. In all of our groups, we put together options based on their census and which plans they enroll in. It’s all over the map every year. Tarrant County has an increase but not as large as yours because they have more people in their EPO & HMO plans with very few in the PPO. We work really hard with all the partners of PEBC to keep low how much of every dollar your employees have to put on the table for benefit plans. We know that in the EPO & PPO plan in the last four years it has been within a penny – 2-3 cents of every dollar – from the EPO which covers co-pays, co-insurance and out-of-pocket. On the PPO plan, it’s the same 2-3 cents with an additional 3 cents for co-insurance – you pay for a percentage of your care. That has been consistent.In Denton County, you’ve actually come a little underneath other partners when you look at what percentage of every dollar is spent and that is a direct function of how your people use the plan. Look at what Denton County pays out of every dollar for direct medical claims – 52 cents on EPO, employee pays 3 cents. 53 cents on the PPO, employee pays 5 cents. Where is the rest? Technically, in the discounts you’re paying to provide them so the employee does not have to pay the difference between what the provider bills and what the negotiated rate is. The problem is that there are more dollars – last year something cost $100 and this year its $120. You still are paying the 2-3 cents, just on more dollars. When you look at our recommendations for increases in the other plans, it all depends on how their employees have used their plan in the past year and our projections for the next year.
Comm. Jacobs: That would also include how many doctors are on the plan in our immediate area.
Ms. Kongevick: In what way?
Comm. Jacobs: Let’s say that of all the doctors in Tarrant County, 75% are on the plan as where perhaps in Denton County only 40% are on the plan. People will go to their regular physicians – if he/she is not on their plan, they will opt for the PPO. To me, it is not just a question of financial incentives, there’s a question here of trust in your doctor. People will pay more to keep their own doctor.
Ms. Kongevick: I would not disagree with that at all, but that is not a major factor. The problem is, you cannot get 100% of every doctor in every area to participate in a network. It’s difficult to retain doctors in a network if their members in that area are not going to them. It is a double-edged sword.
Comm. Jacobs: I understand that, but my point is that our employees prefer to stay with their own doctors as opposed to switching to one on the plan. I believe that explains why we have so many people on the PPO. We have several doctors that either have not been approached or have said no to this plan. I do not want to punish our employees by paying more money to see their own trusted doctors. That does not happen in Tarrant County because more doctors are on the plan. Is Dallas County seeing the increases that we are?
Ms. Kongevick: No….but that has nothing to do with the number of doctors….
Comm. Jacobs: I understand that you are saying, it’s because we have more people on the PPO plan…
Ms. Kongevick: No, that’s not what I said. The increase is due from the large claims Denton County has experienced over the last year. If you took that factor out – even last year you had a large amount….
Comm. Jacobs: OK – but look at the large claims a minute…..if all those people are on the large claims were on the EPO, what would the difference be?
Ms. Kongevick: It would cost both the member and the county less money….
Comm. Jacobs: There you go…..my point exactly….large claims or not, if more of our people were on the EPO, it would cost us all less money. There is no option on here other than Option One that I could possibly support. Let me also ask, what is being done to get more doctors from Denton County on the plan?
Ms. Kongevick: It is an on-going effort in Denton County but let me caution you, there are things we will never know as to why a doctor chooses to be on a plan or not. Doctors in the network have to go through a severe amount of credentialing to make sure they are the kind of physicians we would want to have for your employees. Secondly, it is still a free enterprise system and they may not want to give up the dollars they could generate by staying out of a network.
Comm. Jacobs: I want to know what is being done to generate more good doctors to be in the plan.
Ms. Kongevick: We want doctors in the network and we have provider relationship representatives out of the North Texas Healthcare Network consistently contacting physicians in Denton County. It’s not just a matter of knocking on the door…..depending on what their contractual relationships are with their hospitals, their IPA’s, etc.
Comm. Jacobs: Let me assure you, if all my doctors were in network, I would not hesitate to be on the EPO. Our emphasis should be to get more of our doctors on the plan. Perhaps if you presented us with data on what’s being done or who has signed up – maybe we could be of some help in this area.
Ms. Kongevick: I am willing to share information about provider recruitment and I can do that through our Board Meeting, Judge, if you’d like. You can also nominate a doctor…
Comm. Jacobs: I go to my doctor and ask him why he’s not in my network and he says that he is in a zip code area that is so much higher than Sanger, that his practice costs so much more, so he has to charge more, and the network in Denton County is flat so he simply can’t afford to join my network. That’s a problem – how is that addressed in other areas? Please remember that we have the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth and Plano in Denton County putting us in an unusual situation compared to the other two counties.
Ms. Kongevick: We also have two smaller groups in similar mode – North Texas Tollway Authority in Collin County and the City of Frisco will be joining us January 1. Your point is a good one and we are constantly looking to make sure the network supports the volume of patients we have.
Comm. Jacobs: Are your Frisco doctors paying the same rate as our Denton doctors?
Ms. Kongevick: That depends on the negotiated rate between the doctor and the network and that information is proprietary.
Comm. Jacobs: That’s the problem am having – if we’re paying our City of Frisco doctors more, and a third of Frisco is in Denton County – I can’t blame any doctor who is living with a huge overhead not to be a part of the plan.
Ms. Kongevick: But you’re assuming everything is based on zip code and it’s absolutely not. There are a lot of other factors. The percentage of doctors here before the PEBC was much less than you have today. It is not purely zip code driven unless you go out of network, over which we have no control.
Comm. Jacobs: I am looking at what the benefit is to be with PEBC.
Ms. Kongevick: We’re not raising your prices – your people incurred all these claims and we’re making our projections from that.
Comm. Jacobs: I’m not disagreeing with that – I want to make sure everyone here has the same apples to apples chance as Tarrant & Dallas.
Ms. Kongevick: I can assure you that with the PEBC, it does not matter if you are in Dallas County or the NTTA – all receive the full benefits – same discounts, geography is combined – we do not compare between one county and another who is getting the best rate for an appendectomy. We do show how many physicians are available in network and you can assume that will yield a certain overall cost to you.
Comm. Jacobs: If the cost of an appendectomy in Denton County is $10,000 and in Frisco it’s $12,000 but Frisco has negotiated a deal so you pay them $8,000 but the only amount Denton negotiated is $4,000 – is that how it works?
Ms. Kongevick: No. It’s not.
Comm. Jacobs: I wanted to be real clear that someone is not under negotiating here….
Ms. Kongevick: I do this for a living and can assure you that is not how it works…..
Comm. Jacobs: I believe you….
RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE
Ms. Kongevick: (Pages R-41 thru R-45) Retirees is the issue of the day. There are changes in Medicare and those retirees under 65 cost you at least two and half times the cost of an active employee, so we’re showing you a couple of different options on each page. A lot depends on whether or not the retiree is under or over 65 – based only on the retiree, not the spouse. First document shows your current structure and behind that are varying levels of cost share. The first one shows 40-retiree/60-county, the next page is 45/55, and so forth - all dependent on how much you want to absorb or pass on.
Comm. Jacobs: What percentages do we have now?
Ms. Kongevick: Basically, a 45/55 with the exception of your HMO which, right now, is 38/52 because of that first year in.
Ms. Phillips: The one saying 45/55 reflects what the premiums would be in 2005 if you maintain that cost share ratio.
Comm. Jacobs: So it would go up substantially….
Ms. Phillips: That is correct. Dallas County is already charging a lot higher premiums to their retirees….
Ms. Kongevick: Almost twice….
Ms. Phillips: …than we are. Dallas County does allow its over 65 retirees into the EPO & PPO plans just like we do. Tarrant County does not allow this but I believe they too will be increasing their retiree premiums.
Comm. Jacobs: Let’s say I am a retiree, 70 years old, have no one else I’m insuring and do not want dental. If we go 40/60 on an EPO I would pay $89.84 a month? If I chose the PPO, it’d be $102.09. Is that correct? And is that what they are paying now?
Ms. Kongevick: Using your example, $70.91 for EPO 40/60 would go to $89.84 a month. The PPO would go from $80.58 to 102.00 a month.
Comm. Carter: A retiree over 65 and on Medicare, does this become their secondary coverage?
Ms. Kongevick: If they are truly a retiree and not working, Medicare is Primary and we are Secondary. But, Medicare does not carry everything that our plans do – for instance, drugs. In 2006, there will be a change in that area. We do factor Medicare in when we set these rates.I cannot begin to list the issues surrounding retiree coverage. Very few plans even offer retiree coverage any longer because of the cost. Those that do, have restricted it, or made policies where the retiree has to have had so many years of service and it ranges from A to Z. PEBC will be doing a retiree project this year so we can model about three retiree medical plan packages so you’ll have some idea of future expenses, all things being considered. That is no small project. I just learned today that the plan we use – Pacific Care Secure Horizons – has contracted with CMS for provision of Medicare Advantage Plans. Pending approval by CMS, this would mean your retirees would be offered another option come January 1. The good news is that these are not the same old plans they used to be – they have comprehensive coverage including pharmacy and, in some cases, partial payment of a Part B premium for those retirees who participate. I will be negotiating a group contract on behalf of residents of Denton, Tarrant, Collin & Dallas. We’ll know more in October just before annual enrollment and fill you in on the details. That will give your retirees the lowest possible cost for comprehensive coverage. But right now, as unbelievable as it sounds, your retiree premiums truly are less than most we see.
Comm. Jacobs: If we stayed at the 45/55 level, we would be going from $71 to $101 on the EPO. That is a 30% increase if we stayed at the same percentage rate. PPO is about the same. My concern is that big of a jump. I would hate to raise our retiree rate to even 50% so I guess I am endorsing paying 30% more.
Comm. White: Does the Recommended Budget cover all of these scenarios? What is the financial impact?
Ms. Phillips: We actually linked the Recommended Budget more to the employee premium that we do the retiree premium. With the contingency that Donna has allocated and the possible Worker’s Comp Contingency - there would be no cushion if we had another bad year - but we could cover a good year.
Ms. Kongevick: Whatever option you choose, your retiree/employee out-of-pocket is significantly reduced from what it was before these plans. As Amy mentioned, there are really no out-of-pocket increases this year so if there is a year where you’re considering passing on an increase with the least impact, the year without plan changes is the preferred way to do it.
Judge Horn: Thank you. We appreciate your time.
ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES
Ms. Stewart: I need direction from the court today on Elected Official salaries. Page R-8 is the new revised survey Comm. Jacobs requested. This includes only Collin & Fort Bend Counties.
Comm. Jacobs: Actually, Comm. Mitchell requested the survey for only these two counties. I would like to see the salaries leveled out. So, if we decide to pay everyone at 95% of the average, whatever it is, then we need to do that for everyone. If someone is at 100%, their salary should be frozen; anyone below that should be brought up. This is to get them in line because if we keep giving across the board raises, they will never come in line. According to this survey, the County Judge is paid 95.8% and the Commissioners 89.1%. We need to all be at 95% of whatever the standard is, regardless if we use this survey or another one. The County Judge will always make more than the Commissioners but it should all be the same percentage of that market value.
Comm. Carter: I believe we should be looking at 90% of the Collin County rate.
Comm. Jacobs: Looking at the survey including Collin/Ft. Bend, the majority of the officials are over 90%.
Ms. Stewart: We have provided various scenarios for you beginning on Page R-48. This takes the survey average from the three different scenarios. R-48 includes the four counties. On 49 & 50, is the survey we had been looking at including car allowances. We have now separated car allowances into a different topic. So Survey A on Page 49 includes just salary only.
Comm. Jacobs: I’d like to look at this without car allowances.
Ms. Stewart: I believe it is a separate issue and we do need to deal with salaries so we can send out notices to all Elected Officials.
Comm. Jacobs: There are two issues the court needs to look at to help us make a decision. The first one is which salary survey presented do we want to use? Once we determine the survey, then look at what percentage of that survey do we want to pay. I prefer Comm. Mitchell’s suggestion of just using Ft. Bend and Collin.
Comm. Carter: For example, if you took the Commissioners salary in Collin County @ $80,000 and subtract $8,000, it would bring it to $72,000 – we’re already there.
Ms. Stewart: If you did 90% of Collin County’s salary only, it’s $72,014.
Comm. Jacobs: I’d like to know what 95% would be, which is where the County Judge is.
Comm. Carter: County Judge is not at 95% when you look at Collin County alone.
Comm. Jacobs: But I’d like to compare salaries to both a larger county and a smaller one – the Collin/Ft. Bend survey shows the County Judge at 95%.
Ms. Stewart: The impact would be about $61,000 at 95% for everyone excepting the Judges, the DA, the Sheriff and the County Judge.
Comm. Jacobs: I believe this is what we should do. How do feel about this Judge?
Judge Horn: I think it’s a good plan but how do we pay for it…increase taxes?
Comm. Jacobs: I do not believe adding $61,000 to the budget is going to cause us to increase taxes. Comm. Mitchell, can you tell me before you leave, if you think the 95% is fair?
Comm. Mitchell: It may be fair but I need to leave….
Comm. White: I do not disagree with the method you’re using – it is fair. But at this point, if we vote on this, we’re raising taxes. Where else would the money come from?
Ms. Stewart: Right now we are at a little over 2.7% above the effective rate with the action court has taken so far.
Comm. Jacobs: If we kept everything the way it is now and we added $61,000….
Ms. Stewart: It would still be below what was included in the Recommended Budget.
Comm. Jacobs: Exactly. So for you to say we’re raising taxes is erroneous.
Ms. Stewart: The Recommended Budget includes increases above the effective already.
Comm. White: Is court ready to vote on these issues?
Judge Horn: We’re required by law to notify Elected Officials and they have so many days to respond. I hate that we have to make decisions on Elected Official salaries – i.e., my salary – so early in the process. State Law mandates we do certain things within a certain time frame.
Ms. Stewart: The critical point is that if the citizen’s committee meets and unanimously agrees on a salary for an Elected Official, we have to include it in the budget.
Comm. White: So this $61,000 would keep us under the Recommended Budget at this point.
Ms. Stewart: That is correct – at this point.
Comm. White: But we still have all these appeals we’ve not addressed…
Comm. Jacobs: We have no choice and realize two things: it is smart to get everyone’s percentages as close as possible leaving fewer reasons for any Elected Official to go before the Grievance Committee and $61,000 in a 128 million dollar budget is not going to put us over to raise taxes.
Comm. White: I want to stay within the Recommended Budget. I would rather the court have a consensus to stay within the Recommended Budget so that we set a ceiling that we cannot go over.
Comm. Jacobs: I am not going to do that at this point. I want to make sure that the employees have a minimum of a 4% raise.
Judge Horn: I agree. I want to go One Step on the employee increases. I would rather give Elected Officials equity adjustments so that at no one-time are we forced to do a large adjustment. I will be supporting your motion.
Comm. Jacobs: Thank you, Judge.
Comm. Carter: Normally, we make these big decisions with a full court….can this wait until next week?
Judge Horn: No. We need a decision and Comm. Mitchell indicated that she’d go along with our decision.
Ms. Stewart: It is critical if you want to follow the calendar. If you want to delay adoption for a week….
Comm. Jacobs: With all due respect, you were out of town for the last two weeks. Comm. Mitchell has had a lot of input – she suggested the two-county survey. I want to go forward.
Comm. Carter: I wish our salaries were controlled by some kind of index for which we have no control over but I guess I can support this motion.7.B-1) Move to approve the use of the Collin/Ft. Bend County Salary Survey as a standard close to our County size, utilizing 95% of the survey’s average to be the salary for Elected Officials; any official’s salary at 95% or above would be frozen, any one’s salary below would be brought up to that average by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 04-0452
CAR ALLOWANCE
Comm. Jacobs: This allowance has not been changed in a long time and no longer reflects the price of a gallon of gasoline. I do not remember this rate ever increasing in the 23 years I have been here. Even Comm. Carter’s suggestion (Page 46, 47) of an additional $100 per month per employee/Elected Official would still leave us way out of kilter.
Ms. Stewart: Page R-24 reflects the county’s reimbursable car rate 10 years ago was 24 cents compared to the rate for 2005 which will be 37.5 cents. Compared to the IRS rate, we were way off in 1995 and did not catch up until about 2001. The reimbursable rate has increased 56% in ten years whereas our fixed allowances have not – at least not across the board. We prepared a couple of scenarios showing you the impact using the reimbursable rate percentages. The method to our madness here was that if you received a car allowance in 1995, we applied 56.3%. If you did not get a car allowance until 2001, we applied a 33.9% increase. The impact of $95,000 is shown on Page R-26.
Comm. Jacobs: What would Survey A yield per month, Donna?
Ms. Stewart: $865 per month…
Comm. Jacobs: ….instead of $350, so there is more than a 200% difference right now.
Judge Horn: So we’re using the survey of the same counties we used before?
Comm. Jacobs: I believe we should. We have Survey A, B, & C. To be consistent, Survey C has the two counties that we used before.
Ms. Stewart: If you use the same average of 95% on Survey C it would be $712.50 per month.
Comm. Jacobs: County Clerk, District Judges, and District Clerk are already at 95% so they would not be receiving an increase.
Ms. Stewart: The positions that are not currently receiving a fixed car allowance are the district Judges, the County Court Judges, and the JP’s are reimbursed. But your formula would not apply to the reimbursable car allowances.
Comm. Jacobs: So the Commissioners, the Judge, and the Sheriff would be the only ones receiving an increase in the fixed car allowances.
Comm. Carter: Ft Bend County apparently gives their Commissioners vehicles.
Comm. Jacobs: That is why we have three different surveys but would only consider Survey A & C, since Survey B includes Dallas, which this court did not want to include.
Judge Horn: I would agree using the same survey and same percentage as we used for the salary survey.
Comm. Carter: I also agree and have been talking car allowances for years. I drive 20,000 miles on county business and I imagine Comm. White does too.
Comm. Jacobs: So do I….including trips to City of Plano, City of Dallas, Austin, etc. We’re always on the road.
Comm. Carter: Donna, what is the cost on the first survey to those three positions named.
Ms. Stewart: It’d go from $4500 to $6565 per year. The total impact, including benefits, would be $30,445.
Comm. Carter: You have to pay FICA on the car allowance?
Judge Horn: On Fixed, yes, but not on reimbursable car allowance.7.B-2) Move to approve raising fixed-car allowances to 95% of the average of the Collin County Ft. Bend County survey average – same survey as used for salaries – for those Elected Officials falling beneath the 95% average for a total impact of $30,445 by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 04-0453
NORTH TEXAS COMMISSION
Comm. Jacobs: I would like to take this opportunity to hand out to you the TEX-21 budget I received with one phone call. Let’s look at that again next week.
Ms. Stewart: Please look at Page 5 of 6 under Appropriations; also, in the Budget Manual on Page A-124 is information Judge Horn provided me. We included her request for membership dues of $5,290 to the North Texas Commission.
Judge Horn: Members, each of you should have received a packet I sent out regarding this subject. This was not on last year’s budget but North Texas Commission is now asking all counties to contribute at 1 cent per capita.
Comm. Jacobs: I do not have a problem with this request. We can leave this for later when we also discuss TEX 21.
ROAD & BRIDGE PRECINCT ONE
Ms. Stewart: Page A-125 is an email from Comm. White regarding some line items under Engineering that the Auditor had shown as completed this year, when if fact, they have not been completed. The 0 impact is shown on Page 5 of 6. The request is to reduce the estimated expenditures provided by the Auditor for Fencing/Concrete line items and allocate them into next year’s budget.
James Wells, County Auditor: It would be a rollover of encumbered funds into the new budget.7.B-3) Move to approve under Road & Bridge Precinct One an estimated expenditure reduction for Line Item 5250 - Fencing & Concrete Products @ ($154,000) - and an increase to Contract Road Work (unable to be performed in FY04) of $154,000 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 04-0454
TREO 600 WIRELESS EMAIL
Ms. Stewart: On Page A-126 is an email from Kevin Carr, Director of Information Services, requesting a Treo 600 – wireless email - for Commissioner White. Kevin has located funds in his budget for the monthly service charges until the end of FY04 but needs to reallocate for FY05 budget.
7.B-4) Move to approve a decrease in County-wide Technology – Computer Hardware
Maintenance – for $600 and an increase of $600 for Mobile Phone Expense – Treo
600 for Commissioner White, Precinct One – for 0 impact to the budget by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 04-0455
EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS
Ms. Stewart: Page A-127 or Page 1 of 1 is a budget impact statement for an equity adjustment in the County Judge’s Office. I believe you are all familiar with this request.
Comm. Jacobs: Comm. Carter may not be.
Judge Horn: This is an equity adjustment for Frank Phillips, Director of Administration, who is already a Certified Police Officer, to also be a Security Officer here in the Courthouse on the Square. He has some ideas for changes to increase our security.7.B-5) Move to approve an equity adjustment of $7,175 in the County Judge’s Office for the position of Director of Administration, Frank Phillips, so he may serve as a Security Officer in the Courthouse on the Square by Comm. Jacobs, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 04-0456Ms. Stewart: Page A-128 is an email regarding equity adjustments in the Criminal District Attorney’s
Office and Amy Phillips is recommending a one step increase for two people. That is also found on Page
2 of 6 of your Changes Sheet. The impact is $3,480.
Comm. White: This was not included in the Recommended Budget.
Ms. Stewart: Correct. After the Recommended came out, the appeal was heard and Amy revisited this
issue with the DA’s Office.7. B-6) Move to approve an equity adjustment of Slots #009 & #065 in the Criminal District Attorney’s Office from a Grade 20/Step 5 to Step 6 for a total budgetary impact of $3,480 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Jacobs.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 04-0457Ms. Stewart: Page A-129 is a budget impact statement prepared at the request of Comm. White and it would be to delete the position of Public Works/Planning Director. It is still included in the budget. Page 1 of 1 of your Changes Sheet reflects a savings of ($116,409) if position is eliminated.
Comm. White: This position has not been filled and I would not like to see it refilled. I will go along with
Court either way but a decision needs to be made.
Comm. Jacobs: Has Court made a decision on this?
Comm. White: No, we haven’t, and that’s why I am bringing it forward.
Comm. Jacobs: This is a decision for a full Court.
Comm. White: That is fine but we do need to discuss it because it would free up over $100,000 in
funding.
Comm. Jacobs: I would like to hear from Cathy Allcorn on this next week.
CONSTABLES
Ms. Stewart: The Court also discussed statistical data on the Constables. We provided an updated report in your packet on Page R-34 is a summary of all papers served by their offices.
Comm. White: Is this a productivity measure?
Ms. Stewart: Correct - a comparison of all Constables. Total Civil Cases for Constable Pct. One is 6,065
which means they averaged 1213 cases per deputy. You can follow across that same measure for all the
Constables. There’s a number of Civil Cases for Current and then a number based on Proposed which is based on what they requested. I think you only had one appeal – Constable Pct. Two appealed for a deputy position. In comparison to One, Two serves 896 papers per deputy and if he were given a new employee, it would be 716 papers per deputy. If you skip down to the Warrants Received, Pct. One receives 625, Pct. Two received 1099, keeping in mind that Constable Pct. Five serves most of the Pct. One’s warrants. You have to look at both those factors when analyzing….
Comm. Jacobs: That is hard to figure…
Comm. White: Why is Constable Five serving Pct. One’s warrants?
Ms. Stewart: I believe that happened several years ago – that department could take on that workload whereas Pct. One could not.
Judge Horn: There is another matter that warrants discussion – a lot depends on where these Constable offices are located, metropolitan or urban. Comm. Carter, this certainly applies to your precinct. I don’t need to explain to you how dangerous 114 is – Constable Two specifically requested a Traffic Deputy.
Comm. Carter: We get many requests for speeders in our unincorporated area and I am sure you do too,
Comm. White. The Sheriff is limited. There may be as many as four patrolmen at any one time in the field, meaning one per precinct. It would be helpful if we could have another Constable with Traffic-control capability.
Ms. Stewart: One other item I need to mention for us to discuss next week – Sheriff-Elect Parkey is no longer going to carry the Commission, as of January 1, for the License & Weight Deputy assigned to Larry Floyd. He feels strongly that if he is carrying their commission, they should be reporting to him. That topic needs to be the Agenda for next week. A decision needs to be made as to how that should be handled.
Comm. White: Definitely, that needs to be discussed – I was not aware of that. I too get a lot of calls for speeding in the unincorporated areas. The need is there. My concern is that the request is for only a certain area in Pct. Four when the same need exists in my precinct. Another Traffic Deputy is needed for all the unincorporated areas.
Comm. Carter: I believe that is something the Constable of that area needs to initiate. Donna, you explained the reason why the Sheriff-Elect does not want to carry the commission. Have we had a discussion with him on that topic?
Ms. Stewart: I can invite him to be here next week.
Comm. Carter: From my perspective, it is being handled very well under Constable Floyd. They certainly generate a lot of revenue for the county and work very hard everyday out on the field.
Ms. Stewart: I know that the Sheriff-Elect has contacted Constable Floyd and discussed it with him but it is the Sheriff’s responsibility. The Constables can do traffic enforcement but not License & Weight. I do not believe Sheriff-Elect Parkey wants to eliminate that division but he does want them under his management.Judge Horn, you had asked us last week where we would be bottom-line tax rate if we were to approve all Appeals – it would be somewhere around 5.8% increase above the Effective Rate. That is not above the Roll-back rate of somewhere around 8%.
Comm. Carter: What would the rate be? About 25 and a half percent?
Ms. Stewart: I do not have everything the court took action on today….about .258. Agenda Item #3 can wait – Financial Trend Analysis – James has indicated we can do that next week so you can do a review of the information in the packet. In order for us to stay with the calendar, Tuesday is our last scheduled workshop.
Judge Horn: Court, please all try and be here next Tuesday so we can wrap-up as much as possible. I would rather not have to schedule another budget workshop date and a possible delay in setting the rate.We are adjourned.
ITEM 19 ADJOURNMENT 4:35 p.m.