 |
Denton County Commissioners Court |
Not Official Minutes. For official minutes, please contact the County Clerk at 940-349-2012. |
|
August 6, 2003
Be it remembered, Commissioners Court Budget Work Session for Denton County, Texas was called to order on the 6th day of August, 2003, at 9:10 AM in the Denton County Pre-Trial Facility, 1406 Troy H. LaGrone Drive, Denton, Texas by County Judge Mary Horn. Commissioners 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) Approval of any action related to the 2003/2004 Denton County Budget.
(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.)
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Health Insurance Plan
2. Pre-Trial Facility Opening
3. Raises
4. Tax Rate Update
5. Reclassification Recommendations
6. Commissioners Court Proposed Reductions
7. Retirement Plan Options
8. Non-Profit Organization Funding
9. Road and Bridge Reorganization
10. Public Defender System Report
11. JP/Constable Statistics
12. Holiday Lighting Committee Request
13. Appeals & Other Discussion
14. Reports Requested for Next Meeting
15. Future Agenda ItemsJudge Horn: Budget Work Session is called to order and we'll turn it over to you, Donna.
Ms. Stewart: Good Morning. We are using the same agenda as yesterday. First thing to cover and something we have not discussed is # 7 - Retirement Plan Options. On Page R-67 is a spreadsheet for your review and Page 12 & 12 on the Changes Sheets. We received notice from the Retirement System of rate increases on the current retirement rate that are not included in the Recommended Budget. The first column shows the current retirement plan with the employee deposit rate, the matching ratio, vesting information, county's contribution rate, life insurance and COLA increase for Retirees. The present rate is 8.51%. To continue this current plan with all options the rate will be 8.72% for next year. Since we begin in January we can pro-rate for a rate of 8.67% equaling a budget impact of $81,435.
The second option you see is an increase of the matching rate only from 220% to 225% for an impact of over $200,000. Amy and I are putting this option before you for discussion only because this may not be the year to increase it. Also included is a COLA increase for the retirees of 80% of the Consumer Price Index.
Comm. Mitchell: If the employees do not get an increase, do the retirees still get one?
Ms. Stewart: Their retirement check will show a minimal increase. This is an area we have no option.7.A-1) Move to approve Option One of the Retirement System Options (as referenced on Page R-67 of the Budget Workshop Manual) for a continuation of the current plan with a budget impact of $81,435 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0442Ms. Stewart: Information not covered yesterday and requested earlier by the court regards JP and Constable statistics on Page R-153. This was a controversial project. A couple of the JPs indicated that what we were asking for was impossible to comply with. Also, two JPs did not give us the information in the format requested. But, our new part-time employee in our office worked with Mike Donnelly to pull the information off the Criminal Justice System so we could present comparative data.
Judge Horn: In discussion with one JP, I understand they plan to meet and devise a uniform format.Ms. Stewart: Right, and I have offered to help them with a format they can all agree on. But, we had to start someplace and understand that these figures may be changing. In the last column on the JP Page - Average Hours Per Case - those figures were supplied by JP # 1 and JP # 5. JP # 3 did send some information approximating these figures. The first sheet shows the 2002 Actual Figures - JP # 1handled 12,896 criminal cases and 2,776 civil cases. By calculating the number of JP # 1 employees, seven currently, taking the average hours that employee can work in a year (deducting two-weeks vacation, holidays and part of the sick days) and applying that across the board, the result is the annual hours estimated - based on their hourly rate figure that they provided - showing a need for 16,751 employee hours to perform their job. They actually have 12,992 hours so, by these calculations, it would appear they are short by two employees. JP # 1's original request included two employees. He has come back and appealed one.
Judge Horn: Was that one of your priorities?
Ms. Stewart: Yes. JP # 5 also submitted an appeal for employees. Last year that office had 11,298 criminal cases and 529 civil cases. By using the same calculations, showing they are one employee short and he, also, asked for one.
Comm. Carter: Donna, I think this is our answer and a good way to measure productivity. I am ready to make a motion to add an employee to JP # 1.
Comm. Mitchell: I am not ready.
Comm. White: I would support adding that but am not ready to approve anything piecemeal.
Judge Horn: I, too, am supportive of the motion but would like more information from Donna.
Comm. Carter: I will rescind my motion but I have been to his office and can testify to the fact that he needs more help.
Ms. Stewart: The next sheet shows this year's estimates by taking activities for this year and pro-rated out the information by using this same formula across-the-board. We showed the current staff versus the proposed staff that they are appealing. Even with their proposal, they are still an employee short. JP # 5 has seen a significant increase in traffic filings: 5,000 were filed last year and we're projecting 8,500 to be filed this year. We're expecting their revenues to increase significantly as well. Even if the court gives them their proposed employee, they may still be two employees short. Traffic cases take less time to file than a civil case - forty-five minutes to an hour for a traffic case.
The next area pertains to Constables. We were unable to apply a time factor to their offices. We pulled information from the system on the number of cases filed. For example, Constable #1 had 5,874 civil cases calculated out to 1174 civil cases per deputy. They received 943 warrants @ 188 per deputy for a total of civil and warrants per deputy of 1,363 cases. We also applied a formula to clerks for each of their caseloads: in Constable # 1 that figure is 4,859. Also included is information on bailiff hours, arrests made, citations issued. We did not factor in the citations - our focus was on the statutory requirements.
Judge Horn: I have a problem with all the warrants. For one thing, it is part of the justice system - you have to serve the warrants. Secondly, you have to have the employees to serve the warrants. This is a revenue generator for the county.Ms. Stewart: Also, Constable # 5 serves, and has for several years, a great deal of warrants for Constable # 1 due to # 1 not being able to handle the workload. Constable # 2's total civil cases are 2,736 - half of what Constable # 1 processes - with 150 warrants per deputy. So their cases are 834 cases per deputy compared to 1363 for Constable # 1. In Constable # 3, number of civil cases was 4,504, so they are our second busiest office in the civil area. Warrants received average 151 per deputy with an average of 1,052 cases per deputy. In this processing, we did not include the Constable himself, just the Chief Deputy and all other deputies. Constable # 4 handled 3,144 civil cases and received 1905 warrants calculated out to 1,122 cases per deputy. Constable # 5 has less civil than any of them - 1,583 but their warrants were 3,291. Civil and warrants handled per deputy for # 5 - 1218 and for the warrants per clerk - 4,346. For Constable # 6, 3,260 civil cases, 508 warrants so their average is 942 cases per deputy or 3768 per clerk.
Constable # 1 has appealed to increase his office staff from 1 ½ - one full-time, one part-time - to two full-time positions. Constable # 2 has requested an additional deputy and a part-time clerk. Constable # 3 had also requested an additional deputy and a reclassification. Towards the bottom of Page R-155, under Total Civil Cases, we tried to show the civil cases per deputy based on current staffing versus appealed staffing. Constable # 1 handles the most civil cases per deputy and he is not asking for a deputy at this point in time. He needs one but he indicated to me that he understood the county's fiscal situation and would wait another year. We've also provided the same information on Page R-158 - number of civil and warrants per clerk since 1 & 2 are asking for clerks. So, if the court would to provide an additional clerk to Constable # 1, they would be handling 4,077 cases per clerk, including the ½ office staff. Constable # 4 handles 4,838 per clerk and they are not appealing the clerk position.
My own personal priority would be Constable # 1 clerk would be justified. Hopefully, next year we can provide you with the statistics and comparative analysis early-on in the budget process. Hopefully, we can provide it to you throughout the year on a quarterly basis.Ms. Stewart: I don't know if the court is ready to discuss reclassification recommendations. Included in the Recommended Budget are all the ones recommended by HR and our office - appeals are not included. Please refer to Page S-75 and Page 12 of 12 on the Changes Sheet. We ask for the court to take action on these recommendations but there is no budget impact since they are already included in the Recommended Budget.
7.A-2) Move to approve reclassifications as recommended by the Human Resources Department and included in the Recommended Budget and, therefore, without budgetary impact by Comm. White, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0443Ms. Stewart: Diana is here for our health insurance discussion.
Ms. Kongevick: Let me explain the document before you and then go into results of your choices. Top of the page entitled "2004 Accrual Projections - Medical" are the 2003 Actual - these are your rates today and the county portion based on the performance of your claims. You are running very close to our projections. However, without the plan changes discussed yesterday, you would have roughly a 10-15 percent difference in costs.
Option One shows you what the employee rates would be for the EPO, PPO and HMO if you kept your current percentage cost share which is, today, roughly 23% of the premiums paid by the employee, 77% by the County and would result in an increase of about $5.00 for the employee, about $10.00 for dependent coverage.
Option Two leaves the employee contributions exactly as they are today without any increase in payroll deduction. Due to the introduction of the HMO Plan, even with the reduced premium to the employee in this plan, either one of these options, dependent on the court's preference, would result in a 1 -2% difference. It is just so close that we can support either option.
The HMO is the least priced plan to your employees. Those currently on the EPO Plan who switch to the HMO, the employee premium would stay the same with dependent coverage actually going down.
Comm. White: So Option One keeps the percentages the same with Option Two increasing the percentage to the county?Ms. Kongevick: Yes, by about 1 %.
Comm. White: And the financial impact of that?
Ms. Kongevick: Because we are predicting the future and depending on the claims, we really think believe either option will be a flat impact because of the steerage to the HMO Plan. We're estimating between 5 and 10 dollars per month with an estimate of approximately 20% of your EPO members will switch to HMO and approximately 10% from the PPO Plan.
Comm. White: I understand these are predictions but if there were some sort of impact, what is an estimate and would we be able to cover it in contingency?
Ms. Kongevick: Your accrual we work up is based on historical claims plus trending plus claims from today - a complicated formula to simplify. Our estimate predictions are conservative and we monitor this monthly. So, if we see anything after annual enrollment that looks like it won't hold, we would come back with a new estimate for you to look at.
Our goal was to allow you the flexibility - if you chose to keep employee insurance premiums the same this year, they will be paying more out-of-pocket if they use the plan next year. If you chose to increase it just a little bit to keep the cost share percentage exactly as it was last year, you could increase it by $10 and achieve that.Comm. White: My thought is to try and keep the premium the same for employees which is Option Two.
Judge Horn: I am trying to get a cost to the county of keeping the same premiums.
Ms. Kongevick: Just based on the projection, the dollar amount for the County on Option One is $6,320,941. For Option Two, $6,413,882. Last year your cost was $5,949,888.
Judge Horn: So roughly a million dollars more to the county for not increasing the rates to employees.
Ms. Kongevick: Actually, because of the HMO Plan, there will not be an increase in claims for those employees joining the HMO so the likelihood of having it all result in additional claims and additional cost share is reduced. On the HMO, you pay one flat fee per month with the HMO responsible for payment of all claims.
Comm. White: Back to my original question - what is the difference to the county between Option One and Two? I was thinking that figure was negligible and included in the Recommended Budget.
Ms. Kongevick: About $93,000 based on our estimate of how many would move to the HMO.
Comm. White: So, Donna, is that figure included in the Recommended Budget?
Ms. Stewart: The figure in the Recommended Budget exceeds both of those numbers but we have to add in administrative fees, etc. It would take a few minutes for us to make a comparative analysis between those two figures and what is in the budget.
Judge Horn: That's the number we'd like to see.
Ms. Stewart: The good news is what we have budgeted departmentally is OK with $350,000 in contingency. The departmental budgets will help build the reserve. We will get back to you later today with an estimate of the reserve.
Ms, Kongevick: The other document you have is the self-funded dental plan showing you our projections for 2004 based on the 2003 current employee rate and use of the plan for the actual projected cost. You can see that while employee coverage is running 52 cents above our estimated average, family coverage is $1.65. This is an employee paid plan so to maintain the coverage and with our estimated claims for next year, we would expect the following increases: $2.00 to employees, $3.00 to employee/spouse, $4.00 to employee/children and $6.00 increase for employee/family.
Comm. Mitchell: That is rough knowing we are not planning on employee raises. It's offset some by a smaller increase in our medical.
Comm. Carter: That is why I prefer Option Two on the Medical Plan keeping employee's contribution the same, giving them the option of a reduction. We cannot do much about the dental plan.
Ms. Kongevick: Let me share something with you about the dental plan. You may have heard this before, but there is an actual shortage of dentists in this country. Major dental schools have closed. Dentists do not want to join networks as they did five to ten years ago. You may see chain operations that help reduce a dentist's cost, particularly for those just coming out of dental school and beginning their practice. Effective January 1, Careington Network is expanding with an additional 350-400 providers across the Dallas, Ft. Worth, Denton area. We encourage your employees to seek dental help outside of their specific area.
Ms. Phillips, Director of Human Resources: The biggest dental increase is the $6.00 for families and, since we apportion those out over 26 paychecks, and it's pre-taxed, the increase per pay check is well less than $3.00.Comm. Mitchell: These are monthly figures?
Ms. Phillips: Yes. The same is true on the medical if you did choose to increase them. The biggest increase is $10 per month so out of each paycheck would be less than around $4.25 to $4.50.
Ms. Kongevick: One last item is the sheet entitled "Vendor Rates 2003-2004". We always ask the court to approve rates for the coming year. These rates are inclusive in your employer and employee costs. These are the rates behind those premiums.
Comm. Mitchell: Denton County is obviously higher than the other ones. Is that because we joined late?
Ms. Kongevick: That may be one factor. We looked at every age of every member, every dependent and then gave you the benefit of discounting based on all of us as a block. Even though you have no experience with the HMO yet, we are estimating you will be lesser than the Tollway Authority. This year will tell a lot because of the HMOs. We know that people who join HMOs tend to be the best risks. Of course, we can never predict the huge claims that might occur.
Judge Horn: Questions anyone? After you work up those numbers for us, we will take action.
Ms. Stewart: I can go through my list that are, in my own opinion, priorities.
Judge Horn: I'd like to hear those Donna and then we have members with recommended cuts.
Ms. Stewart: On Page One of 12, under Revenues, we need to include the $5,000 for Development Permit Fees since I will be recommending the appeal of the additional $5000 for the Stormwater Management Program. The $5000 Development Permit Fee revenue will offset the Stormwater Management Program Increase under County Planning line item # 6881. Also, I would recommend the Additional Tax Funds of $426,326 based on Calculated Effective Rate.
Based on action the court took yesterday, another line item will be added under Revenues/General Fund. Constable Precinct # 4 contract under ASAP - Absent Student Assistance Program - had their hours increased from 25 per week to 32 hours per week but was not included in the budget. It will be offset with the increased revenue of $7, 084. My proposal on the tax rate is to go to at least 3% above the calculated effective rate which would bring in an additional $2,361,929.Judge Horn: And the Notice & Hearing Rate is …..
Ms. Stewart: .24717. I would recommend the Commissioners Court appeal of $1,590 for toner cartridges.
Under County Clerk, I would recommend the entire amount for a Senior Clerk - Recording. Under Non-Departmental, Pre-employment Physicals @ $18,000 of which the court did pass the policy after the Recommended Budget was out. We recommend reducing the Tax Incentive line item @ ($140,353). Under Print/Mail we recommend the Office Supplies increase of $500. Under County Planning, the Senior Planner/Stormwater position @ $49,550. The item under Courthouse Museum is an offset.
Page Two, we are recommending the following: Service Contract for Records Management @ $7,577; County-Wide Technology, Computer Software & Wiring decreases, 4-year Replacement Plan @ $46,773, and the $55,000 estimated lease payment option for the HR Management System. I believe Kevin Carr has offered to come up with the down payment thereby obligating us for the next two rather than three years.
Page Three: District Clerk two part-time positions @ $31,992; JP # 1, new hire including T & E @ $32,078; JP # 5 Clerk @ $31,728; decrease of ($22,282) in the Justice Information Systems and the $2,750 for Digital Cameras in the Medical Examiners Office.Judge Horn: Can the digital cameras be bought this year?
Ms. Stewart: We could if the court so chose. We made a transfer from contingency into their budget yesterday so I don't believe they have the money. We could transfer more from contingency.
Comm. White: Does any other department have an extra one of these?
Ms. Stewart: They need one for each investigator - five were originally requested. I will work on a Budget Amendment with them.
(Ms. Breading, First Assistant District Attorney, offered to look for one in their department - off microphone, so not clear on tape.)
Page Four: we are recommending the Deputy Clerk Ad Valorem in the Tax Office @ $34,907.
Page Five: Danny Brumley has requested to move money around in his Repair & Maintenance line items, my following recommendations all equal a zero impact: an increase of $21,500 for Courthouse on the Square, a decrease of $1,000 for the Historical Park Facility, increase of $200 for the Courthouse Annex, increase of $6000 in the Lee Walker Government Center, decrease of $1000 to the Child Protective Services Bldg., a decrease of $4,300 to the Tax Office, a decrease of $5,000 to the Sandy Jacobs Government Center, a decrease of $1,000 to The Colony Government Center, a decrease of $1,000 to the Sanger Annex and an increase of $1,000 to the Denton County Government Center.
Page Six: decrease of Repairs & Maintenance $4000 to the Charlie Cole Building, decrease $1000 to East Oak Street Facilities, $1,000 decrease to County Leased Facilities, $1000 decrease to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility.Comm. Mitchell: What about the increase of $1200 for Office Rental, Constable, Pct. # 4?
Ms. Stewart: You are correct - Civil Dept. informed us that rent was going up. That item will have to be part of my recommendations. Decrease of $10,000 to the Pre-Trial Center and an addition of $39,497 to the Telephone Dept.
Page Seven: My office recommends adding back the New Hire - Deputy Sheriff/Warrants for $86,944. On the vehicles, I have included all the Patrol Vehicles @ $23,500. My concern is for those cars already at 100,000 - waiting another year and a half adds up to a lot of miles.
Page Eight: Constable, Pct. # 1, I would recommend the New Hire Upgrade of a part-time to fulltime @ $12,476. Per Comm. Mitchell's recommendation, I will add a replacement vehicle @ $22,500 for Constable Pct. # 3.
Page Nine: under Constable Pct. # 4, the amount for the Northwest I.S.D. ASAP Officer of $25,257 needs to reflect $32,341 due to the increase in weekly hours for a total of $35,195 - this contract is 100% funded. The other items such as Remote Access Charge, replacement of Patrol Vehicle, etc., may be grant-funded but we recommend all those items for a total of $53,641. The line item for N.W.I.S.D. Officer will match the reduction earlier of $35,195. We recommend replacement of the License & Weight Vehicle @ $28,000 and on the bottom of Page 9 under Appropriations, $11,343 for the Denton Central Appraisal District.
Page 10: the only items under Road & Bridge court did not cover was line item 4220 for a $1654 reduction needs to be eliminated because the other position was reclassified and the $500,000 additional funding request from Comm. Carter. The District Clerk Records Management Fund of $28,000 is off setting and required by the Legislature. We would include the $3,000 for an increase to Office Rental for Juvenile Probation and a $20,000 increase of Professional Liability Insurance for Public Health/Clinical.
Page 11: our recommendations include the $35,315 for a shared (between Public Health and Clinical) new hire - Office Support Specialist for Public Health/Environmental. Increase the revenues for the Bioterrorism Grant and offset the expenses for reclassifying the position to a Grants Manager that was part of the original application.
Bottom line after figuring in all of my recommendations, going with 3% above the effective rate and opening the jail you would still have $40,000 to add back into the budget.Comm. White: One other cut I am requesting is a 5% across-the-board of Training and Education except for those departments not under our authority and except for Treasurer, Human Resources and Tax Office. The total of those cuts would be $18,876. I support doing the 5% cut in addition to the Training cuts Comm. Mitchell has requested.
Judge Horn: I would support Comm. White's reduction.
Comm. Carter: I will support the $18,876.
Judge Horn: Comm. White's reductions include Commissioners Court.
7.A-3) Move to approve a 5% cut in Training & Education across-the-board except for those departments not under our budgetary control and except for Treasurer, Human Resources and
the Tax Office by Comm. White, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 03-0444Comm. Mitchell: I am against this motion because some departments use their Training & Education funds so for those, I did not cut them. I am in favor of my own cuts in this area.
As I voted last year, I am in favor of cutting the Wellness Program. It could well serve our employees but not during such a tight budget year as this year. There are many other areas where we can give back to the employees and pay for items than doing a wellness program with only a few employees participating.Judge Horn: I had asked Amy Phillips for some information and she provided hand-outs: 265 participants were enrolled in the program. The request is for less money this year than last?
Ms. Phillips: That's true but that money is not related to the classes which are offered free of charge. We are going to spend close to $30,000 this year, which is why my request was reduced to $40,000 for next year. The program is growing and that money goes to employees as an incentive for regular exercise, quitting smoking, and over-all health maintenance. I have provided the court with the participants' feedback - all very positive. One employee quit smoking due to this program. The effect of just one person quitting smoking can have a major impact of reduction in the cost of your health insurance plan. Everything done in the health insurance plan is reactive - the Wellness Program allows us to be proactive with preventative measures and focus on health maintenance, just as we must maintain our equipment, buildings, etc. The program illustrates to our employees that the county cares about them.
Comm. Mitchell: But you have many more who are saying it is a waste of money.Ms. Phillips: We did not get a lot of people who said it was a waste of money.
Comm. Mitchell: No, I hear that from the people not on the program. They say it is something everyone should be doing anyway and the county should not be paying for it. They do not appreciate the fact that their county money is being used for this purpose.
Ms. Phillips: I am sure some employees feel like that. I can only report to you on the percentage of employees who took the time to respond to this survey and the numbers we have. We know that the majority of responses were very positive which to me, in its first year, represents an achievement.
Judge Horn: (read over the survey's results) I agree with Comm. Mitchell - bottom line is roughly $200 per employee for this program and that is not a good investment in a tight budget year.
Comm. White: I understand what has been said but let me remind you of a few facts: wellness programs are widely used in corporations across America - one must look at the long-term investment. Ms. Kongevick stated in her presentation that when you have an aging population, health costs are bound to be higher. But, if you are actively promoting healthier lifestyles, it cannot help but make an impact on health care costs for the county. One person quitting smoking could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care costs.
Court just recently approved $70,000 for AEDs across the county. I support that action but ask, at the same time, how come we are willing to spend $70,000 for a reactive measure and not invest $40,000 for a proactive long term impact? I am not saying that $40,000 is just pennies, although the potential return on that investment could make that $40,000 look like pennies. I believe the court is being short-sighted by not making this a long term commitment.Ms. Phillips: We will easily spend $200 for a diabetic patient per month on their medication alone - same for cholesterol control - these are the kinds of these we are trying to get a handle on. Exercise, diet, regular check-ups do make a difference. The classes are to educate and the money used to motivate.
Comm. Mitchell: You have no guarantee, Amy, as to whether or not the people having the problems will use this program.
Ms. Phillips: There is never a guarantee on anything concerning health issues. Participation would increase with an on-going program.
Judge Horn: The classes can continue without the incentive.
Ms. Phillips: Our enrollment will go down, I believe, without wellness points.
Comm. Carter: I agree with everything that has been said…..the program does have long range benefits and we are in a tight budget year. Is there another way to have the incentives without spending the money?
Ms. Phillips: We looked at many wellness programs and, honestly, not everyone gave cash but it was still some form of cash - gift certificates, etc. None of the programs were free.Comm. White: I have personally witnessed the potentials of lifestyle improvements and not just for the individual but for the employer in making for an improved employee. Health awareness impacts our Worker's Compensation in reducing accidents because the employee is stronger and more capable of lifting heavy boxes, for instance.
7.A-4) Move to cut the Wellness Program by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04457.A-5) Move to add back to District Clerk one part-time position by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Failed 2-2-0 (Horn & White nay)7.A-5) Move to replace Patrol Vehicle - SUV Explorer #48 - @$22,500 for Constable, Pct. # 3 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-0446Ms. Stewart: Amy has the information for our health insurance so if we could get back to that, while Ms. Kongevick is still here.
Ms. Phillips: Total budget impact for our Health Options: # 1 - increase employee premiums by $5 -10 monthly totals $6,747,641; # 2 - not increasing premiums would cost the county $6,840,582 for a difference of $92,941. $6.8 million is in the current budget.
Ms. Stewart: That will not leave us any contingency. We do have $350,000 ear-marked for health in non-departmental contingency. I'd like to move that amount to the insurance line item. This is not the regular Unappropriated Contingency for which we have $800,000 in the Recommended Budget.
7.A-6) Move to adopt Option # 2 at a cost of $6,840,582 without increasing employee
premiums by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0447
ITEM 17 RECESS 10:55 AM
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 11:10 AM
Judge Horn: Next is Dental Rates.
Ms. Phillips: As Ms. Kongevick read for us earlier, we are recommending employee rate on the Dental to Employee go from $20.00 to $22.00 per month, Employee plus Spouse from $37.00 to $40.00 per month, Employee plus Children from $46.00 to $50.00 per month and Employee plus Family from $64.00 to $70.00 per month. This is for the self-insured plan only - I do not believe there are any increases in the fully insured plans.
7.A-7) Move to adopt the Self-Insured Dental Plan as outlined by PEBC - Public Employees Benefit Cooperative - by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0448Judge Horn: We need to discuss a proposed tax rate so we are all on the same page as we continue making motions.
Comm. White: It appears that the court is leaning toward raising taxes by 3% over the effective rate. I will continue to support only the effective rate. I'd like to know how much money I have before I spend it. After listening to all appeals and Donna's priorities, there are some things I would support putting back in the budget. They were already covered in my cuts although the court did not vote for my cuts. The items I support going back into the budget do not exceed the $426,326 - the amount collected by the county just by keeping our tax at the effective rate.
Comm. Mitchell: I understand, Comm. White, the items you support do not go over the $426,326 but the items the rest of us support do go over that amount. You have to look at the total picture. You do not vote on the rate but you do spend the money.
Comm. White: Which is why I keep saying, we do this process backwards. First, we should have our bottom line figure and then vote on items causing us to really have to prioritize. I believe we could each have a few additions without going above the effective rate but it appears the court is operating under the assumption of 3% over the effective rate.
Comm. Mitchell: I have not discussed my option on the tax rate with anyone.
Judge Horn: The system is skewed - even when it comes to adoption of the tax rate, by state law you must first adopt your budget and then adopt your rate. One priority for me is to get this jail open - whether we want to or not, it is a necessity. In order to do that, plus adding back some of my own preferences, it will require a Notice & Hearing Rate of 3% above the calculated effective rate. That is less than last year's rate of .24897 - the Notice & Hearing Rate is .24717. It would be a tax rate decrease but it is still 3% above the calculated effective.
The increase would not cover an employee raise. In talking with several of the surrounding jurisdictions, there are just as many considering minimal employee increases as there are those who are not even considering one. Dallas County is looking at a 10% across-the-board in every department. These are tough economic times. Another way to look at it is that by giving employee raises, we are also raising their taxes. My target is the Notice & Hearing Rate of .24717.Comm. Carter: I'd like to go back to the Effective Rate but that is not being realistic. I believe opening the jail will be a revenue offset - not for this year but for the coming years - and see that as an investment not an expenditure. Opening it in stages makes a lot of sense. I would like to see us round off the tax rate to .247, which would bring an additional $50,000, I believe. I would like to give the employees a raise this year but we have held their health care costs down as much as possible.
Judge Horn: The tax rate is required to stay at the five digits.
Comm. Mitchell: A lot of the cities are keeping the same rate as last year in order to meet their budget demands. I, too, am looking at the .24717.
Judge Horn: Alright, we are approaching a consensus. Let us go back to Page 1 of 12 and take these items one at a time.
Comm. Carter: Have you budgeted anything additional for our Fund Balance?
Ms. Stewart: No.
7.A-8) Move to approve under the Revenues/General Fund the additional Tax Funds of $426,326 and Constable Pct. # 4 A.S.A.P Contract funds of $7,084 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm.
Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04497.A-9) Move to increase revenues in County Planning - Stormwater Management Program - by $5,000 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04507.A-10) Move to increase Computer Supplies by $1,500 for toner cartridges for Commissioners Court by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04517.A-11) Move to increase Training & Education in Human Resources in the amount of $3,475 by Comm. Carter.
Failed for lack of a second.7.A-11) Move to approve $18,000 for Pre-Employment Physicals under Non-Departmental and to reduce Tax Incentive Line Item by $140,353 for a total credit of $122,353 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04527.A-12) Move to approve an increase of $500 under Office Supplies in the Print/Mail Department by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Judge Horn.
Comm. White: Were we not going to pull this from this year's budget?
Comm. Mitchell: I thought we were going to process a budget amendment.Ms. Stewart: We have started a list of those items to process this year.
Judge Horn: Motion and Second withdrawn.
7.A-12) Move to increase Print/Mail $2,740 for Training & Education by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Failed 2-2-0 (White & Carter nay)7.A-12) Move to approve a New Hire - Senior Planner/Stormwater - @ $ 49,550 in County Planning by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04537.A-13) Move to approve creation of Line Item 8130 - Operating Equipment - under Courthouse Museum by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04547.A-14) Move to approve a Service Contract in the amount of $7,577 in Records Management by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04557.A-15) Move to approve decreases under County-Wide Technology for Computer Software of ($10,070) and Computer Wiring of ($10,970) by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04567.A-16) Move to increase Lease Payments under County-Wide Technology for a Four Year Replacement Plan at a cost of $46,773 by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04577.A-17) Move to approve $55,000 under County-Wide Technology for the second payment of three lease-payment options of the Human Resource Management System by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04587.A-18) Move to establish Line Item 5645 - Capital Murder Case Expenses - under Judiciary and Court Support by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04597.A-19) Move to approve the Criminal District Attorney's appeal for Evidence Expense - Capital Murder Case Expenses - for an increase of $17,000 under Judiciary and Court Support by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-0460
ITEM 17 RECESS 11:50 AM
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 1:40 PM
Judge Horn: My question to Kevin Carr concerns the mobile phone increase for wireless data services @ $2400 under County-Wide Technology.
Mr. Carr: We received a request from Comm. Carter for wireless data access. He felt court members would be interested in accessing email remotely. It is a wireless data card to be put in your lap-top, or Palm Pilot, etc.
Judge Horn: This would serve others besides Commissioners Court?
Mr. Carr: The $2400 would serve primarily Commissioners Court.
Judge Horn: Does that mean when we're in Austin we can use it rather than tying into the hotel's system?
Mr. Carr: That is correct and the $2400 represents an annual service fee.
7.A-20) Move to approve an increase of $2400 under County-Wide Technology for mobile phone wireless data service by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04617.A-21) Move to approve an offset of $40.00 for Pager Expense increase and office supply decrease for the 16th District Court by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04627.A-22) Move to delete slot 012-CS @ $41,311 under Department of Information Services, decrease by $22,282 the Computer Software line item under Justice Information Systems to help offset a New Hire - Network Manager @ $62,822 - in Information Systems by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-0463Judge Horn: Don Alexander is here to discuss Elections on Page 2 of 12. I know you were out of town during our appeals, so we would be glad to hear from you today.
Mr. Alexander, Director of Elections: All three items being requested are required by state law: $12,000 for Voter Registration postage, Printed Material increase of $2,235 and Voting Equipment increase of $59,000. I am asking to have everything restored to my budget as I originally requested. My initial budget did not include a county-wide election in February so I will be back for about $50,000 in my Election Supply line for ballots and equipment. I will be back to court in July of 2004 for a budget amendment from Unappropriated Contingency.7.A-23) Move to restore $73,235 to Elections by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion and second withdrawn.7.A-23) Move to restore $12,000 to Postage - Elections - by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04647.A-24) Move to restore $2,235 for Printed Material in Elections by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04657.A-25) Move to restore $59,000 for Voting Equipment by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04667.A-26) Move to remove the following people from classification in Human Resources because they are department heads: Danny Brumley, Tye DeBerry and Jody Gonzalez by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04677.A-27) Move to approve a New Hire - Part-time Deputy Clerk - @ $15,996 in the District Clerk's Office by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04687.A-28) Move to approve a New Hire - Court Clerk - in Justice of the Peace Precinct # 1for a total cost of $32,078 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 03-04697.A-29) Move to approve an increase of $1,312 to Office Supplies for desks for Justice of the Peace, Precinct # 6 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04707.A-30) Move to approve an increase to Training & Education @ $1,500 in the Treasurer's Office by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04717.A-31) Move to approve an increase to Computer Supplies in Treasurer's Office @ $840 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Failed 2-2-07.A-31) Move to approve a Part-Time to Full-Time Employee increase in the Treasurer's Office @ $10,943 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04727.A-32) Move to approve a New Hire - Deputy Clerk/Ad Valorem - in the Tax Office @ $34,907 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Failed 2-2-07.A-32) Move to approve an increase of increase of $4,950 for three fax machines in the Tax Office by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04737.A-33) Move to approve an increase of $1,470 to replace a dot matrix printer in the Tax Office by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04747.A-34) Move to approve Budget Director's recommendation in Facility Management for money reallocation amongst all county buildings for a 0 impact to the budget by Comm. White, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04757.A-35) Move to approve an increase of $7,000 for Holiday Lighting at the Courthouse on the Square by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 03-0476Ms. Stewart: Line item 6600 under Tax Office - Proximity Card Access @ $5,000- is in the Tax Notes for this year so that line item can be eliminated.
Judge Horn: In the Sandy Jacobs Government Center and The Colony Government Center, the request for the Shelf under Main Computer @ $230 - can that be done this year?
Ms. Stewart: I'll make a note and we'll work on that. Also, under the Charlie Cole Building on Page 6 of 12, the line item for replacement of carpet can be eliminated as that is being taken care of this year, and under Operations, delete the $52,500 request for Proximity Cards as that has been addressed in Tax Notes.
7.A-36) Move to restore Deleted Slot # 004-OP and Reclassify in Operations at a cost of $43,005 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Failed 2-2-0
ITEM 17 RECESS 2:55 PM
ITEM 18 RECONVENE 3:10 PM
7.A-36) Move to Increase Telephone Service @ $39,497 by Comm. Carter.
Motion dies for lack of a second.7.A-36) Move to Restore Deleted Slots # 151-JA and # 170-JA to County Jail along with Law & Reference Books and Training & Education for a total amount of $86,777 by Comm. Carter.
Motion dies for lack of a second.7.A-36) Move to approve a New Hire - Deputy Sheriff/Warrants - and all related expenses @ $86,944 in the Sheriff's Department by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Failed 2-2-07.A-36) Move to replace nine (9) Patrol Vehicles @ $23,500 each in the Sheriff's Dept. by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04777.A-37) Move to approve a New Hire - Upgrade current Part-time Office Support Specialist 1 to Full-time - in the office of Constable, Precinct # 1 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04787.A-38) Move to approve a New Hire - Part-time Office Support Specialist 1 - in the office of Constable, Precinct # 2 by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Failed 2-2-07.A-38) Move to approve New Hire - Deputy Constable - in the office of Constable, Precinct # 3 by Comm. Mitchell, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Failed 2-2-0Judge Horn: We will be revisiting all of the tied items on Tuesday when we have a full court. Next is Constable Precinct # 4 on Page 9 of 12.
7.A-38) Move to replace a Patrol Vehicle for Constable Precinct # 4 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion removed by both parties7.A-38) Move to create a line item for Remote Access Charges for Constable Precinct # 4 by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04797.A-39) Move to replace vehicle and Operating Supplies for a Ford F150 Supercrew for License & Weights @ $29,569 with the old vehicle transferred to the Department of Information Services by Comm. Carter, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-04807.A-40) Move to approve a New Hire in Emergency Management - Part-time Emergency Management Specialist and the accompanying expenses - @ $20, 127 - by Comm. Carter,
seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04817.A-41) Move to approve under Appropriations, $11,343 for the Denton Central Appraisal District by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (White nay)
Court Order 03-0482Judge Horn: Next on Page 10 of 12 is Centralized Road & Bridge.
Ms. Stewart: The good news is the court took action on this item on Tuesday - the action was on the budget which included all of these changes. The only item was the reclassification revision and that has been deleted from the appeals.
Judge Horn: All has been taken care of except for Comm. Carter's request for the $500,000.
Ms. Stewart: We will carry that for discussion.
Judge Horn: With your permission, sir, we will take that up at the end of the budget and when we have a full court.
7.A-42) Move to approve under the District Clerk Records Management Fund $27,995 which will be completely offset by revenue by Comm. Carter, seconded by Judge Horn.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04837.A-43) Move to approve under Juvenile Probation the increased office rental of $3,000 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04847.A-44) Move to approve under Public Health the increased Professional Liability Insurance @ $20,000 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. Carter.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-04857.A-45) Move to approve under Public Health/Environmental a New Hire - Office Support Specialist (shared with Clinical) - @ $35,315 by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 3-1-0 (Mitchell nay)
Court Order 03-04867.A-46) Move to approve under Bioterrorism Grant $5,123 offset by the grant revenue for 0 impact to the budget by Comm. White, seconded by Comm. Mitchell.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0487Ms. Stewart: We did give you some new information in our hand-out regarding Courthouse Security Budget - Page R-159. The Courthouse Security Committee is recommending changes to this budget. This request will not affect the bottom line budget - they want to reallocate $50,000 out of their own contingency and put towards operating equipment. Also, they would like to reduce the fund balance for that specific fund by $50,000 so they could fulfill their requests as seen on Page R-163 of your packet. Line Item 6810 would be reduced by $50,000, their fund balance would be reduced by $50,000 with that $100,000 going into a new line item for operating equipment.
7.A-47) Move to approve under Courthouse Security the reallocation of $50,000 from their own contingency and $50,000 from their own fund balance for a new line item of $100,000 for operating equipment by Judge Horn, seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0488Ms. Stewart: Tie votes will be discussed on Tuesday. Court may want to vote on Comm. Mitchell's cuts.
Comm. White: Comm. Mitchell, are you not interested in bringing forth your cuts?
Comm. Mitchell: If there is interest by the court….I have a long list with the Training & Education having already been voted on.
Ms. Stewart: I have the information comparing your cuts to her cuts. Commissioner Precinct # 3 was $125 with Comm. White's cut and $200 on Comm. Mitchell's. The County Clerk - Comm. White's cut was $600, Comm. Mitchell's $200. For Purchasing, the approved cut was $385, Comm. Mitchell's suggested cut was $300. We did not use Comm. White's cut on Non-Departmental because that is part of the State Participation fee for the county to be a part of the Travel Management Program which saves the county a lot of travel money. For Information Services, Comm. White's cut was $435 to Comm. Mitchell's $700. County Planning was exactly the same cut for both of you - $500. Records Management's cut from Comm. White was $125 to $100 for Comm. Mitchell. Veterans Service - the cut was $104 by Comm. White's motion and $100 for Comm. Mitchell's. Elections - $175 to Comm. Mitchell's $200 as it was with all the District Courts except for CCC # 1 - Comm. White's cut was $150 and Comm. Mitchell's cut was $200. For Probate Court - Comm. White's cut was $300, Comm. Mitchell's, $200. District Clerk: White - $169, Mitchell - $200; JP # 1: White - $225 , Mitchell - $200; D.A: White - $2000, Mitchell - $1000; Civil Division: White - $350, Mitchell - $500. County Auditor: White - $275, Mitchell - $ 200. License & Weights: White - $ 125, Mitchell - $200.
Comm. White: For the ones where Comm. Mitchell's are deeper, including her own department, and I understand my motion of 5% cut has already been applied, I think we should go with her deeper cuts.
Comm. Mitchell: We have already voted on yours, I don't have a problem with not making my cuts.Comm. Carter: I am fine with the adjustments already made.
7.A-48) Move to approve all of Comm. Mitchell's cuts, not including her Training & Education cuts and except for the mobile phone expenses for Economic Development, office supplies for Commissioner, Precinct # 2, and benches in the County Judge's Office by Comm. Mitchell,
seconded by Comm. White.
Motion Carried 4-0-0
Court Order 03-0489Ms. Stewart: That cut equals $3,500: Records Management - $1,000; Information Services Mobile Phone - $400; County Court Administrator - $200; JP # 1 - $200; Civil - $300; Auditor - $200; Tax - $200; Budget - $200; Operations - $200 twice; Communications - $100 and Sheriff - $300.
Judge Horn: Donna, would you take a look at the expenditures for printed materials in the Tax Office vs. what was budgeted.
Ms. Stewart: The budget is $14,774 this year and $11,327 has been spent this year.
Judge Horn: That should be OK. We did it. Thank you, Donna, for all of your hard. We have given you a lot to do between now and Tuesday.
Ms. Stewart: We will bring back a new spreadsheet with all the motions on Tuesday.
Judge Horn: We are adjourned - 4:00.
This set of minutes compiled by Deputy Clerk Kathleen Bransford and reviewed by County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell.