meeting agenda 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., tuesday, june 25 ......meeting agenda 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.,...

MEETING AGENDA 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

By Friday, June 21st, materials will be available at:

http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-funding-budget/trial-court-budget-commission/

Welcome and Roll Call I. Opening Remarks by Chair II. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes III. FY 2018-19 Budget

A. Salary Budgets B. Positions Vacant More than 180 Days C. Operating Budgets D. Trust Fund Cash Balances E. Year-End Spending Plan

IV. Personnel Committee Recommendations

A. Incentive Plan Retroactive Policy B. Acting Senior Manager Policy

V. FY 2019-20 Budget

A. Start-Up Salary Budget and Management B. Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum



TCBC Agenda June 25, 2019

VI. FY 2019-20 Allocations

A. Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers and General Magistrates B. Full-Time Equivalent and Base Operating Budgets C. Non-Due Process Contractual Allocations: Senior Judge Days, Civil Traffic

Infraction Hearing Officers, Additional Compensation to County Judges, and Mediation

D. Due Process Contractual Allocations: Court Interpreting, Expert Witnesses, Court Reporting, and Cost Recovery

Break

E. Statewide Allocations 1. Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project 2. Integrated Case Management System

F. Problem-Solving Courts Appropriation/Advisory Group Update G. Allocations for Other Special Appropriations

1. Domestic Violence Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Technology

2. Vivitrol/Naltrexone to Treat Alcohol- or Opioid-Addicted Offenders

VII. Recruitment and Retention Pay Issue for State Courts System Employees VIII. FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

A. LBR Timeline B. Issues for Consideration

1. Leadership and Accountability 2. Civil Case Efficiency Initiative 3. Children and Families 4. Interpreting Services 5. Other Local Requests 6. Courthouse Furnishings

C. Priority Ranking of LBR Issues

Break

TCBC Agenda June 25, 2019

IX. 2020 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda X. County Court Jurisdiction Status Report XI. Due Process Workgroup Update XII. Report from Chief Justice Designee to Florida Clerks of Court Operations

Corporation Executive Council

XIII. Other Business Adjourn

Agenda Item I. Opening Remarks by Chair There are no materials for this agenda item.

of 247

Agenda Item II. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes

of 247

DRAFT Trial Court Budget Commission

Meeting Minutes February 1, 2019 Orlando, Florida

Attendance – Members Present The Honorable Margaret Steinbeck, Chair The Honorable Debra Nelson The Honorable Mark Mahon, Vice Chair The Honorable Greg Parker The Honorable Monica Brasington Ms. Kathleen Pugh The Honorable Angela Cowden The Honorable Kathleen Roberts Ms. Holly Elomina The Honorable Anthony Rondolino The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta The Honorable Elijah Smiley The Honorable Robert Hilliard Mr. Walt Smith The Honorable Glenn Kelley The Honorable Bertilla Soto The Honorable Frederick Lauten The Honorable John Stargel Mr. Jonathan Lin Mr. Mark Weinberg Ms. Sandra Lonergan Attendance – Members Absent The Honorable David Denkin Mr. Grant Slayden

Special Note: It is recommended these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting materials. Chair Steinbeck called the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The roll was taken with a quorum present. Agenda Item I: Introductory Remarks by Chair and Welcome of New Members Chair Steinbeck welcomed Justice Alan C. Lawson to the meeting, and welcomed new members Judge Glenn Kelley-Fifteenth Circuit, Judge Kathleen Roberts-Nineteenth Circuit, and Trial Court Administrator Jonathan Lin-Fifth Circuit, to the commission. Chair Steinbeck also thanked former members Judge Patricia Thomas, Judge Catherine Brunson, and Tom Genung for their service, and welcomed back reappointed members. Chair Steinbeck also thanked State Courts Administrator PK Jameson for her service to the commission and the branch. Agenda Item II: Approval of Meeting Minutes Chair Steinbeck presented the draft meeting minutes from the August 28, 2018, TCBC meeting and asked if there were any changes necessary before approval. Judge Ficarrotta requested that Agenda

of 247

Trial Court Budget Commission Minutes February 1, 2019 Orlando, Florida

Page 2 of 9

Item X. reflect Tara Green as the Vice-Chair of the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation (CCOC), and then moved to approve the minutes as amended. Judge Lauten seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Chair Steinbeck then presented the draft meeting minutes from the November 15, 2018, TCBC meeting and asked if there were any changes necessary before approval. Vice-Chair Mahon moved to approve the minutes as drafted, and Judge Hilliard seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. Agenda Item III: FY 2017-18 Budget Status A. Salary Budgets

Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the trial court salary budgets for FY 2018-19 as of December 31, 2018. The salary liability for the trial courts General Revenue/State Court Revenue Trust Fund was $1,714,916 over the salary appropriation; however, estimated lapse is expected to cover the deficit by the end of April 2019. Ms. Willard noted recent lapse trends indicate higher lapse due to vacant Court Interpreter positions and judicial turnover. The Administrative Trust Fund salary liability was under the appropriation by $5,071, and the Federal Grants Trust Fund liability was over the appropriation by $31,711.

B. Positions Vacant More Than 180 Days Beatriz Caballero presented the positions vacant for more than 180 days as of January 15, 2019, and noted the majority of positions are Court Interpreters in the 11th Circuit. Sandy Lonergan added that even with the recent Court Interpreter Incentives recently implemented, the competition for interpreters remains challenging, and additional dialogue may be needed to address this issue.

C. Operating Budgets Jessie McMillan reviewed the operating budget expenditures for FY 2018-19 as of December 31, 2018. Ms. McMillan noted that although the Due Process expenditures reflect less than 50% year-to-date, these expenditures have increased 12.1% from the same period in FY 2017-18. However, it is anticipated there will be sufficient Due Process funding for FY 2018-19. Ms. McMillan then noted that since the problem-solving court allocations were received from the legislature in a lump sum for FY 2018-19, comparable data cannot be presented for prior year. Ms. McMillan reported the current year data reflects 28.70% of the allocations have been expended. Jennifer Grandal stated that programs newly funded typically expend their funds at a slower pace while implementing the programs and added that previously funded courts are expending their funds at a normal pace.

of 247


Page 3 of 9

Ms. McMillan then reported on Senior Judge activity through January 25, 2019 and noted that days served has increased 29% from the same period in FY 2017-18. Vice-Chair Mahon noted last fiscal year’s remaining funds were not re-appropriated and asked if the re-appropriation of these funds should be addressed with the legislature. Chair Steinbeck added that she has received concerns about the increased need for senior judges and stated this issue can be readdressed upon receiving a legislative decision regarding the certification of new judges, if needed. Chair Steinbeck asked the Budget Management Committee (BMC) to carefully watch this issue should the commission need to hold an emergency meeting to readdress the reversion/re-appropriation issue for FY 2019-20. Mark Weinberg noted both the 5th Circuit and the 7th Circuit received a special allocation of days for use in specific counties. Mr. Weinberg noted that the 7th Circuit is not going to use all the special allocation and those will revert unless they can be utilized by other circuits. Chair Steinbeck asked the 5th and 7th circuits to prepare a chart for the BMC that separates the special allocation days from the regular allocation.

D. Trust Fund Cash Balances Jessie McMillan provided an overview of the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund (SCRTF) cash balance for FY 2018-19 as of December 31, 2018 and reported there is an approximate carry forward into FY 2019-20 of $17 million.

Agenda Item IV: Problem-Solving Court Funding Implementation and Planning Please note the discussion and decisions made in Agenda Item IV. do not follow agenda numbering. Agenda Items IV.A through IV.H are encompassed within Agenda Item IV.A. A. Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group Changes

Eric Maclure provided an overview of how problem-solving court (PSC) allocations are determined, and stated prior to FY 2018-19, allocations often were funded as legislative initiatives in a particular community and specified in the General Appropriations Act. For FY 2018-19, the legislature took a new approach and appropriated a lump-sum allocation for problem-solving courts of approximately $8.9 million. Of that amount, approximately $1.4 million was designated for specific Veterans Courts, and the remaining $7.5 million was rolled up for use by existing and new problem-solving courts. Mr. Maclure described how FY 2018-19 allocations were determined by the TCBC with the assistance of the Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group (Advisory Group). Mr. Maclure provided an overview of the Advisory Group’s shift to become a subcommittee of the Steering Committee on Problem-Solving Courts, to provide policy direction to inform the work of the TCBC. Mr. Maclure stated the Advisory Group has analyzed numerous issues, and the Group’s recommendations are being presented to the commission today for consideration.

of 247


Page 4 of 9

Jennifer Grandal provided an overview of the Advisory Group recommendations for the commission’s consideration. 1. Allowable Expenditures and Future Revisions to Funding Guidelines The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to adopt their recommendations on allowable expenses and provide the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) with the latitude to update FY 2018-19 Problem-Solving Court Guidelines provided to the circuits, as needed. Judge Nelson moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Soto seconded. The motion passed without objection. 2. FDCCMS Licenses for State Funded Problem-Solving Courts The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to retain $15,000 for Florida Drug Court Case Management System (FDCCMS) licenses until final decisions are made about what data will be required for reporting. Walt Smith moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Nelson seconded. The motion passed without objection. 3. FDCCMS Licenses for Non-State Funded Problem-Solving Courts The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to provide circuits with the authority to use circuit funds to purchase a FDCCMS license until the OSCA receives additional state funding as requested through the judicial branch’s legislative budget request. Walt Smith moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Rondolino seconded. The motion passed without objection. 4. Modifications to Existing Funding Proviso The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to request that the legislature expand current proviso to allow funds to be spent on best practices training and education for all multi-disciplinary team members. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Soto seconded. The motion passed without objection. 5. Re-appropriation of FY 2018-19 Funding The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to request, consistent with the judicial branch’s governance process, that the legislature re-appropriate unspent funding to allow problem-solving courts additional time to spend funds in FY 2019-20. Judge Nelson moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Parker seconded. The motion passed without objection. 6. Long-Term Plan for Determining Allocations The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to adopt a 3-year funding strategy that includes best practice standards and certification as a condition of receiving funding beginning in FY 2021-22 (contingent on final standards and a certification program adopted by the Florida Supreme Court). In the interim, specific data for each primary problem-solving court type would be required for reporting beginning in FY 2019-20 and compliance with performance

of 247


Page 5 of 9

benchmarks beginning in FY 2020-21. Judge Mahon moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Soto seconded. The motion passed without objection. 7. Short-Term Plan for Determining Allocations in FY 2019-20 The Advisory Group and the TCBC Executive Committee recommended Option 1, that problem-solving courts that receive funding in the current fiscal year receive priority for funding in FY 2019-20. Circuits could submit funding requests by submitting a detailed budget to the OSCA for each problem-solving court for consideration by the Advisory Group for recommendation to the TCBC. Problem-solving courts that received new funding this fiscal year for 9-months may request additional funding for the full year. If additional funding becomes available for FY 2019-20, the circuits will submit request for funding through an application process like the one used for this fiscal year with detailed budgets included. Problem-solving courts with best practice standards in place or under development and with statewide technology and infrastructure available to support them to ensure program performance can be measured would receive priority for any new funding allocations. Judge Ficarrotta moved to approve Option 1, and Judge Mahon seconded. The motion passed without objection. 8. Re-allocation of FY 2018-19 Funding Chair Steinbeck asked if there was a motion to allow the re-allocation of FY 2018-19 funding to be added to the TCBC agenda for discussion. Judge Ficcarotta moved to approve, and Jon Lin seconded. The motion passed without objection. Chair Steinbeck then asked if there was a motion to allow re-allocation of FY 2018-19 funding for problem-solving courts. Judge Mahon moved to approve, and Judge Soto seconded. Eric Maclure clarified that the TCBC Executive Committee previously discussed the issue and recommended any funds reallocated between problem-solving courts would be on a non-recurring basis and would not impact any potential FY 2019-20 allocations. He further clarified that the Executive Committee discussed three possible scenarios that would allow for reallocation of funds; (1) allow for circuits to transfer funds from any unallowable expenditures to allowable expenditures internally through OSCA staff and would not require the Commission’s approval; (2) circuits may transfer funds among problem-solving courts within their circuits; (3) unobligated funds may be reallocated to another circuit as long as it is not restricted by language in the General Appropriations Act. A recommendation was made that re-allocation requests be considered by the Problem-Solving Courts Advisory Group and then recommended to the Executive Committee for approval. Judge Mahon amended his motion to reflect that re-allocations would not be recurring, and scenario’s (2) and (3) above be considered by the TCBC Executive Committee for approval based on recommendations from the Advisory Group. Judge Soto seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

of 247


Page 6 of 9

Agenda Item V: Special Projects for Trial Court Funding Consideration A. Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Projects

Lindsay Hafford provided an overview of the Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup and their recommendations that have been approved by the Supreme Court, with modifications. Ms. Hafford added the Court has also requested the Workgroup provide a progress report by June 30, 2019. Ms. Hafford reported in the coming weeks, the Workgroup will be developing a formal pilot implementation plan for consideration by the Court, and stated to proceed with this plan, TCBC direction is needed. Chair Steinbeck reported that the TCBC Executive Committee recommends Option 1, with modifications of available funding to be determined via reconsideration of the TCBC closer to year-end. Chair Steinbeck asked Dorothy Willard for a projection of available funds at year-end, and Ms. Willard reported that at this time, these funds should be available at year-end. Judge Mahon moved to approve Option 1, with modification; to approve current-year funding to cover the costs of the online dispute resolution pilot project, based on the high-end estimate of $98,500, after Supreme Court approval of the formal pilot implementation plan and contingent on available funding via reconsideration of the TCBC. Judge Brasington seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

B. Classification and Pay Study Eric Maclure reported that in August 2018, the TCBC recommended OSCA solicit proposals from vendors for a comprehensive study of the classification and pay system. In November 2018, OSCA issued an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for these services. Mr. Maclure stated the initial bid amounts are in the range of $220,000 and noted the final cost will not be known until the negotiation process is complete. Mr. Maclure added this agenda item is for information purposes only at this time, but it is anticipated that the various budget entities will be asked to share in the cost of the study, which is likely to begin this fiscal year and possibly continue into next fiscal year and therefore, the TCBC may wish to consider a plan for allocation of funds toward this project in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.

Agenda Item VI: FY 2018-19 Year-End Spending Plan Eric Maclure reported that the last three fiscal years have included a year-end spending plan to address and possibly meet critical needs. The current process for implementation of this plan is via email outreach to the chief judges and trial court administrators for identification of unobligated funds and local needs. The data is then compiled for Budget Management Committee and Funding Methodology Committee review and priority recommendation for presentation to the TCBC. Mr. Maclure then stated that this year’s communication will also include a request for each court to provide the current status of issues that were funded for implementation last fiscal year. The reason for this request is that in FY

of 247


Page 7 of 9

2017-18, there were two year-end spending plans; an initial request in March 2018, which encompassed a variety of requests and a second request in May 2018, which focused on Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI). Since the majority of requests were technical in nature, a status report on these issues will provide vital information to assist the commission in determining the priority needs for FY 2018-19. Judge Rondolino moved to approve Option 1, to direct staff of the OSCA to contact the circuits for assistance in determining if any unobligated funds are remaining that could be pooled together to meet needs on a statewide level, after each circuit had estimated its budgetary needs through fiscal year-end and assessed funding needed to address its own internal spending plans. Judge Mahon seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Agenda Item VII: 2019 Legislative Session A. Revenue Estimating Conference Results

Kelsey Harper provided an overview of the Article V Revenue Estimating and General Revenue Conferences and reported the estimated current year reserves for FY 2018-19. Ms. Harper added the next Revenue Estimating Conference will be February 13, 2019, and added this agenda item is for information purposes only.

B. Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda Eric Maclure provided an overview of the 2019 Judicial Branch Substantive Legislative Agenda. This agenda item is for information purposes only.

Agenda Item VIII: Policy Revisions and Development A. Judicial Assistant Incentive Plan

Beatriz Caballero reported there are three incentive plans in the trial courts; law clerk, certified court interpreter, and judicial assistant. Ms. Caballero stated the chief justice has requested the TCBC submit a recommendation on whether all three incentive plans should be revised to eliminate the prohibition on retroactive application, effective with any errors that occur on or after the date of such a revision, and requested the TCBC work with OSCA staff to develop and implement procedures to help judicial circuits track employee eligibility for the incentive plans and thereby minimize the risk of oversight. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1, to refer the issue to the TCBC Personnel Committee for analysis and development of the recommendations. If the Personnel Committee determines the policy should allow for retroactive application, it would recommend parameters governing retroactive application (e.g., limited to same fiscal year). The Personnel Committee would also

of 247


Page 8 of 9

address procedures to help judicial circuits track employee eligibility. Judge Soto seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

B. Employees and Contractors

Eric Maclure provided a historical overview and current status of this issue, noting the Department of Financial Services is still proactively looking at this issue and OSCA staff are continuing to work on guidelines to assist the circuits navigating these situations.

C. Trial Court Budget Commission Operating Procedures

Eric Maclure provided a historical overview of the creation of the TCBC, and the commission’s charge to establish operating procedures to carry out its responsibilities. Mr. Maclure reported the current policies were last revised in 2002, and then presented the recommended substantive revisions to the current policy. Judge Soto moved to approve Option 1, to approve the revised operating procedures for submission to the Supreme Court, giving staff technical latitude to make non-substantive revisions prior to submission to the Court, including incorporating a recommendation by Judge Rondolino to conform the voting-level requirement for Executive Committee delegations to the voting-level requirements for meeting quorums. Holly Elomina seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

D. Awards Policy

Eric Maclure reported the Supreme Court Personnel Regulations Manual provides specific criteria for an awards policy. Mr. Maclure stated the TCBC previously issued policy memoranda to the circuits prohibiting the purchase of awards prior to December 1 in a fiscal year and added this issue is being presented for TCBC consideration today to determine if award purchases should be permitted prior to that date. Mr. Maclure noted that should a revised policy be approved, the TCBC may also wish to consider recommending to the chief justice that the policy be codified in the budget and pay administration memorandum for ease of reference. Chair Steinbeck reported the TCBC Executive Committee recommends there be no exceptions to the policy to Section 11 of the Personnel Regulations. Judge Lauten moved to approve the TCBC Executive Committee’s recommendation. Holly Elomina seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Agenda Item IX: Other Business Report from Chief Justice Designee to Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Executive Council Chair Steinbeck asked Judge Ficarrotta to provide a status report on the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Executive Council (CCOC). Judge Ficarrotta reported the positive relationship and hard work between the courts and the Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Executive Council

of 247


Page 9 of 9

continues, and added we look forward to continuing to work with the CCOC throughout the upcoming session. Adjournment With no other business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:13 p.m.

of 247

DRAFT Trial Court Budget Commission

Meeting Minutes April 12, 2019

Conference Call Attendance – Members Present The Honorable Margaret Steinbeck, Chair The Honorable Debra Nelson The Honorable Mark Mahon, Vice Chair The Honorable Greg Parker The Honorable Monica Brasington The Honorable Kathleen Roberts The Honorable Angela Cowden The Honorable Anthony Rondolino Ms. Honorable David Denkin Mr. Grant Slayden Ms. Holly Elomina The Honorable Elijah Smiley The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta Mr. Walt Smith The Honorable Robert Hillard The Honorable Bertilla Soto The Honorable Frederick Lauten The Honorable John Stargel Mr. Jonathan Lin Attendance – Members Absent The Honorable Glenn Kelley The Honorable Diana Moreland Ms. Kathleen Pugh Mr. Mark Weinberg

Special Note: It is recommended these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting materials. Chair Steinbeck called the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. and reminded members that the meeting was being recorded for administrative accuracy. The roll was taken with a quorum present. Chair Steinbeck invited additional phone participants to introduce themselves. Chair Steinbeck reported that Kris Slayden has been assigned as lead staff to the TCBC, with Eric Maclure to remain actively involved with commission activities. Chair Steinbeck then thanked Mr. Maclure for his years of outstanding service as TCBC lead staff. Agenda Item I: FY 2018-19 Year-End Spending Plan Jessie McMillan provided background information of the TCBC’s approval, at the February 1, 2019, meeting, for a year-end spending plan and direction to OSCA staff to assist the circuits with evaluating unobligated funds and outstanding needs. Ms. McMillan reviewed the available funding and circuit

of 247

Trial Court Budget Commission Minutes April 12, 2019

Conference Call Page 2 of 5

requests and noted that all requests have been reviewed and approved for authority to fund. Ms. McMillan then presented three options; Option 1 to approve each circuit’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority requests; Option 2 to approve one of more groups of requests of the proposed year-end spending plan; and Option 3 to propose an alternative plan. Ms. McMillan noted that approval of Option 1 or Option 2 would require an exception request be submitted to the chief justice to allow the trial courts to purchase due process related equipment using due process contractual services funds. Chair Steinbeck asked if there were any proposed alternative plans. Hearing none, she welcomed discussion regarding Options 1 and 2. Walt Smith moved to approve Option 1, as the circuits know their individual needs to be addressed. Judge Ficarrotta seconded the motion. Chair Steinbeck then asked if there was a motion for Option 2. Hearing none, Chair Steinbeck welcomed continued discussion for Option 1. Judge Brasington moved for an amendment to Option 1, to allow the Executive Committee to make any adjustments to the approved year-end spending plan that may be needed. Walt Smith concurred. Chair Steinbeck showed Option 1 as moved by Walt Smith and seconded with an amendment by Judge Brasington. Judge Rondolino asked for clarification of the Executive Committee’s authority within the amendment. Judge Brasington stated that the goal is to approve each circuit’s priority request(s) as submitted; however, in the event OSCA staff determines that a purchase does not qualify for state dollars, the circuit would be provided an opportunity to submit an alternative purchase request for the same amount, pending Executive Committee approval. Chair Steinbeck reminded the commission that during the FY 2017-18 year-end spending plan process, the TCBC approved the Executive Committee to review and approve any amended requests to ensure the items are appropriate to purchase with state funds. Judge Rondolino indicated his support for that modification. Eric Maclure noted that additional clarification may be needed in the event a circuit reports their 3rd priority request is dependent on their 4th or subsequent requests. Judge Brasington proposed that should a circuit’s 3rd and 4th request both be required for functionality, the circuit would need to select a new 3rd priority request to remain within the same level of funding approved by the commission. Chair Steinbeck asked if there were any questions or concerns with regards to the additional modification. There being none, Chair Steinbeck asked if there was anyone opposed to Option 1, as amended. With no objections, Chair Steinbeck noted Option 1, as amended, unanimously approved. Agenda Item II: FY 2019-20 Problem-Solving Court Allocations Eric Maclure provided an overview of the Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group (Advisory Group) recommendations for FY 2019-20 Problem-Solving Court (PSC) allocations that were presented at the February 1, 2019, TCBC meeting. The Advisory Group recommended allocations be prioritized using a

of 247



tiered approach, with the first step being to address continuation funding. Mr. Maclure then deferred to Judge Leifman, Chair of the Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group, for an update. Judge Leifman reported budget instructions were provided to the circuits for use in determining PSC allocations needed for FY 2019-20. The returned budget requests totaled approximately $1 million more than the current PSC appropriations. Based on these requests and the current appropriation available, the Advisory Group recommends Option 1, to provide continuation funding at the circuit requested FY 2018-19 funding levels ($8,847,633 with $79,213 remaining in reserve); provide increased funding to meet the annualized 9-month funding cost ($377,230) if additional funds are received during the 2019 Legislative Session; and provide all circuits the opportunity to request new funding through an application process if additional funds are remaining after the annualized funding cost is addressed. Sharon Bosley confirmed that all requests have been reviewed to ensure they are in compliance with the Problem-Solving Court Guidelines. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1. Judge Parker seconded the motion. Chair Steinbeck asked if there were any objections to Option 1. With no objections, Chair Steinbeck noted Option 1 as unanimously approved. Chair Steinbeck then thanked Judge Leifman for his leadership on this workgroup. Agenda Item III: Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Administrative Support Reallocation Kelsey Harper provided an overview of the reallocation process for the Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer (CSEHO) element and presented the proposed reallocation of a vacant 1.0 FTE administrative support staff position from the 18th Circuit to the 4th Circuit. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1. Grant Slayden seconded the motion. Chair Steinbeck asked if there were any objections to Option 1. With no objections, Chair Steinbeck noted Option 1 as unanimously approved. Agenda Item IV: 2019 Legislative Session Status Report Lisa Kiel reported the TCBC and branch priority issue, employee pay, is currently fully funded in the Senate budget, with proviso language and distribution requirements included. Ms. Kiel stated the House and Senate will likely conference the budget bills the week of April 22, 2019. Ms. Kiel noted that proposed cuts to circuit court FTE and trust funds currently in the House Budget are being addressed.

of 247



Agenda Item V: FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request Planning A. Timeline Chair Steinbeck reported the 2020 Session will begin on January 14, 2020, which requires the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) to be submitted no later than September 16, 2019. Due to the compressed timeline, priority issues must be decided today for OSCA staff to prepare cost-outs for TCBC consideration of final LBR recommendations at the June 25, 2019 meeting. B. Development Approach Chair Steinbeck requested Kris Slayden provide information regarding LBR preparation options for the commission’s consideration. Kris Slayden explained in detail the various approaches to LBR development. The current approach used is based on specific elements and statewide funding formulas to determine the resources needed. Alternative approaches are a statewide, policy driven approach (e.g., civil case efficiency initiative considered for the FY 2019-20 LBR) or a circuit-specific, policy driven approach. Grant Slayden moved to approve Option 1, statewide, policy driven LBR issues with outreach to the circuits for potential circuit-specific needs, to be considered by the Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) and the TCBC at their June meetings. Judge Nelson seconded the motion. Chair Steinbeck asked if there were any further discussion or objections regarding this issue. Hearing none, Chair Steinbeck noted Option 1 as unanimously approved. C. Identification and Discussion of Potential Issues Chair Steinbeck stated the discussion today is not to determine the order of priorities, but instead to determine the issues for consideration at the June meeting. Walt Smith moved to approve the employee pay issue be included as an issue for consideration, if necessary. Judge Roberts seconded. There were no objections. Grant Slayden moved to approve the civil case initiative as an issue for consideration. Judge Lauten seconded. There were no objections. Judge Nelson suggested case managers and general counsels. Chair Steinbeck defined those as more element-based and noted case managers may end up as a piece of the civil case initiative. Judge Nelson indicated some circuits do not have general counsels and they are needed to carry-out increased legislative mandates. Ms. Kiel asked what type of case managers Judge Nelson’s circuit needs. Judge Nelson stated while case managers could be utilized in numerous case types, family court does have the greatest need. Lisa suggested the possibility of an issue being crafted around family court case managers or resources for family court needs, and another issue could be developed to provide administrative support to circuits, including general counsel and court technology officer positions.

of 247



Grant Slayden mentioned there is a growing need for case managers, staff attorneys, or some sort of court support for an emerging criminal court issue related to bail-bonds and pre-trial release. While this issue is the responsibility of the local courts, the chief judge under the rules of court has the responsibility to monitor jail populations and conduct criminal case management. Judge Rondolino noted the expansion of specialty courts. Currently, there are variations among circuits for drug courts, mental health courts, etc. The way it is currently funded also reduces resources available for other court needs. Chair Steinbeck reported Judge Stargel was no longer on the call due to technical difficulties, then stated Judge Stargel previously identified the expansion of the remote court interpreting, based on each circuit’s individual needs. Chair Steinbeck added there is a workgroup that is looking at the requirement to record proceedings for hearings where there is a lesser-qualified interpreter providing the interpretation services; its recommendations are unknown at this time, but this is an issue statewide. Jon Lin added that American sign language interpreters are also a component of a court interpreter issue. Walt Smith mentioned criminal justice reform. Chair Steinbeck suggested we call it criminal justice initiative and look at pre-trial release components as well as specialty courts that might deal within criminal cases and other components. Walt Smith concurred. Chair Steinbeck provided an overview of the issues suggested and noted staff will need to cost-out these issues. Due to the number of requests to be addressed prior to the June meeting and the need to provide staff direction regarding administrative priorities, Chair Steinbeck indicated an email will be sent to commission members next week to determine their preferred issues. The commission concurred. The issues for FY 2020-21 consideration are as follows:

- Staff Equity and Retention Pay (if not funded during 2019 session) - Civil Case Initiative (include case managers and mediators as a component) - Administrative Support (include General Counsels, possibly technology officers) - Family Court resources - Specialty Courts - Interpreter Services - Criminal Justice Initiative (pre-trial release)

Adjournment With no other business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

of 247

Agenda Item III. FY 2018-19 Budget

of 247

Agenda Item III.A. FY 2018-19 Budget - Salary Budgets

of 247

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019 300,331,150

2 Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2019 20,265

3 Projected Law Clerk Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2019 1,770

4 Projected Law Clerk Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2019 1,207

5 Judicial Assistant Incentive Liability through June 30, 2019 4,801

6 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2019 (Based on two year average) 8,554

7 Projected Court Interpreter Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2019 2,385

8 Projected Court Interpreter Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2019 933

9 Remaining Chief Judge Discretionary Funds 30,911

10 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019 300,401,976

11 Salary Appropriation (296,342,153)

12 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 4,059,823

13 Actual Payroll Adjustments through May 31, 2019 (4,962,787)

14 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (902,964)

15 Projected Leave Payouts (Based on two year average) 128,510

16 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (774,454)





21 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (90,386)


23 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (1,417,272)


25 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (1,372,425)






31 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2019 (Based on two year average) 8,554


33 Projected Court Interpreter Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2019 933

34 Remaining Chief Judge Discretionary Funds 30,911





39 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (2,320,236)


41 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (2,146,879)

Trial Court Budget Commission

June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Item III.A.: Salary Budgets

FY 2018-19 Trial Courts Salary BudgetGeneral Revenue and State Courts Revenue Trust Fund

CIR

CU

ITC

OU

NTY

Tria

l Co

urt

Su

mm

ary

MAY 2019

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services of 247

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019 276,236

2 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2019 462

3 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019 276,698

4 Salary Appropriation (281,755)


6 Actual Payroll Adjustments through May 31, 2019 (4,205)

7 Projected Leave Payouts (Based on two year average) 0



2 FY 2018-19 Current Contract Amount (6,286,510)


4 Actual Payroll Adjustments through May 31, 2018 (60,002)




FY 2018-19 Trial Courts Salary Budget

May 2019


June 25, 2019

Orlando, FloridaAgenda Item III.A.: Salary Budgets

Federal Grants Trust Fund

Administrative Trust Fund


May 2019


Agenda Item III.B. FY 2018-19 Budget -Positions Vacant More than 180 Days

of 247

Trial Court Budget CommissionJune 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Circuit Cost Center ORG NAME POS NUM CLASS TITLE POS FTE DAYS VACANT

VACANT DATE BASE SALARY

01 729 COURT REPORTING OTF 1ST 009868 COURT REPORTER II1 1.00 271 09/13/2018 $52,444.80

11 131 COURT INTERPRETING SERVICES 010358 COURT INTERPRETER2 1.00 255 09/29/2018 $60,000.12







11 210 CIRC CTS - 11TH CIRC - CT. ADMIN. 010325 COURT OPERATIONS MANAGER9 1.00 246 10/08/2018 $53,028.84

11 210 CIRC CTS - 11TH CIRC - CT. ADMIN. 010326 COURT OPERATIONS MANAGER10 1.00 511 01/16/2018 $53,028.84

11 122 CASE MANAGEMENT 011725 COURT PROGRAM SPECIALIST II11 1.00 288 08/27/2018 $36,115.32

11 122 CASE MANAGEMENT 011724 COURT PROGRAM SPECIALIST II12 1.00 312 08/03/2018 $36,115.32

11 258 11TH CIRC TRIAL CT LAW CLERK PRGM 008945 SENIOR TRIAL COURT LAW CLERK13 1.00 279 09/05/2018 $55,202.40





13 729 COURT REPORTING OTF 13TH 010516 COURT REPORTER II18 1.00 332 07/14/2018 $52,444.80

13 729 COURT REPORTING OTF 13TH 010513 COURT REPORTER II19 1.00 526 01/01/2018 $52,444.80

16 430 MEDIATION SERVICES 16TH CIRCUIT 011450 MEDIATOR-CIRCUIT/FAMILY20 1.00 1187 03/11/2016 $45,303.72

Agenda Item III.B.: Positions Vacant More than 180 Days (as of June 10, 2019)

Page 1 of 2 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources of 247

Trial Court Budget CommissionJune 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

13The 11th Circuit commenced recruitment for this position on 2/20/19 which was not successful. However, the position was advertised with a job posting that closed on 5/20/19. Interviews were held on 6/11/19, and continued on 6/19/19. 14, 15, 16, 17The 13th Circuit continues to have a difficult time recruiting Certified Court Interpreters. The Circuit recently hosted the Court Interpreters exam and is hopeful that new certified candidates will apply.

18, 19The 13th Circuit received a small pool of applications for their last advertisement. The Circuit anticipates they will re-advertise the positions soon.

20The 16th Circuit is presently unable to fill this position and is considering a reclassification.

10The 11th Circuit is actively recruiting for this position. The job posting for this position closes on 7/2/19.

12The 11th Circuit closed the job posting for this position on 5/31/19. Interviews for this position begin on 6/21/19.

11The 11th Circuit closed the job posting for this position on 5/14/19, and a top candidate has been identified.

Agenda Item III.B.: Positions Vacant More than 180 Days (as of June 10, 2019) 1The 1st Circuit continues to advertise positions in several locations (National Association for Court Reporting, Florida Association for Court Reporting, Alabama Association for Court Reporting, Louisiana Association for Court Reporting, Indeed.com, Flcourts.org, Firstjudicialcircuit.org, and local paralegal website).

8The 11th Circuit recently selected a qualified applicant for this position. The new employee is scheduled to begin work 7/8/19. 9The 11th Circuit is in the process of evaluating operational needs relating to 2019 goals. This position will be assigned accordingly to the alignment of these Circuit goals.

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7The 11th Circuit has been advertising for these positions. Recruitment for Spanish and Creole interpreters is ongoing. Despite active recruitment efforts, there remains a lack of qualified/certified Creole interpreter candidates.

Page 2 of 2 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources of 247

Agenda Item III.C. FY 2018-19 Budget -Operating Budgets

of 247

CategoryBudget

EntityAppropriation

Expended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Circuit 912,557 733,082 179,475 80.33%

County 15,000 13,266 1,734 88.44%

Total 927,557 746,348 181,209 80.46%

Circuit 4,856,525 4,205,484 651,041 86.59%

County 2,448,668 2,234,179 214,489 91.24%

Total 7,305,193 6,439,663 865,530 88.15%

Circuit 244,287 221,518 22,769 90.68%

County 36,193 36,164 29 99.92%

Total 280,480 257,682 22,798 91.87%

Circuit 481,081 400,603 80,478 83.27%

County 203,826 165,785 38,041 81.34%

Total 684,907 566,387 118,520 82.70%

Circuit 43,251 34,479 8,772 79.72%

County 19,711 17,852 1,859 90.57%

Total 62,962 52,331 10,631 83.12%

Other Data

Processing

Services

Circuit 97,902 97,902 0 100.00%

75,000 69,201 5,799 92.27%

1,896,713 1,556,355 340,358 82.06%

3,141,377 2,795,022 346,355 88.97%

6,965,229 6,368,852 596,377 91.44%

7,626,104 6,946,621 679,483 91.09%

4,603,314 3,554,576 1,048,738 77.22%

19,194,647 16,870,049 2,324,598 87.89%

Additional Compensation to

County Judges

Due Process - Expert Witness

Civil Traffic Infraction

Hearing Officers

Total Due Process

Due Process - Court Reporting

Due Process - Court Interpreting

Mediation Services

Lease/Lease

Purchase


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

The data below represents the status of the FY 2018-19 operating budgets as of June 18, 2019.

Other

Personal

Services

Expenses

Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets

Operating

Capital

Outlay

Contracted

Services

of 247


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida



AppropriationExpended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

316,000 214,652 101,348 67.93%

6,000,000 598,832 5,401,168 9.98%

7,500,000 6,467,827 1,032,173 86.24%

13,816,000 7,281,312 6,534,688 52.70%

Circuit Problem Solving Court AppropriationExpended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Veterans 300,000 198,374 101,626 66.12%

Post Adjudicatory Drug 695,606 609,367 86,239 87.60%

Total 995,606 807,741 187,865 81.13%

Veterans 125,000 48,614 76,386 38.89%

Felony Drug 117,000 32,485 84,515 27.77%

Total 242,000 81,099 160,901 33.51%

Veterans 537,500 271,796 265,704 50.57%

Total 537,500 271,796 265,704 50.57%

Veterans 250,000 135,781 114,219 54.31%


Total 580,032 409,898 170,134 70.67%

Veterans 300,000 250,000 50,000 83.33%


Adult Drug 52,452 52,452 0 100.00%

Total 952,380 660,242 292,138 69.33%


Total 344,620 280,715 63,905 81.46%

Multi-PSC Case Mgmt 17,838 9,176 8,662 51.44%

Veterans 150,000 59,179 90,821 39.45%

Mental Health 3,750 731 3,019 19.49%

Total 171,588 69,085 102,503 40.26%

GPS Monitoring-18th Circuit

Medication Treatment- General

Medication Treatment- Naltrexone

Total Legislative Projects

Legislative Projects

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

of 247


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida




Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Veterans 200,000 136,594 63,406 68.30%


Adult Drug 11,250 4,085 7,165 36.31%

Total 800,494 529,511 270,983 66.15%

DUI Court 59,725 16,178 43,547 27.09%

Behavioral

Health/Veterans50,057 48,423 1,634 96.73%

Misdemeanor Drug 9,352 4,900 4,452 52.40%


Adult Drug 4,900 4,900 0 100.00%

Juvenile Drug 20,735 4,900 15,835 23.63%

Total 828,868 620,169 208,699 74.82%

Veterans 150,500 132,256 18,244 87.88%

Adult Drug 43,513 43,510 3 99.99%

Juvenile Drug 43,513 43,508 5 99.99%

Domestic Violence Drug 43,514 43,508 6 99.99%

Family Dependency Drug 43,514 43,508 6 99.99%

Total 324,554 306,289 18,265 94.37%

Comprehensive Court 135,564 56,356 79,208 41.57%

Total 135,564 56,356 79,208 41.57%

Veterans 104,870 68,034 36,836 64.87%


Total 918,670 668,090 250,580 72.72%

Mental Health 22,500 0 22,500 0.00%

Veterans 86,250 33,117 53,133 38.40%

Total 108,750 33,117 75,633 30.45%

Early Childhood Court 66,300 11,685 54,615 17.62%

Dependency Therapeutic 29,925 1,970 27,955 6.58%

Total 96,225 13,655 82,570 14.19%

15

12

10

14

11

13

9

of 247


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida




Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Early Childhood 62,790 13,080 49,710 20.83%


Total 1,054,016 729,162 324,854 69.18%


Adult Drug 124,421 80,261 44,160 64.51%

Juvenile Drug 175,000 125,871 49,129 71.93%

Total 373,421 265,350 108,071 71.06%

Multi-PSC Case Mgmt 78,930 23,263 55,667 29.47%

Misdemeanor Drug 3,392 2,355 1,037 69.43%

Felony Drug 15,308 13,668 1,640 89.29%

Juvenile Drug 8,767 4,804 3,963 54.79%

Total 106,397 44,090 62,307 41.44%

Mental Health 67,221 50,936 16,285 75.77%

Veterans 86,000 65,310 20,690 75.94%

Adult Drug 24,400 4,745 19,655 19.45%

Total 177,621 120,991 56,630 68.12%

8,748,306 5,967,356 2,780,950 68.21%

18

Total Problem Solving Courts

19

20

17

of 247

Circuit Allotted Days Days

Transferred

Days

Served

Remaining

Allotted Days Percent Remaining

1st 213 0 157 56 26.29%

2nd 142 0 129 13 9.15%

3rd 81 (40) 25 16 19.75%

4th 305 47 318 34 11.15%

5th 498 (20) 368 110 22.09%

6th 382 (181) 171 30 7.85%

7th 491 (40) 217 234 47.66%

8th 119 10 102 27 22.69%

9th 407 75 439 43 10.57%

10th 224 0 185 39 17.41%

11th 691 105 761 35 5.07%

12th 176 15 158 33 18.75%

13th 339 5 309 35 10.32%

14th 122 (7) 90 25 20.49%

15th 324 (91) 200 33 10.19%

16th 42 (23) 12 7 16.67%

17th 520 35 511 44 8.46%

18th 244 14 209 49 20.08%

19th 163 0 99 64 39.26%

20th 288 0 258 30 10.42%

Reserve 51 (25) 0 26 50.98%

TOTAL 5,822 (121) 4,718 983 16.88%


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida



Senior Judge Activity Summary

Regular Senior Judge Allocation

of 247

Agenda Item III.D. FY 2018-19 Budget -Trust Fund Cash Balances

of 247

1 Ending Cash Balance May 31, 2019 15,498,313

2 Beginning Balance July 1, 2018 15,498,313

3 Add: FY 2018-19 Revenues1 83,703,697

4 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

5 Less: Expenditures2 (76,434,584)

6 Less: GR Service Charge³ (6,751,747)

7 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2019 19,711,026

8 Beginning Balance July 1, 2019 19,711,026

9 Add: FY 2019-20 Projected Revenues1 81,000,000

10 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

11 Less: Estimated Expenditures⁴ (79,174,926)

12 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge³ (6,640,514)

13 Less: Estimated 5% Reserve⁵ (3,717,974)

14 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2020 14,872,959

⁵ The estimated 5% reserve is calculated on the February 13, 2019 Article V Revenue Estimating Conference

projection for FY 19-20 less the 8% GR service charge.

3 The GR service charge is based on revenues collected/projected for the last three months of the prior fiscal year

and the first, second, and third quarters of the current year.

⁴ Represents FY 2019-20 base budget authority for staff salary expenditures, operating budgets, and estimated

refunds. The total budget authority is $78,300,360 ($76,658,594 staff salary expenditures, $1,606,766 operating

categories, and $35,000 refund of state revenues). Estimates include anticipated supplemental appropriations for

employee benefit changes.

FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20

FY 2018 - 19

FY 2019 - 20

2 Total budget authority is $76,434,584 ($76,399,584 for staff salary expenditures and $35,000 for refunds of state

revenues).


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances

Estimated Cash Balances

As of May 31, 2019

¹ Based on actual revenues and refunds received and/or February 13, 2019, Article V Revenue Estimating

Conference projection.

STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND

Prepared by Office of Budget Services

of 247

Agenda Item III.E. FY 2018-19 Budget -Year-End Spending Plan

of 247

Circuit CategoryBudget

EntityAppropriation

Expended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Expenses 3,762 0 3,762 0.00%

Operating Capital Outlay 13,172 0 13,172 0.00%

Contracted Services County 50,650 0 50,650 0.00%

67,584 0 67,584 0.00%

Operating Capital Outlay 50,228 45,699 4,529 90.98%

Due Process Contractual 78 0 78 0.00%

50,306 45,699 4,607 90.84%

Expenses 20,571 19,961 610 97.03%

Senior Judge Days 11,414 0 11,414 0.00%

Contracted Services 6,333 3,050 3,283 48.16%

Due Process Contractual 3,850 2,886 964 74.96%

Contracted Services County 1,667 0 1,667 0.00%

43,835 25,897 17,938 59.08%

Expenses 31,032 31,032 0 100.00%

Operating Capital Outlay 237,836 237,836 1 100.00%


271,928 271,928 1 100.00%

Expenses 2,200 2,151 49 97.77%


Contracted Services 61,835 61,835 0 100.00%

Operating Capital Outlay County 790 0 790 0.00%

76,635 75,719 916 98.80%

Expenses 25,142 25,142 0 100.00%



53,886 53,886 0 100.00%

Expenses 4,250 0 4,250 0.00%


Operating Capital Outlay County 8,565 0 8,565 0.00%

151,270 122,184 29,086 80.77%


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item III.E.: Year-End Spending Plan

7

7th Circuit Total

Circuit

3rd Circuit Total

3

8

5th Circuit Total

The data below represents the status of the FY 2018-19 year-end spending plan as of June 18, 2019.

4

2nd Circuit Total

4th Circuit Total

2

Circuit5

Circuit

Circuit

9th Circuit Total

9

8th Circuit Total

Circuit

Circuit

Circuit

of 247

Circuit CategoryBudget

EntityAppropriation

Expended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item III.E.: Year-End Spending Plan

The data below represents the status of the FY 2018-19 year-end spending plan as of June 18, 2019.

Expenses 29,252 28,061 1,191 95.93%


117,904 116,708 1,196 98.99%

Expenses 90,000 77,063 12,937 85.63%


162,000 138,583 23,418 85.54%

Expenses 146,633 146,183 451 99.69%

Due Process Contractual 162,960 14,151 148,809 8.68%

Operating Capital Outlay County 292,584 234,898 57,686 80.28%

602,177 395,232 206,945 65.63%

Expenses 74,025 74,025 0 0.00%


101,865 90,805 11,060 89.14%

Operating Capital Outlay County 37,886 37,886 0 100.00%

37,886 37,886 0 100.00%

Contracted Services Circuit 140,000 140,000 0 100.00%

140,000 140,000 0 100.00%

Expenses 10,000 0 10,000 0.00%

Contracted Services 18,500 0 18,500 0.00%

Operating Capital Outlay County 10,000 0 10,000 0.00%

38,500 0 38,500 0.00%

Contracted Services Circuit 120,000 120,000 0 100.00%

Operating Capital Outlay County 135,747 135,746 1 100.00%

255,747 255,746 1 100.00%

Circuit 1,531,769 1,270,937 260,832 82.97%

County 639,754 499,335 140,419 78.05%

2,171,523 1,770,272 401,251 81.52%

The 1st, 6th, 12th, 13th, and 18th circuits did not request year-end spending funds as part of this exercise.

Circuit

Circuit

Circuit

14

10

11

11th Circuit Total

GRAND TOTAL

16

SUB-TOTALS

16th Circuit Total

17th Circuit Total

20th Circuit Total

20

17

19

Circuit

10th Circuit Total

15th Circuit Total

14th Circuit Total

19th Circuit Total

15County

of 247

Agenda Item IV. Personnel Committee Recommendations

of 247

Agenda Item IV.A. Personnel Committee Recommendations - Incentive Plan Retroactive Policy

of 247


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item IV.A.: Personnel Committee Recommendations – Incentive Plan

Retroactive Policy

Issue

The law clerk, judicial assistant, and court interpreter incentive plans for the trial courts provide

eligibility for salary increases, upon approval by the chief judge, based on completion of specified

years of service.1 Under all three incentive plans, the judicial circuit is responsible for submitting the

Personnel Action Request (PAR) form notifying the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA)

of staff who are eligible and approved for increases. Further, the plans specify that salary adjustments

will be processed on the monthly payroll following receipt of the PAR “and will not be retroactive.”

Periodically, a circuit will become aware of an eligibility date being overlooked and inquire about the

possibility of retroactive application. In submitting a request to the chief justice for partial retroactive

application in response to a request by a circuit, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC)

Executive Committee concluded that retroactive application should be limited to the same fiscal year

in which the request for retroactive payment is addressed and should not extend into a prior fiscal year.

In approving the action, the chief justice requested that the TCBC submit a recommendation on

whether all three incentive plans should be revised to eliminate the prohibition on retroactive

application, effective with any errors that occur on or after the date of such a revision. The chief

justice noted that, in this way, a change to the practice for handling incentive plan salary adjustments,

if warranted, could be developed, communicated, and implemented as part of a trial court policy

change available to circuits statewide on a prospective basis. Further, the chief justice requested that

the TCBC, working with OSCA, develop and implement procedures to help judicial circuits track

employee eligibility for the incentive plans and thereby minimize the risk of an oversight. At its

meeting on February 1, 2019, the TCBC referred the matter to its Personnel Committee for analysis

and development of recommendations.

Personnel Committee Recommendation

Having met by conference call on March 26, 2019, to discuss the issue, the Personnel Committee is

recommending that the prohibition on retroactive application be eliminated from all three incentive

plans. Further, the Personnel Committee is recommending that there be no fiscal year or other time

parameters governing how far back payments could be made to correct instances in which eligibility

dates are missed. Attached are sample revisions to three incentive plans to effectuate the Personnel

Committee’s recommendation.

1 The law clerk incentive plan also provides eligibility for a promotional increase to the senior trial

court law clerk class.

of 247Page 40 of 247

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend to the chief justice that the language prohibiting retroactive application be

removed from the law clerk, judicial assistant, and court interpreter incentive plans and that retroactive

application be permitted without any fiscal year or other time limitations on corrective payments. The

change in policy would apply to any errors that occur on or after the date of the revision.

Option 2: Recommend to the chief justice that the language prohibiting retroactive application be

removed from the law clerk, judicial assistant, and court interpreter incentive plans but that retroactive

application be limited to the same fiscal year in which the request for retroactive payment is addressed

and should not extend into a prior fiscal year. The change in policy would apply to any errors that

occur on or after the date of the revision.

Option 3. Recommend no changes to the prohibition on retroactive application under the incentive

plans.

Option 4: Adopt an alternative.


Trial Court Law Clerk Incentive Plan

A law clerk in the Trial Court Law Clerk class upon completion of two years of law

clerk service with the State Courts System, at any level of court, is eligible to receive an

incentive increase, up to $2,500 annually ($208.33 monthly), upon approval of the chief

judge.

A trial court law clerk, upon completion of five years of law clerk service with the State

Courts System, at any level of court, is eligible for promotion to the senior trial court law

clerk class, upon approval of the chief judge.

Procedures:

1. Increases will be effective on the date the law clerk begins his or her third year of

service with the State Courts System.

a. If a law clerk who has received an incentive increase leaves State Courts System

employment, and subsequently returns, he or she will be eligible to receive an

incentive increase upon completion of two years of eligible service in the

subsequent service.

b. Prior trial court law clerk service of less than two years, for which no incentive

was received counts toward eligibility.c. Trial court law clerk service in a county-funded position counts toward eligibility.

2. Promotions will be effective on the first of the month following completion of the

fifth year of law clerk service with the State Courts System. Trial court law clerk

service in a county-funded position counts toward eligibility.

3. It is the responsibility of the trial court administrator to submit a completed Personnel

Action Request form (PAR) notifying the Office of the State Courts Administrator

(OSCA) Office of Human ResourcesPersonnel Services of law clerks in their court

who are eligible and who were approved for the incentive increase. Likewise, it is the

responsibility of the trial court administrator to submit a completed PAR form

notifying the OSCA Office of Personnel Services of law clerks in their court who are

eligible and who were approved for promotion to senior trial court law clerk.

Any notification received after the first month of eligibility will be processed on the

monthly payroll following receipt of the PAR, and will not be retroactive.

ESTABLISHED: November 13, 2000

AMENDED: August 24, 2012

AMENDED: January 7, 2013

AMENDED: September 4, 2014, Effective July 1, 2014

Agenda Item IV.A. - Attachment


Trial Court Judicial Assistant Incentive Plan

A judicial assistant in the Circuit or County Court Judicial Assistant position class,

upon completion of six years of service with the Trial Courts, is eligible to receive

an incentive increase of $600 annually ($50.00 monthly), upon approval of the

chief judge.

A judicial assistant may receive an additional $100 per year, beginning with the

seventh year of service and for each year thereafter, up to twelve or more years of

service, with a maximum increase of $1,200.

Procedures:

1. Upon completion of six years of trial court judicial assistant service and

approval of the chief judge, increases will be effective on the first day of the

month proceeding the date of eligibility.

a. For re-employed judicial assistant retirees, the calculation of years of

service will be based on the date of re-employment, not initial

appointment date prior to retirement.

b. For re-employed judicial assistants, not re-employed judicial assistant

retirees, prior trial court judicial assistant service will count toward

eligibility.

2. It is the responsibility of the trial court administrator to submit a completed

Personnel Action Request (PAR) form notifying the Office of the State

Courts Administrator (OSCA) Office of Human ResourcesPersonnel

Services of judicial assistants in their court who are eligible and who were

approved for the incentive increase.

Any notification received after the first month of eligibility will be processed

on the monthly pay payroll following receipt of the PAR, and will not be

retroactive.

ESTABLISHED: September 1, 2012



Certified Court Interpreter Incentive Plan

(Staff, Assistant Supervising, and Supervising)

A Staff, Assistant Supervising, or Supervising Court Interpreter, who has completed

two years of certified interpreter services within the State Courts System, is eligible

to receive a one-time incentive increase in annual salary, up to $2,500, upon approval

of the chief judge. [e.g., potential salary increase at the beginning of year-three,

only.]

A Staff, Assistant Supervising, or Supervising Court Interpreter, who has completed

five years of certified interpreter services within the State Courts System, is eligible

to receive a one-time incentive increase in annual salary, up to $2,500, upon approval

of the chief judge. [e.g., potential salary increase at the beginning of year-six, only.]

Procedures:

1. For new hires, increases will be effective on the date the Certified Court Interpreter

begins his or her third or sixth year of service with the State Courts System. For

currently employed Staff, Assistant Supervising, or Supervising Certified Court

Interpreters, prior years of service will factor into eligibility determination;

however, any incentive increases in annual salary will not be retroactive.

a. If a Certified Court Interpreter who has received an incentive increase leaves

the State Courts System employment, and subsequently returns, he or she will

be eligible to receive an incentive increase upon completion of two years of

eligible service in the subsequent service.

b. Prior Staff, Assistant Supervising, or Supervising Certified Court Interpreter

experience of less than two years, for which no incentive was received counts

toward eligibility.

c. Employment in a county-funded Staff, Assistant Supervising, or Supervising

Certified Court Interpreter position counts toward eligibility.

2. It is the responsibility of the Trial Court Administrator to submit a completed

Personnel Action Request form (PAR) notifying the Office of the State Courts

Administrator (OSCA) Office of Human Resources of each Certified Court

Interpreter in their court who is eligible and who was approved for the incentive

increase. Any notification received after the first month of eligibility will be

processed on the monthly payroll following receipt of the PAR, and will not be

retroactive.

ESTABLISHED: June 26, 2018



Agenda Item IV.B. Personnel Committee Recommendations - Acting Senior Manager Policy

of 247

Trial Court Budget Commission June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida Agenda Item IV.B.: Personnel Committee Recommendations – Acting Senior Manager Policy Issue With respect to acting appointments, the budget and pay administration memorandum for fiscal year 2018-19 provides that:

An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position may receive up to a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amount necessary to move the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class, whichever amount is lower for the period of time they are in an acting capacity, provided the employee has completed two consecutive months of service in the acting capacity.

In January 2019, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) Executive Committee approved an exception to permit an acting senior manager in a judicial circuit to receive the applicable minimum salary of the position, although such increase was more than 5 percent. In addition, the Executive Committee approved the salary adjustment taking effect immediately upon the individual assuming the role of acting manager rather than waiting until two consecutive months of service had been completed in the acting capacity. The chair of the TCBC referred to the Personnel Committee the question of whether the provision in the budget and pay administration should be amended to establish a new, prospective policy on salary adjustments for acting appointments in a managerial position. Personnel Committee Recommendation Having met by conference call on March 26, 2019, to discuss the issue, the Personnel Committee is recommending that the budget and pay administration memorandum be amended to authorize an employee who is selected for an acting appointment to receive a pay increase necessary to move the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class for the period of time they are in the acting capacity and to remove the requirement for the individual to first complete two months of service in the acting capacity. Following is a sample revision to effectuate the Personnel Committee’s recommendation:

An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position may receive up to a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amount necessary to move the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class, whichever amount is lower for the period of time they are in an acting capacity, provided the employee has completed two consecutive months of service in the acting capacity.

of 247

Decision Needed Option 1: Recommend to the chief justice that the budget and pay administration memorandum be amended to authorize an employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position to receive a pay increase necessary to move the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class for the period of time they are in the acting capacity and immediately upon assuming the duties. Option 2. Do not recommend any changes to the budget and pay administration provisions governing salary increases for acting appointment in a managerial position. Option 3: Adopt an alternative.

of 247

Agenda Item V. FY 2019-20 Budget

of 247

Agenda Item V.A. FY 2019-20 Budget - Start-Up Salary Budget and Management

of 247






6 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2020 (Based on three year average) 71,650


8 Projected Court Interpreter Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2020 22,705

9 Chief Judge Discretionary Funds -


11 Estimated Salary Appropriation (301,478,127)

12 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 5,683,562

13 Projected Leave Payouts (Based on three year average) 1,216,816

14 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 6,900,378





19 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 307,985

20 Projected Leave Payouts (Based on three year average) 172,426

21 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 480,411






27 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2020 (Based on three year average) 71,650


29 Projected Court Interpreter Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2020 22,705




33 Projected Leave Payouts (Based on three year average) 1,389,242

34 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 7,380,790

CIR

CU

ITC

OU

NTY

Tria

l Co

urt

Su

mm

ary

*Projected DROP liability for all participants was $1,844,937 ($1,129,117 Circuit and $715,820 County). The DROP

liability has been reduced by $1,020,527 ($630,309 Circuit and $390,218 County) due to participants that intend

to stay throughout the fiscal year. Please note the additional liability of $1,020,527 will be incurred in the fiscal

year that the participants who stayed exit the Judicial branch.


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.A.: Start-Up Salary Budget and Management

FY 2019-20 Trial Courts Salary BudgetGeneral Revenue and State Courts Revenue Trust Fund

Start-Up 2019


1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2020 280,942

2 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2020 (Based on two year average) 974

3 Court Interpreter Certification Liability 1,452

4 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2020 283,368

5 Estimated Salary Appropriation (285,530)



8 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 2,002


2 FY 2019-20 Current Contract Amount (Attachment A) (6,286,510)

3 Estimated DROP Liability (6,750)



6 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 7,503


Start-up FY 2019-20


June 25, 2019

Orlando, FloridaAgenda Item V.A.: Start-Up Salary Budget and Management

Federal Grants Trust Fund

Administrative Trust Fund


Start-up FY 2019-20


Agenda Item V.B. FY 2019-20 Budget -Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum

of 247

DRAFT Agenda Item V.B.

Supreme Court of Florida 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

CHARLES T. CANADY CHIEF JUSTICE BARBARA J. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWIS PEGGY A. QUINCE JORGE LABARGA RICKY POLSTON C. ALAN LAWSON JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM

JOHN A. TOMASINO CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER DAWSON

MARSHAL

TO: Chief Judges of the Trial Courts

Trial Court Administrators FROM: Chief Justice Charles T. Canady DATE: July xx, 2019 SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2019-20

I have established the following budget and pay administration policies for the

current fiscal year, consistent with the recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) and also addressing other issues. Deletions from the prior year’s policy are stricken, and additions to the prior year’s policy are underlined.

A. Personnel Actions

1. Judicial Salaries

Effective July 1, 2019 2018, a trial court judge shall be paid at an annual rate of:

Circuit Court: $160,688 County Court: $151,822

2. Trial Court Salary Budget Management

of 247

Budget and Pay Administration July xx, 2019 Page 2 of 20

a. It does not appear to be necessary to hold positions vacant in the trial courts at this time. However, an included employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act should not work overtime without advance approval from his or her supervisor. The Budget Management Committee shall continue to monitor the salary budget and make recommendations to the TCBC regarding proposed changes to the Salary Management Schedule as necessary, in order to cover payroll costs through the end of the fiscal year.

b. Subject to available rate and salary appropriation, as confirmed by the Chief Justice, a rate distribution may be made during FY 2019-20 2018-19.

i. A rate distribution plan shall be submitted by the TCBC to the Chief Justice for approval prior to the implementation of a rate distribution.

ii. Distribution to the circuit courts will be based on the total number of eligible FTE in each district (less judges) unless otherwise directed by the TCBC.

iii. Individual salary increases may not exceed 10 percent. iv. The effective date of actions may begin the first day of the month

following the Chief Justice’s confirmation of available rate and salary appropriation and approval of a rate distribution plan. A Personnel Action Request (PAR) for all rate distribution actions must be submitted to the OSCA Office of Human Resources for processing on the next available monthly payroll. No retroactive salary increases are permitted.

v. When it is anticipated that rate distribution plan allocations for a circuit court will not be used by June 30, 2020 2019, the TCBC will assess the health of the salary budget and determine whether to re-purpose or carry forward the funds or let the funds revert for statewide budget management.

vi. Outside of any rate distribution plan, no special pay increases are permitted.

3. Other Personnel Actions

a. All appointment rates, including re-employed retirees, must be at the

minimum of the pay range. The chief judge may request an exception by the TCBC Executive Committee. Any exception requests must include documentation of the affected position being advertised no less than two times, with indication that no applicant met the qualifications, or that no

of 247


qualified applicant would accept the position at the minimum salary. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the TCBC with copies to the State Courts Administrator. However, the circuit must first use any available chief discretionary funds in this event.

b. Upon promotion, an employee’s salary shall be increased to the minimum

of the class to which the employee is being promoted. However, if that amount is less than five percent (5%), the chief judge may approve a promotional increase for an employee of up to five percent (5%) of the employee’s salary prior to promotion, provided such an increase will not place the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range.

c. Retention or reduction of current salary for employees who are reassigned,

transferred between circuits or demoted to a position in a class with a lower pay grade, including judicial assistants moving from circuit court to county court, may be approved by the chief judge. The basis for such pay decisions are to include level of education and experience, longevity, ability relative to other employees in the newly assigned class, and salaries of other employees in the class. However, retention of current salary shall not be allowed when a demotion is the result of a performance problem.

d. If a position is approved for designation as a lead worker in accordance

with Section 6.06 of the State Courts System Personnel Regulations, the chief judge may approve a temporary salary additive up to five percent (5%) of the employee’s current salary. Should the duties be taken away or the incumbent vacate the position, the additive will also cease. These actions must be submitted for review by the Office of Human Resources and approval by the State Courts Administrator.

e. The starting salaries for the Trial Court Administrator are $115,000,

$120,000, or $125,000, for small, medium, and large circuits, respectively; or $130,000 for very large circuits, which include the Eleventh and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits. All appointment rates for Trial Court Administrators must be at these starting salaries.

f. Upward reclassification of positions is prohibited until further notice for

FY 2019-20 2018-19.

of 247


g. An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position may receive up to a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amount necessary to move the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class, whichever amount is lower for the period of time they are in an acting capacity, provided the employee has completed two consecutive months of service in the acting capacity.

h. Following an analysis of the salary budget in May 2020 2019, a

distribution to address merit1 may be made by the TCBC in June 2020 2019. If such a distribution occurs, adjustments will be limited to no more than 5% and will require the approval of the chief judge along with documented exemplary performance during the period June 2019 2018 through May 2020 2019.

i. Any exception requests to these pay policies should be sent to the Chair of

the TCBC with copies to the State Courts Administrator. The TCBC Executive Committee is authorized to consider and grant exceptions.

j. Other than regulations limited by these “Other Personnel Action” policies

and procedures, all regulations provided in the State Courts System Personnel Manual remain in effect. (https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf)

4. Overlap of a Position

No overlaps of positions are permitted except as follows:

a. The TCBC Executive Committee may consider an overlap of a judicial

assistant position if the incumbent judicial assistant is placed on an extended leave of absence without pay for medical reasons.

1 The 2019/20 2018/19 General Appropriations Act (GAA) authorizes granting of merit pay increases based on the employee’s exemplary performance as evidenced by a performance evaluation conducted pursuant to chapter 60L-35, Florida Administrative Code, or a similar performance evaluation applicable to other pay plans. The Chief Justice may exempt judicial branch employees from the performance evaluation requirements of this paragraph. Further, section 216.251(3), F.S., prohibits giving a cohort of employees (same class or occupation) across the board increases. Providing across the board increases is a process that may only be accomplished as part of the General Appropriations Act, as authorized by the Florida Legislature.

of 247

https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf

https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf


b. The TCBC Executive Committee may consider an overlap of a trial court administrator, a general counsel, or a trial court technology officer position upon written request from and demonstration by the chief judge that the overlap is necessary to avoid disruption in efficient operation of the circuit. Absent special circumstances, an exception granted under this paragraph may not exceed 30 days.

c. A position may be overlapped if the incumbent is called to or volunteers for active duty in the armed services of the United States. The position may be overlapped for the duration of the military leave and must be subsequent

to (30) days after the effective date of active duty for the incumbent.

5. Other Personal Services (OPS) Employees

OPS funds are authorized this year for the Child Support Enforcement Program and positions needed to meet temporary employment needs in other elements. a. If it is determined that you need adjustments to your OPS category via

transfer from another operating category, please complete the budget amendment form outlined in Section B.4. below.

b. OPS funds for child support enforcement hearing officer coverage have been budgeted in a “central pool” for absences of more than three consecutive days, to be used for training, illness, injury, disability or other reasons at the discretion of the chief judge. Requests to access these funds should be directed to Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, according to the procedures listed in Section B.4. below.

c. Circuits requesting hourly rates above the minimum must provide adequate

justification to the OSCA Chief of Human Resources, who may authorize the adjusted hourly rate.

6. Each circuit shall submit a PAR (Personnel Action Request) and the OPS Employment Authorization and Renewal Form at least five (5) business days before the action takes effect. This timeframe does not apply to the New Employment Authorization form. However, the New Employment Authorization form must be submitted in ample time for processing prior to the established payroll deadline.

of 247


7. Incentive Plans

a. Incentive adjustments for law clerks are to be made in accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in the Trial Court Law Clerk Incentive Plan, which is found at Attachment I.

b. Incentive adjustments for judicial assistants are to be made in accordance

with the policies and procedures outlined in the Trial Court Judicial Assistant Incentive Plan, which is found at Attachment II.

c. Incentive adjustments for certified court interpreters are to be made in

accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in the Certified Court Interpreter Incentive Plan, which is found at Attachment III.

B. Budget Administration

1. Expense Budget Management

Budget allotments for the trial courts are summarized by cost center in Attachment IV. The chief judge of each circuit, or his/her designee, is responsible for determining, according to circuit priorities, how allotted funds will be spent, including certain travel as outlined in Section C. below. See Attachment V for a summary of allowable/unallowable state expenditures.

2. Due Process Services Budget Management Expenditures from the Special Category 105420, as budgeted in Expert Witness (Cost Center 127), Court Reporting (Cost Center 129), and Court Interpreting (Cost Center 131), are limited to the procurement of contract services, including court reporting and court interpreting equipment maintenance, and temporary employment needs. This limitation for Special Category 105420 expenditures does not extend to the State Funded Services/Cost Recovery (Cost Center 267). Expenditures of any other type (equipment, supplies, furniture, etc.) are unallowable. Expenditures from the Special Category 105420 as budgeted in Cost Center 267 may be of any type of allowable State expenditure but only in support of due process elements.

3. TCA Certification of Expenditures

of 247


Section 939.08, Florida Statutes, requires certification of all expenditures by the Trial Court Administrator, or designee. Please include this certification on all invoices, travel reimbursement vouchers, and contracts that are submitted for payment from circuit cost centers. Any actions submitted for payment processing without this certification will be returned. The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) has provided each Trial Court Administrator with a stamp that contains the certification language. For purchasing card transactions, the trial court administrator must certify the invoice pursuant to s. 939.08, F.S., prior to final approval occurring in the purchasing card system. In no case should the date of the trial court administrator’s stamp be later than the date of final approval in the purchasing card system.

4. Budget Category Adjustments Section 216.181, Florida Statutes, requires that all budget amendments from the judicial branch must be requested only through the Chief Justice and must be approved by the Chief Justice and the Legislative Budget Commission. If it is determined, after reviewing your operating budgets that you need adjustments from one operating budget category to another (including OPS), please complete the budget amendment form (in hard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, so that appropriate documents can be processed. All requests for adjustments to operating budgets must be approved by the Chief Judge or his/her designee. Attachment VI provides instructions and the form for this purpose. Trial court administration staff should review FLAIR reports on a monthly basis to monitor the status of available balances. Circuits may not exceed the operating allotments in Attachment IV. Invoices for payment that exceed the allocation in any cost center will be returned.

5. Due Process Deficits In the event of a statewide due process services category deficit, the Budget Management Committee (BMC), a subcommittee of the TCBC, shall review all statewide trial court reserves for available funds, and, if necessary, reach out to circuits to determine if any additional unobligated funds are available from other operating categories, and make recommendations to the TCBC to alleviate the deficit. The TCBC shall review the recommendation of the BMC and may make final recommendations to alleviate the deficit.

of 247


6. Due Process Contingency Fund

Positions authorized in the 2018-19 General Appropriations Act Specific Appropriation 3149 shall be held in reserve as a contingency in the event the state courts determine that some portion of Article V due process services needs to be shifted from a contractual basis to an employee model in one or more judicial circuits. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may request transfer of these positions to the salaries and benefits appropriation category within any of the state courts budget entities, consistent with requests for transfers of funds into those same budget entities. Such transfers are subject to the notice, review, and objection provisions of section 216.177, Florida Statutes.

C. Authorized Travel 1. Mission Critical Determination; Approval Authority and Requirements

a. Section 111, SB 2502 84, HB 5003, Chapter 2019-xx 2018-10, Laws of Florida, provides that “the funds appropriated to each state agency which may be used for travel by state employees are limited during the 2019-2020 2018-2019 fiscal year to travel for activities that are critical to each state agency’s mission.” Consistent with guidance memorandum No. 3, 2018-2019 from the Department of Financial Services, This budget and pay administration memorandum sets forth my initial determination of the types of activities that I deem mission critical for the State Courts System and that may, consistent with this memorandum, necessitate travel by state employees:

i. Activities related to the adjudication of cases. ii. Business meetings and other activities related to the administrative

operations and responsibilities of the Supreme Court, the district courts of appeal, the circuit courts, the county courts, and the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

iii. Meetings and operational activities of commissions, committees, workgroups, and similar bodies created by the Supreme Court.

iv. Meetings and operational activities of the judicial conferences. v. Meetings and operational activities of The Florida Bar and of

commissions, committees, workgroups, and similar bodies created by The Florida Bar.

of 247


vi. Meetings of local, state, national, or international organizations the agenda of which includes subjects related or beneficial to the operation of courts.

vii. Educational, training, or similar conference, conventions, meetings, or events that benefit justices, judges, and court system staff through the provision or exchange of information on court-related matters or matters affecting the courts, including but not limited to education programs organized or sponsored under the oversight of the Florida Courts Education Council.

b. In approving travel as authorized and prescribed in this memorandum, the

chief judge or designee must approve the travel in advance and in writing, state how the specific travel activity is critical to the court’s mission consistent with the initial determination in paragraph a., and state that consideration was given to the use of teleconferencing or other forms of electronic communication as an alternative to the travel. The chief judge may prescribe in writing “blanket” approval for ordinary travel between courthouses within the circuit. If the chief judge delegates travel approval to a designee, the chief judge should prescribe the delegation in writing and retain a copy in the court’s file. In addition, the circuit should retain the documentation approving the travel required by this paragraph.

c. Each voucher seeking reimbursement for travel expenses must include a

statement describing how the travel was critical to the mission of the court system. The statement can reference that the travel was for one or more of the types of activities determined to be mission critical in paragraph a. Examples of mission-critical statements include: • “Travel to attend a meeting of a Supreme Court committee, as determined

to be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Attendance at the Florida Court Personnel Institute was for a training activity benefiting court system staff, which is recognized as mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Travel to attend a meeting of the Civil Procedures Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, as determined to be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

of 247


• “Traveler was asked to testify before a legislative committee on issues affecting dependency cases, which is mission-critical travel related to the adjudication of cases and the administrative operation of the circuit under the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, when a traveler is seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention, he or she must include on the reimbursement voucher a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance and must attach an approved Travel Authorization Request form.

2. Travel Out of the United States

The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing travel out of the United States, regardless of the source of funds for payment of the travel.

3. Out-of-State Travel

a. The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing all out-of-state

travel paid in whole or in part with state funds.

b. In order to implement funds appropriated in the 2019-20 2018-19 General Appropriations Act for state employee travel, the chief judge of each circuit may authorize mission critical out-of-state travel to attend meetings, conferences, seminars, training classes, and travel for events other than those covered in sections 6, 7, and 9 below, provided that all travel expenses are paid with a source of funding other than state funds.

c. Notwithstanding subsections a. and b. above, travel to attend the following

national education programs when they are held out of state is determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds:

• National Association for Court Management Annual Conference. • Court Technology Conference (CTC) (sponsored by the National Center

for State Courts). This program does not include the e-Courts conference.

• Conference of Court Public Information Officers Annual Conference (Sponsored by the National Center for State Courts).

of 247


• National Association for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers (formerly National Conference of Metropolitan Courts) Annual Conference.

Small circuits may send up to 2 attendees, medium circuits may send up to 4 attendees, large circuits may send up to 6 attendees, and extra-large circuits may send up to 8 attendees to each of the above programs. Travel expenses will be paid from local circuit budgets. The travel requires prior approval from the chief judge or designee, and the traveler must submit with the reimbursement voucher a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form that was signed in advance of the travel by the chief judge or designee.

4. Intra-Circuit Travel

Routine intra-circuit travel as a result of case-related or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice consistent with the Rules of Judicial Administration.

5. Intra-State Travel

Intra-state travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice consistent with the Rules of Judicial Administration.

a. Statewide Education Programs

The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to education programs organized or sponsored under the oversight of the Florida Courts Education Council.

The following education programs are determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds:

• Judicial Assistants Summer Educational Conference • Florida Trial Court Staff Attorneys Annual Conference • Annual Dependency Summit (Sponsored by the Florida Department

of Children & Families)

of 247


• Marital & Family Law Certification Review (Sponsored by The Florida Bar)

• Annual Conference and Justice Institute (Sponsored by Florida Partners in Crisis) or comparable statewide education and training on co-occurring disorders.

Small circuits may send up to 2 attendees, medium circuits may send up to 4 attendees, large circuits may send up to 6 attendees, and extra-large circuits may send up to 8 attendees. This authorization is in addition to any participants whose attendance may be authorized and funded by the Florida Court Education Council or other State Courts System entity. Travel expenses will be paid from local circuit budgets. The travel requires prior approval from the chief judge or designee, and the traveler must submit with the reimbursement voucher a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form signed in advance of the travel by the chief judge or designee. Attendance is subject to registration requirements and participant limitations of the sponsoring entity.

b. National Education Programs

The following national education programs are determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds when they are held in-state:

• National Association for Court Management Annual Conference. • Court Technology Conference (CTC) (sponsored by the National

Center for State Courts). This program does not include the e-Courts conference.

• Conference of Court Public Information Officers Annual Conference (Sponsored by the National Center for State Courts).

• National Association for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers (formerly National Conference of Metropolitan Courts) Annual Conference.

Small circuits may send up to 2 attendees, medium circuits may send up to 4 attendees, large circuits may send up to 6 attendees, and extra-large circuits may send up to 8 attendees. Travel expenses will be paid from local circuit budgets. The travel requires prior approval from the chief judge or designee, and the traveler must submit with the travel

of 247


reimbursement voucher a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form signed in advance of the travel by the chief judge or designee.

6. Travel Expenses-Florida Bar Meetings The annual and midyear meetings of The Florida Bar and meetings of committees and sections of The Florida Bar are not organized or sponsored in whole or in part by the judicial branch. a. Annual and Midyear Meetings

Chief judges and the chair and chair-elect of the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for their attendance at the mid-year and annual meetings of The Florida Bar. So, too, will the president and president-elect of the Florida Conference of County Court Judges. These expenses will be charged against your local circuit budget.

b. Supreme Court-Appointed Committees

Members of Supreme Court-appointed committees staffed by The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee. These expenses will be charged against your local circuit budget. The committees to which this section applies are:

• Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Civil • Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Contract & Business Cases • Commission on Professionalism

c. Selected Committees

Circuit court judges, county court judges, and other court staff who are serving as members of selected committees and sections of The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee. These expenses will be charged against your local circuit budget. The committees and sections to which this policy applies are:

of 247


• Alternative Dispute Resolution Section Executive Council • Appellate Court Rules Committee • Appellate Practice Section Executive Council • Civil Procedure Rules Committee • Code and Rules of Evidence Committee • Constitutional Judiciary Committee • Continuing Legal Education Committee • Criminal Law Section Executive Council • Criminal Procedure Rules Committee • Family Law Rules Committee • Family Law Section Executive Council • Judicial Administration & Evaluation Committee • Judicial Nominating Procedures Committee • Juvenile Court Rules Committee • Law Related Education Committee • Legal Needs of Children Committee • Mental Health and Wellness of Florida Lawyers Committee • Probate Rules Committee • Pro Bono Legal Services Committee • Professional Ethics Committee • Professionalism Committee • Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section Executive Council • Rules of Judicial Administration Committee • Small Claims Rules Committee • Traffic Court Rules Committee • Trial Lawyers Section Executive Council

The following specific guidelines apply to all Florida Bar committee- and section-related travel:

d. Room charges that exceed the established conference rate will be

reimbursed only up to that rate. Judges are encouraged to make alternative arrangements, at lower rates, when at all possible. Room charges in excess of $150.00 per night (room rate only) should be avoided, but when that is not possible, excess charges must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement.

of 247


e. For approved committee and section meetings, same day travel must be

utilized whenever possible. Necessary overnight travel will be reimbursed for the night immediately before or after the date of the committee meeting only if same day travel cannot be accomplished or presents an undue hardship.

f. Travel by circuit court judges, county court judges, or court staff who

attend meetings of committees and sections other than the members of those committees on the approved list must be at the traveler’s own expense or reimbursement must be sought from a source other than state funding.

g. No reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument

representing a section or committee will be paid. h. No reimbursement for attendance at seminars or symposiums representing

a section or committee will be paid. I am asking that you take the necessary steps to communicate this policy to judges in your circuit, particularly those who are new to the bench, in order to eliminate confusion about the requirements for reimbursement. We want to minimize problems with judges submitting travel vouchers for participation in committees not on the approved list, for which advance approval was not obtained, or where the length of stay was beyond that necessary for committee meeting attendance. Please also communicate this information to appropriate staff.

7. Travel Expenses for Participation in State Courts System Committees or

Commissions

Reasonable travel expenses necessary for participation in State Courts System committees or commissions (e.g., Trial Court Budget Commission, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Standard Jury Instructions Committee - Criminal) will be paid without separate prior authorization, from the budgets of and in accordance with the travel guidelines established for each committee. Trial Court Budget Commission meetings may be attended by up to 2 non-TCBC member trial court judges or employees with the approval of the chief

of 247


judge or designee. Non-TCBC member travel expenses will be charged against your local circuit budget.

Reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument to represent a court committee or commission must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

8. Travel Expenses for Legislative Hearings

Generally, the OSCA will coordinate travel by judges participating in legislative hearings. Expenses associated with such travel will be paid from your circuit budget with prior approval of the chief judge or designee, or if such participation is associated with membership on a Supreme Court-appointed committee, expenses will be reimbursed from that committee’s budget. When judges receive personal invitations to appear and testify before a legislative committee, expenses for associated travel will be paid from the circuit budget with prior approval from the chief judge or designee.

9. Out-of-State Education Travel

Out-of-state educational travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund will continue to be approved by the Florida Court Education Council in accordance with its established guidelines.

D. General Travel Guidelines

1. Rules Governing Per Diem and Lodging for Overnight Travel According to State Chief Financial Officer policy, a traveler may not claim per diem or lodging reimbursement for overnight travel within fifty (50) miles (one-way) of his or her headquarters or residence (city to city, calculated in accordance with the Department of Transportation Official Map Miles), whichever is less, unless the circumstances necessitating the overnight stay are fully explained by the traveler and approved by the Agency Head in advance of the travel. I am delegating this approval authority to chief judges; however, this delegation does not apply to travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund, travel associated with the circuit and county conferences’ business programs, and travel funded by state budgetary sources other than individual circuit budgets (e.g., travel funded through a court committee’s budget). Official written approval from the chief justice or designee or chief judge must be

of 247


attached to the reimbursement voucher when submitted for payment. Vouchers without this approval will be returned. A reduction in this requirement to less than 35 miles may only be approved by the chief justice or designee under extraordinary circumstances.

2. Lodging Room Rate Limits

Pursuant to Section 112, SB 2502 84, HB 5003, Chapter 2019-xx 2018-10, Laws of Florida, “costs for lodging associated with a meeting, conference, or convention organized or sponsored in whole or in part by a state agency or the judicial branch may not exceed $150 per day. An employee may expend his or her own funds for any lodging expenses in excess of $150 per day. For purposes of this section, a meeting does not include travel activities for conducting an audit, examination, inspection, or investigation or travel activities related to a litigation or emergency response.” When this limitation does not apply, hotel room charges that exceed $150.00 per night (room rate only), still should be avoided, and less costly alternatives secured when possible. Charges in excess of $150.00 (room rate only), must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement. Lodging rates for travel sponsored by the Court Education Trust Fund, or travel funded by state budgetary sources other than individual circuit budgets, are subject to further limitations set by the paying entity.

3. Prohibition of Class C Meal Reimbursement

Reimbursement for Class C travel for per diem and subsistence is prohibited in section 112.061(15), Florida Statutes.

4. Convention and Conference Travel

Travel reimbursements for convention or conference travel (with the exception of judges’ participation in circuit and county conferences’ education and business programs) must be submitted for payment with a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form, according to State of Florida travel guidelines. TAR forms will be prepared by the OSCA on the judges’ behalf for circuit and county conferences’ education and business programs. The TAR form must include a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance. Although an

of 247


event may be identified by a different title (e.g., “Symposium” or Summit”), it may by its nature meet the definition of a conference or convention under Florida Administrative Code 69I-42.002 and therefore require a TAR. In addition to a mission-critical statement, as provided under section C.1.c., the travel voucher seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention must include the statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance.

5. Education and Training Activities

Travel for education and training activities must be directly related to the employee’s current job duties and have primary benefit to the State.

6. Travel Paid from Local Circuit Budgets

Reimbursement of travel from funds of a judicial circuit is subject to certification of the expenditures by the Trial Court Administrator or designee, pursuant to section 939.08, Florida Statutes. The Trial Court Administrator’s signature in the certification portion of the reimbursement voucher also signifies his or her representation that all applicable approvals were followed for travel paid from local circuit budgets.

7. Travel Voucher Submission

All travel vouchers must be submitted through the trial court administrator’s office to the OSCA for payment.

E. Senior Judge Guidelines and Allocations

1. Allocation

Attachment VII reflects the allocation of senior judge days for the 2019-20 2018-19 fiscal year.

2. Utilization and Management Please continue to follow the current guidelines for the utilization and management of senior judges, as outlined in Attachment VII-A. Trial Court Administrators are responsible for the administrative oversight of senior judge

of 247


service within their respective circuits, in coordination with the OSCA. All senior judges shall submit requests for payment through Court Administration. Designated court administration staff will request payment through the automated web-based reporting and tracking system. Hard copy submissions will not be accepted.

3. Compensation Rate Senior judge compensation is $375 for each day of service for 2019-20 2018-19.

4. Travel Expenses Expenses for senior judge travel have been budgeted and allocated by the TCBC to your local circuit for work provided from the regular allocation of senior judge days. All requests for reimbursement of senior judge travel expenses must be submitted through the Trial Court Administrator.

Such travel is subject to the certification of the expenditures by the Trial Court Administrator or designee, pursuant to section 939.08, Florida Statutes.

F. Assignment and Compensation of County Judges to Temporary Service in Circuit Court A county court judge designated to preside over circuit court cases shall receive the same salary as a circuit court judge while performing such duties, to the extent that funds are specifically appropriated by law for these purposes. Requests for compensation shall be based upon allotments as approved by the TCBC.

G. Payment of Florida Bar Membership Fees/Legal Education Courses The 2019-20 2018-19 General Appropriations Act allows the payment of Florida Bar membership fees for staff attorneys, or those positions that require Bar membership as a condition of their employment by the state. (For a list of eligible position titles, please refer to the memorandum of June xx, 2019 June 27, 2018, from Eric Maclure.) We are currently unable to authorize payment for continuing legal education courses (those courses taken for the sole purpose of earning CLE credits), or professional certification of any kind.

I am requesting that you disseminate the information contained in the memorandum to all judges and other appropriate personnel in your courts. The policies

of 247


outlined herein will remain in effect until such time as they are succeeded with an updated memorandum. If you have any questions about budget matters, please contact Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, at (850) 488-3735. Questions relating to personnel matters should be directed to Beatriz Caballero, Chief of Human Resources, at (850) 617-4028. Other finance questions should be directed to Jackie Knight, Chief of Finance and Accounting Services, at (850) 488-3737. CTC/sb/dc cc: Lisa Kiel Eric Maclure Blan Teagle Dorothy Willard Jackie Knight Steven Hall

of 247

Agenda Item VI. FY 2019-20 Allocations

of 247

Agenda Item VI.A. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers and General Magistrates

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.A.: FY 2019-20 Allocations – Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers and General Magistrates Background

Each fiscal year, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) approves FTE allocations for the Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer (CSEHO) and General Magistrate (GM) elements. Staff of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) are directed to monitor vacancies in both categories throughout the fiscal year. When vacancies occur, staff are to evaluate and recommend reallocating hearing officers, magistrates, and administrative support FTEs based on the following criteria: 1) maximum net need based on workload, 2) a one-to-one ratio of hearing officer or magistrate to administrative support personnel, 3) Department of Revenue (DOR) information, where appropriate, 4) circuit information, and 5) a minimum threshold of 0.5 FTE negative (excess) net need. These criteria must be met before reallocation will be considered. In addition, the GM/CSEHO Administrative Support Allocation Matrix (Attachment A) is utilized to determine the reallocation action needed. For reallocation of GM positions, the combined net need in both the GM and CSEHO categories is considered. This information is submitted to the TCBC for consideration in allocations and reallocation of positions throughout the fiscal year. Current Issues 1. Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers (CSEHO) Circuit level FY 2019-20 FTE allocations need to be determined for CSEHOs. Each circuit’s Total Need and Proposed FTE Allocations are reflected in Attachment B. The total need is based on the maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 for child support, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and paternity cases. The total need is calculated in two steps. The first step estimates CSEHO workload by multiplying projected filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, CSEHO total need is calculated by dividing the estimated CSEHO workload by the total time available for case-related work. 18th Circuit

Currently, there is a vacant 1.0 CSEHO FTE position in the 18th Circuit available for reallocation. As noted in the above procedures, DOR information is considered where appropriate. The 18th Circuit’s DOR contract attorney provided comment to OSCA staff and requested that the vacant 1.0 CSEHO FTE position remain in the 18th Circuit. Based on the updated net need charts (Attachment B), the 10th Circuit would be eligible to receive the additional CSEHO resource and has indicated an interest in the vacant position.

of 247

Decisions Needed

Step 1: Approve or do not approve the FY 2019-20 proposed allocation charts. Step 2: Recommend or do not recommend re-allocating the vacant 1.0 CSEHO FTE position from the 18th Circuit to the 10th Circuit. Step 3: Direct or do not direct staff to monitor vacancies in this element and recommend to the TCBC reallocation of any vacant Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers and administrative support FTEs that become available during the year, according to the net need in the FY 2019-20 allocation chart and approved procedures.

Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously recommends approval of Steps 1, 2, and 3.

2. General Magistrates (GM) Circuit level FY 2019-20 FTE allocations need to be determined for GMs and administrative support. Each circuit’s Total Need and Proposed FTE Allocations are reflected in Attachment C. The total need is based on the maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 for non-capital murder, sexual offense, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, termination of parental rights, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social case types. The total need is calculated in two steps. The first step estimates GM workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, GM total need is calculated by dividing the estimated GM workload by the total time available for case related work. There are no new resources, resources in reserve, or vacant positions in the GM element that are available for allocation to the circuits. Decisions Needed

Step 1: Approve or do not approve the FY 2019-20 proposed allocation charts. Step 2: Direct or do not direct staff to monitor vacancies in this element and recommend to the TCBC reallocation of any vacant General Magistrates and administrative support FTEs that become available during the year, according to the net need in the FY 2019-20 allocation chart and approved procedures.

Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously recommends approval of Steps 1 and 2.

of 247

GM/CSEHO Administrative Support Allocation Matrix

Approved by the Trial Court Budget Commission, April 7, 2014

Reallocating Current Resources (Losing Positions)

Example GM/CSEHO to Support Ratio

Administrative Support Net

Need based on Workload

Action Needed

Uneven Ratio Negative

1 3.0 FTE : 4.0 FTE -1.0 Yes

2 9.5 FTE : 8.5 FTE -0.5 No

Even Ratio Negative

3 1.5 FTE : 1.5 FTE -0.5 Yes

Uneven Ratio Positive

4 3.5 FTE : 4.0 FTE 1.5 No

5 2.5 FTE : 2.0 FTE 2.0 No

Even Ratio Positive

6 2.0 FTE : 2.0 FTE 2.0 No

Allocating Additional Resources (Gaining Positions)

Example GM/CSEHO to Support Ratio

Administrative Support Net

Need based on Workload

Action Needed

Uneven Ratio Negative

7 3.0 FTE : 4.0 FTE -1.0 No

8 9.5 FTE : 8.5 FTE -0.5 No

Even Ratio Negative

9 1.5 FTE : 1.5 FTE -0.5 No

Uneven Ratio Positive

10 3.5 FTE : 4.0 FTE 1.5 No

11 2.0 FTE : 0.5 FTE 2.0 Yes

Even Ratio Positive

12 2.0 FTE : 2.0 FTE 2.0 No

Note: When allocating additional resources to a circuit in need based on workload, any disparity in the 1:1 ratio will be addressed before the need for resources.

Agenda Item VI.A. - Attachment A

of 247

Meeting June 25, 2019

A B C D E F

Circuit

Child Support Enforcement

Hearing OfficerAdministrative

Support Total Need1


Hearing Officer Total Need

Administrative Support

Total Need2

1 2.00 2.00 1.4 1.00 1.002 1.50 1.00 0.8 1.00 1.003 1.00 0.50 0.6 1.00 1.004 4.00 3.75 2.0 2.00 2.005 2.50 2.00 2.1 2.00 2.006 3.00 3.00 1.9 2.00 2.007 1.50 1.00 1.3 1.00 1.008 1.50 1.50 0.5 1.00 1.009 3.00 3.00 1.9 2.00 2.00

10 2.00 2.00 2.6 3.00 3.0011 4.00 3.00 3.5 3.00 3.0012 2.50 2.50 1.5 2.00 2.0013 3.00 2.50 3.2 3.00 3.0014 1.50 1.00 1.3 1.00 1.0015 2.00 2.00 1.0 1.00 1.0016 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.0017 2.00 2.00 1.7 2.00 2.0018 2.00 1.00 0.9 1.00 1.0019 1.00 1.00 1.3 1.00 1.0020 1.25 1.00 2.0 2.00 2.00

Total 41.25 35.75 31.5 32.00 32.00

Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers Background Statistics

1 Total need reflects the maximum Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer (CSEHO) FTE total need over a three year period. The total need is based on the maximum number of projected filings over fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 for child support, UIFSA, and paternity cases. The total need is calculated in two steps. The first step estimates CSEHO workload by multiplying projected filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, CSEHO total need is calculated by dividing the estimated CSEHO workload by the total time available for case related work.2 Administrative support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of administrative support to CSEHO.

FY 2018-19 FTE Allocation Total FTE Need


Agenda Item VI.A. - Attachment B

of 247

A B C D E

Circuit


Hearing Officer Net Need

Administrative Support Net Need


Hearing Officer FTE


FTE

1 -1.00 -1.00 2.00 2.002 -0.50 0.00 1.50 1.003 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.504 -2.00 -1.75 4.00 3.755 -0.50 0.00 2.50 2.006 -1.00 -1.00 3.00 3.007 -0.50 0.00 1.50 1.008 -0.50 -0.50 1.50 1.509 -1.00 -1.00 3.00 3.0010 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.0011 -1.00 0.00 4.00 3.0012 -0.50 -0.50 2.50 2.5013 0.00 0.50 3.00 2.5014 -0.50 0.00 1.50 1.0015 -1.00 -1.00 2.00 2.0016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0017 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.0018 -1.00 0.00 1.00 1.0019 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0020 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.00

Total -9.25 -3.75 41.25 35.75

2 FY 2019-20 proposed FTE allocation using current methodology is based on FY 2018-19 FTE allocation plus the reallocation indicated in the shading above.

Trial Court Budget CommissionMeeting June 25, 2019

Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers FY 2019-20 FTE Allocation

Net Need1

FMC Recommendation FY 2019-20 FTE Allocation

Using Current Methodology2

1 Net need is the difference between total need and FY 2018-19 FTE allocation.

Agenda Item VI.A. - Attachment B

of 247

A B C D E F

Circuit General

MagistrateAdministrative

Support Total Need1

General Magistrate Total Need


Total Need2

1 3.50 3.00 4.4 4.00 4.002 2.00 2.00 2.1 2.00 2.003 1.00 0.00 1.4 1.00 1.004 7.00 6.00 6.9 7.00 7.005 5.00 5.00 5.9 6.00 6.006 7.25 7.00 7.3 7.00 7.00

7 3 3.50 4.00 5.1 5.00 5.008 2.00 1.00 2.1 2.00 2.009 6.00 4.00 8.6 9.00 9.00

10 4.00 3.00 4.8 5.00 5.0011 11.00 11.00 14.7 15.00 15.0012 4.00 3.00 4.1 4.00 4.0013 7.00 7.00 8.6 9.00 9.0014 2.00 1.00 2.1 2.00 2.0015 7.00 6.00 6.7 7.00 7.0016 0.00 0.00 0.5 1.00 1.0017 9.00 8.50 10.7 11.00 11.0018 4.00 3.00 4.8 5.00 5.0019 3.00 3.00 3.3 3.00 3.0020 5.00 5.00 6.8 7.00 7.00

Total 93.25 82.50 110.7 112.00 112.00

2 Administrative support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.3 Circuit 7 FY 2018-19 allotment has 0.5 FTE more Administrative Support FTE than General Magistrate FTE but is not considered in excess of the 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrates due to their total need.


General Magistrates Background Statistics

Total FTE Need

1 Total need reflects the maximum General Magistrate FTE total need over a three year period. The total need is based on the maximum number of projected filings over fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 for non-capital murder, sexual offense, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract & indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimates General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need is calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.

FY 2018-19 FTE Allocation

Agenda Item VI.A. - Attachment C

of 247

A B C D E

Circuit

General Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative Support Net Need

General Magistrate

FTE


FTE

1 0.50 1.00 3.50 3.00

2 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00

3 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

4 0.00 1.00 7.00 6.00

5 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00

6 -0.25 0.00 7.25 7.00

7 1.50 1.00 3.50 4.00

8 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

9 3.00 5.00 6.00 4.00

10 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00

11 4.00 4.00 11.00 11.00

12 0.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

13 2.00 2.00 7.00 7.00

14 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

15 0.00 1.00 7.00 6.0016 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 2.00 2.50 9.00 8.50

18 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00

19 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.0020 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00

Total 17.75 28.50 93.25 82.50

3 Circuit 16 uses contracted services for general magistrates.

2 FY 2019-20 proposed FTE allocation using current methodology is based on FY 2018-19 FTE allocation.

1 Net Need is the difference between total need and FY 2018-19 FTE allocation.

FMC Recommendation FY 2019-20 FTE Allocation

Using Current Methodology2


General Magistrates FY 2019-20 FTE Allocation

Net Need1

Agenda Item VI.A. - Attachment C

of 247

Agenda Item VI.B. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Full-Time Equivalent and Base Operating Budgets

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.B.: FY 2019-20 Allocations – Full-Time Equivalent and Base Operating Budgets FTE Allocations

Each year, the Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) and the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) review elements to determine allocations. Unless new FTE resources are appropriated, or budget reductions are required, positions are typically not adjusted. For FY 2019-20, the Legislature funded four new judgeships – one circuit judgeship in the 9th Judicial Circuit, one circuit judgeship in the 12th Judicial Circuit, one county judgeship in Flagler County, and one county judgeship in Citrus County. Additionally, 4.0 FTE judicial assistant positions for each judge and 1.0 FTE staff attorney for each circuit (1.0 FTE for the 9th Circuit and 1.0 FTE for the 12th Circuit) were also included. Base Operating Budgets

The proposed FY 2019-20 operating budget allocations are based on the FY 2018-19 beginning allocations and adjusted for the new positions mentioned above, permanent budget amendments, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring items, and approved personnel actions. The FY 2019-20 proposed operating category allocations (Attachment A) for each element were not available for FMC review and recommendation; however, they are attached for TCBC consideration. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the FY 2019-20 proposed operating category allocations. Option 2: Consider an alternative recommendation.

of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Total All

Categories

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Total All

Categories

Statewide 25,748 25,748 25,748 25,748

1 4.00 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276

2 2.50 4,184 4,184 4,184 4,184

3 1.50 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426

4 6.75 8,784 8,784 8,784 8,784

5 4.50 2,789 2,789 2,789 2,789

6 6.00 9,563 9,563 9,563 9,563

7 2.00 2,956 2,956 2,956 2,956

8 3.50 11,384 11,384 11,384 11,384

9 6.00 7,593 7,593 7,593 7,593

10 4.00 4,417 4,417 4,417 4,417

11 7.00 8,337 8,337 8,337 8,337

12 5.00 7,472 7,472 7,472 7,472

13 5.50 5,578 5,578 5,578 5,578

14 2.50 3,985 3,985 3,985 3,985

15 4.00 5,578 5,578 5,578 5,578

16 0 0

17 4.00 5,911 5,911 5,911 5,911

18 4.00 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276

19 2.00 3,819 3,819 3,819 3,819

20 2.25 3,288 3,288 3,288 3,288

Total 77.00 25,748 110,616 136,364 25,748 110,616 136,364

FY 2019-20 Trial Court Budget Allocations

Proposed FY 2019-20

Child Support Enforcement - Federal Grants Trust Fund

Cost Center - 024

Approved FY 2018-19

Circuit

Agenda Item VI.B. - Attachment A

of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 48.00 54,724 3,272 5,342 63,338 48.00 57,246 0 5,342 62,588

2 32.00 40,662 14,922 55,584 32.00 40,662 14,922 55,584

3 14.00 7,428 7,428 14.00 7,428 7,428

4 70.00 102,741 11,510 803 115,054 70.00 102,741 11,510 803 115,054

5 62.00 139,364 2,523 141,887 62.00 139,364 1,523 140,887

6 90.00 10,000 98,887 16,718 9,851 135,456 90.00 10,000 98,887 16,718 9,851 135,456

7 54.00 93,924 1,713 95,637 54.00 93,924 1,713 95,637

8 26.00 5,667 1,601 7,268 26.00 5,667 1,601 7,268

9 86.00 15,493 15,493 88.00 26,706 26,706

10 56.00 122,410 122,410 56.00 122,410 122,410

11 160.00 37,407 195,043 232,450 160.00 37,407 195,043 232,450

12 42.00 41,799 41,799 44.00 53,012 53,012

13 90.00 103,019 5,022 108,041 90.00 103,019 5,022 108,041

14 22.00 14,302 14,302 22.00 14,302 14,302

15 70.00 174,070 174,070 70.00 174,070 174,070

16 8.00 281 281 8.00 4,781 4,781

17 116.00 139,389 8,309 147,698 116.00 146,323 8,309 154,632

18 52.00 51,053 14,715 3,425 69,193 52.00 54,478 14,715 0 69,193

19 38.00 65,756 6,152 71,908 38.00 65,756 6,152 71,908

20 62.00 42,992 42,992 62.00 42,992 42,992

Total 1,198.00 47,407 1,509,004 67,872 38,006 1,662,289 1,202.00 47,407 1,548,811 64,600 33,581 1,694,399

Proposed FY 2019-20

Cost Center - 110/111


Circuit

Approved FY 2018-19

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and approved

personnel actions.

Circuit Judges and Judicial Assistants - General Revenue Fund


of 247

Approved FY 2017-18

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 22.00 142,547 142,547 22.00 142,547 142,547

2 20.00 106,883 106,883 20.00 106,883 106,883

3 14.00 69,498 480 3,900 73,878 14.00 69,498 480 3,900 73,878

4 40.00 123,740 5,985 129,725 40.00 123,740 5,985 129,725

5 22.00 96,811 5,760 5,673 108,244 22.00 96,811 5,760 5,673 108,244

6 48.00 183,694 2,425 186,119 48.00 183,694 2,425 186,119

7 30.00 125,567 125,567 30.00 125,567 125,567

8 20.00 64,361 21,120 2,036 87,517 20.00 64,361 21,120 2,036 87,517

9 44.00 156,472 156,472 46.00 156,472 156,472

10 24.00 108,555 108,555 24.00 108,555 108,555

11 86.00 397,421 156,480 1,025 554,926 86.00 397,658 156,480 788 554,926

12 20.00 44,264 14,400 58,664 22.00 44,264 14,400 58,664

13 34.00 64,258 5,760 70,018 34.00 64,258 5,760 70,018

14 18.00 84,112 84,112 18.00 84,112 84,112

15 38.00 194,993 2,223 197,216 38.00 194,993 2,223 197,216

16 8.00 41,803 2,352 44,155 8.00 41,803 2,352 44,155

17 64.00 179,389 179,389 64.00 179,389 179,389

18 34.00 157,862 34,000 852 192,714 34.00 11,000 147,714 34,000 0 192,714

19 20.00 72,597 72,597 20.00 72,597 72,597

20 38.00 166,784 166,784 38.00 166,784 166,784

Total 644.00 0 2,581,611 238,000 26,471 2,846,082 648.00 11,000 2,571,700 238,000 25,382 2,846,082

Cost Center - 110/111

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and approved

personnel actions.

Circuit

Approved FY 2018-19 Proposed FY 2019-20


County Judges and Judicial Assistants - General Revenue Fund


of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 12.00 12,480 12,480 12.00 12,480 12,480

2 6.00 6,089 6,089 6.00 6,089 6,089

3 6.00 15,012 15,012 6.00 15,012 15,012

4 20.00 30,916 924 1,606 33,446 20.00 30,916 924 1,606 33,446

5 12.00 27,819 1,830 29,649 12.00 27,819 1,830 29,649

6 24.00 14,600 24,987 39,587 24.00 14,600 24,987 39,587

7 15.00 30,450 30,450 14.00 30,450 30,450

8 7.00 9,600 9,600 7.00 9,600 9,600

9 20.00 38,031 38,031 20.00 38,031 38,031

10 12.50 16,093 16,093 12.50 16,093 16,093

11 48.00 4,139 4,139 48.00 4,139 4,139

12 9.00 11,589 11,589 9.00 11,589 11,589

13 22.00 19,237 86,400 105,637 22.00 19,237 86,400 105,637

14 7.00 13,265 13,265 7.00 13,265 13,265

15 20.00 34,853 34,853 20.00 34,853 34,853

16 6.00 5,655 5,655 6.00 5,655 5,655

17 33.00 33,552 2,400 35,952 33.00 33,552 2,400 35,952

18 12.50 19,212 19,212 12.50 19,212 19,212

19 7.00 6,317 6,317 7.00 6,317 6,317

20 18.00 19,400 19,400 18.00 19,400 19,400

Total 317.00 42,419 352,707 89,724 1,606 486,456 316.00 42,419 352,707 89,724 1,606 486,456

Circuit



Case Management - General Revenue Fund

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and

approved personnel actions.

Cost Center - 122


of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 6.50 6,828 6,828 6.50 6,828 6,828

2 4.00 6,365 6,365 4.00 6,365 6,365

3 1.00 7,012 7,012 1.00 7,012 7,012

4 13.00 17,818 17,818 13.00 17,818 17,818

5 10.00 25,920 25,920 10.00 25,920 25,920

6 14.25 15,496 38,400 53,896 14.25 5,000 15,496 33,400 53,896

7 7.50 21,334 21,334 7.50 21,334 21,334

8 3.00 17,026 17,026 3.00 17,026 17,026

9 10.00 39,591 39,591 10.00 39,591 39,591

10 7.00 11,799 11,799 7.00 11,799 11,799

11 22.00 7,989 7,989 22.00 7,989 7,989

12 7.00 6,835 6,835 7.00 6,835 6,835

13 14.00 8,962 27,000 35,962 14.00 8,962 27,000 35,962

14 3.00 6,298 6,298 3.00 6,298 6,298

15 13.00 38,219 38,219 13.00 38,219 38,219

16 34,828 34,828 32,728 32,728

17 17.50 56,079 1,200 57,279 17.50 56,079 1,200 57,279

18 7.00 8,298 8,298 7.00 8,298 8,298

19 6.00 10,467 2,520 12,987 6.00 10,467 2,520 12,987

20 10.00 15,400 16,320 31,720 10.00 15,400 16,320 31,720

Total 175.75 17,026 310,710 117,748 2,520 448,004 175.75 22,026 310,710 110,648 2,520 445,904


Magistrates - General Revenue Fund

Cost Center - 123



Circuit



of 247

FTE

Expense

040000

Due Process

Costs

105420

Total All

Categories

Expense

040000

Total All

Categories

1 312,886 312,886 0

2 317,115 317,115 0

3 28,630 28,630 0

4 180,285 180,285 0

5 162,057 162,057 0

6 1.00 1,095 335,256 336,351 1,095 1,095

7 186,628 186,628 0

8 100,727 100,727 0

9 488,408 488,408 0

10 375,139 375,139 0

11 1,153,381 1,153,381 0

12 271,301 271,301 0

13 692,178 692,178 0

14 139,349 139,349 0

15 374,202 374,202 0

16 25,068 25,068 0

17 785,155 785,155 0

18 136,693 136,693 0

19 236,875 236,875 0

20 280,557 280,557 0

Total 1.00 1,095 6,581,890 6,582,985 1,095 1,095

Expert Witness - General Revenue Fund


Circuit

Cost Center - 127



of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Due

Process

Costs

105420

Total

Categories

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total

Categories

1 18.00 72,102 64,549 136,651 72,102 72,102

2 10.00 36,309 21,402 57,711 36,309 36,309

3 5.00 17,680 14,724 32,404 17,680 17,680

4 1.00 1,286 1,252,861 1,254,147 1,286 1,286

5 16.00 19,200 221,208 240,408 19,200 19,200

6 36.00 4,000 67,701 553,826 625,527 4,000 67,701 71,701

7 13.50 47,357 114,892 162,249 47,357 47,357

8 14.00 46,558 30,843 77,401 46,558 46,558

9 36.00 19,512 88,245 125,616 233,373 19,512 88,245 107,757

10 12.00 13,281 389,167 402,448 13,281 13,281

11 4.00 1,729,926 1,729,926 1,800 1,800

12 15.00 60,979 76,456 137,435 60,979 60,979

13 3.00 46,522 1,313,297 1,359,819 46,522 46,522

14 5.00 19,065 7,758 26,823 19,065 19,065

15 23.75 44,412 346,614 391,026 44,412 44,412

16 4.00 10,216 24,669 34,885 10,216 10,216

17 29.00 57,800 1,200 661,440 720,440 57,800 1,200 59,000

18 13.00 37,426 172,855 210,281 37,426 37,426

19 13.00 38,250 2,940 70,414 111,604 41,190 0 41,190

20 15.00 5,250 463,325 468,575 5,250 5,250

Total 286.25 23,512 729,639 1,200 2,940 7,655,842 8,413,133 23,512 734,379 1,200 0 759,091

Proposed FY 2019-20


Court Reporting - General Revenue Fund

Cost Center - 129

Approved FY 2018-19

Circuit




of 247

FTE

Expense

040000

Due Process

Costs

105420

Total

Categories

Expense

040000

Total

Categories

1 71,290 71,290 0

2 33,155 33,155 0

3 34,615 34,615 0

4 422,388 422,388 0

5 5.00 177,070 177,070 0

6 349,688 349,688 0

7 3.00 4,454 92,172 96,626 4,454 4,454

8 1.00 60,683 60,683 0

9 10.00 30,079 267,814 297,893 30,079 30,079

10 6.00 8,928 95,446 104,374 8,928 8,928

11 37.00 28,800 741,918 770,718 27,000 27,000

12 2.00 335,453 335,453 0

13 10.00 6,372 197,148 203,520 6,372 6,372

14 57,136 57,136 0

15 13.00 23,144 268,397 291,541 23,144 23,144

16 2.00 23,088 23,088 0

17 15.50 37,117 230,445 267,562 37,117 37,117

18 1.00 411 57,638 58,049 411 411

19 2.00 6,488 672,631 679,119 6,488 6,488

20 7.00 2,700 642,892 645,592 2,700 2,700

Total 114.50 148,493 4,831,067 4,979,560 146,693 146,693

Cost Center - 131


Circuit


Court Interpreting - General Revenue Fund

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers,

actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and approved personnel actions.


of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

OCO

060000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

OCO

060000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 12.00 34,267 6,762 14,016 1,944 56,989 12.00 34,267 6,762 14,016 2,694 57,739

2 10.50 22,076 4,428 11,589 38,093 9.50 22,076 4,428 11,589 38,093

3 8.00 17,325 1,000 3,243 2,081 23,649 8.00 17,325 1,000 3,243 2,081 23,649

4 20.00 28,000 62,082 30,739 21,795 3,282 145,898 20.00 28,000 62,082 30,739 21,795 3,282 145,898

5 14.00 6,194 41,907 6,916 427 55,444 14.00 6,194 41,907 7,916 427 56,444

6 24.75 5,299 61,829 12,296 4,790 84,214 24.75 5,299 61,829 12,296 4,790 84,214

7 11.00 40,699 10,126 2,797 53,622 12.00 40,699 10,126 2,797 53,622

8 8.00 31,687 9,221 2,050 42,958 8.00 31,687 9,221 2,050 42,958

9 20.00 162,182 90,308 14,450 25,250 292,190 20.00 162,182 90,308 14,450 25,250 292,190

10 13.00 40,969 10,759 2,628 54,356 13.00 40,969 10,759 2,628 54,356

11 38.00 49,159 68,000 39,742 156,901 38.00 49,159 68,000 39,742 156,901

12 13.00 52,572 10,759 190 63,521 13.00 52,762 10,759 0 63,521

13 20.00 76,685 22,284 24,000 122,969 20.00 76,685 22,284 24,000 122,969

14 6.00 17,530 7,349 162 25,041 6.00 17,530 7,349 162 25,041

15 26.00 22,762 54,781 9,221 34,259 121,023 26.00 22,762 54,781 9,221 34,259 121,023

16 5.00 16,048 3,074 2,400 21,522 5.00 16,048 3,074 0 19,122

17 21.00 45,204 11,106 11,545 67,855 21.00 45,204 11,106 11,545 67,855

18 12.25 34,574 15,370 17,837 67,781 12.25 34,574 15,370 17,837 67,781

19 8.00 38,000 18,726 3,074 9,348 3,001 72,149 8.00 38,000 24,074 3,074 4,000 3,001 72,149

20 12.00 90,680 8,684 26,526 125,890 12.00 90,680 8,684 26,526 125,890

Total 302.50 262,437 899,108 265,618 254,404 10,498 1,692,065 302.50 262,437 904,646 266,618 246,656 11,058 1,691,415

Cost Center - 210

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and approved personnel actions.

Circuit



Trial Court Administration - General Revenue Fund


of 247

FTE

Expense

040000 FTE

Expense

040000

1 1.00 4,936 1.00 4,936

2 2,455 2,455

3 1.00 3,018 1.00 3,018

4 1.00 8,429 1.00 8,429

5 1.00 5,397 1.00 5,397

6 3,763 3,763

7 2.00 8,909 2.00 8,909

8 3,920 3,920

9 2.00 8,909 2.00 8,909

10 2,414 2,414

11 2.00 1,229 2.00 1,229

12 2.00 3,447 2.00 3,447

13 1.00 5,875 1.00 5,875

14 1.00 1,958 1.00 1,958

15 1.00 3,637 1.00 3,637

16 2.00 2,612 2.00 2,612

17 1.00 3,840 1.00 3,840

18 2.00 8,075 2.00 8,075

19 2.00 7,876 2.00 7,876

20

Total 22.00 90,699 22.00 90,699

Cost Center - 217

Circuit



Drug Court Case Management - General Revenue Fund


of 247

FTE

Expense

040000 FTE

Expense

040000

1 2.00 6,613 2.00 6,613

2 3.00 3.00

3 1.00 1,117 1.00 1,117

4 2.00 2.00

5 2.00 1,457 2.00 1,457

6 2.00 457 2.00 457

7 1.50 1,457 1.50 1,457

8 2.00 1,077 2.00 1,077

9 1.00 1,457 1.00 1,457

10 2.00 2.00

11 3.00 3.00

12 2.00 1,093 2.00 1,093

13 2.00 1,457 2.00 1,457

14 2.00 2.00

15 2.00 1,457 2.00 1,457

16

17 2.00 1,728 2.00 1,728

18 1.00 661 1.00 661

19 1.00 729 1.00 729

20 1.00 1.00

Total 34.50 20,760 34.50 20,760

Circuit



Post Conviction Trial Court Law Clerks - General Revenue Fund

Cost Center - 257


of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 7.00 5,949 5,949 7.00 5,949 5,949

2 5.00 7,858 7,858 5.00 7,858 7,858

3 2.00 6,295 6,295 2.00 6,295 6,295

4 11.50 7,639 11,151 18,790 11.50 7,639 11,151 18,790

5 8.00 44,578 452 546 45,576 8.00 44,578 452 546 45,576

6 14.00 21,000 10,348 12,280 43,628 14.00 21,000 10,348 12,280 43,628

7 7.00 18,922 18,922 7.00 18,922 18,922

8 4.00 14,120 14,120 4.00 14,120 14,120

9 13.00 9,833 9,833 14.00 13,953 13,953

10 8.00 20,150 20,150 8.00 20,150 20,150

11 22.00 6,783 6,783 22.00 6,783 6,783

12 5.00 12,691 12,691 6.00 16,811 16,811

13 15.00 39,367 1,920 41,287 15.00 39,367 1,920 41,287

14 4.00 7,008 7,008 4.00 7,008 7,008

15 9.50 14,858 14,858 9.50 14,858 14,858

16 1.00 679 679 1.00 679 679

17 16.00 30,448 3,467 33,915 16.00 30,448 0 30,448

18 8.00 7,669 7,669 8.00 7,669 7,669

19 4.00 7,942 7,942 4.00 7,942 7,942

20 9.00 12,500 12,500 9.00 12,500 12,500

Total 173.00 65,578 241,511 25,897 3,467 336,453 175.00 65,578 249,751 25,897 0 341,226

Circuit



Trial Court Law Clerks - General Revenue Fund

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding

items, and approved personnel actions.

Cost Center - 258


of 247

FTE

Expense

040000

SPENDING

AUTHORITY

Due Process

Costs

Total All

Categories FTE

Expense

040000

Total All

Categories

1 25,060 25,060 0

2 2,700 2,700 0

3 1,855 1,855 0

4 357 357 0

5 27,487 27,487 0

6 3.00 126,300 126,300 3.00 0

7 10,606 10,606 0

8 17,995 17,995 0

9 1.00 3,928 30,393 34,321 1.00 3,928 3,928

10 36,804 36,804 0

11 9,575 9,575 0

12 9,178 9,178 0

13 7,537 7,537 0

14 3,510 3,510 0

15 54,599 54,599 0

16 4,480 4,480 0

17 38,003 38,003 0

18 18,897 18,897 0

19 36,353 36,353 0

20 15,027 15,027 0

Total 4.00 3,928 1,104,930 480,644 4.00 3,928 3,928


Cost Recovery - Administrative Trust Fund

¹ Represents budget/spending authority only, actual spending is based on available cash. Allocation released at 100% or up to available cash.

Circuit

Cost Center - 267

Proposed FY 2019-20Approved FY 2018-19


of 247

FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Lease

Purchase

105281

Mediation

Services

105415

Total All

Categories FTE

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

Lease

Purchase

105281

Total All

Categories

1 3.00 3,521 109,562 113,083 3.00 3,521 3,521

2 3.50 8,475 50,608 59,083 4.50 8,475 8,475

3 3.00 2,433 13,214 15,647 3.00 2,433 2,433

4 9.00 12,033 1,205 13,238 9.00 12,033 1,205 13,238

5 4.00 16,800 143,031 159,831 4.00 16,800 16,800

6 5.50 6,400 13,400 449,380 469,180 5.50 6,400 13,400 19,800

7 3.00 6,721 92,176 98,897 3.00 6,721 6,721

8 4.00 7,693 69,402 77,095 4.00 7,693 7,693

9 8.50 39,080 568,751 607,831 8.50 39,080 39,080

10 6.00 12,484 35,536 48,020 6.00 12,484 12,484

11 11.00 5,700 177,244 182,944 11.00 5,700 5,700

12 5.00 24,318 24,318 5.00 24,318 24,318

13 11.00 29,321 343,882 373,203 11.00 29,321 29,321

14 4.00 10,038 43,571 53,609 4.00 10,038 10,038

15 9.50 14,901 2,163 114,902 131,966 9.50 14,901 2,163 17,064

16 3.00 7,560 11,629 19,189 3.00 7,560 7,560

17 12.00 31,533 3,467 193,103 228,103 12.00 31,533 0 31,533

18 6.50 22,336 135,034 157,370 6.50 22,336 22,336

19 5.00 17,916 2,211 20,127 5.00 17,916 17,916

20 6.00 7,600 511,123 518,723 6.00 7,600 7,600

Total 122.50 6,400 293,863 6,835 3,164,359 3,471,457 123.50 6,400 293,863 3,368 303,631

Cost Center - 430

Approved FY 2018-19

Circuit

Proposed FY 2019-20


Mediation Arbitration Services - General Revenue Fund

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding

items, and approved personnel actions.


of 247

OPS

030000

Expense

040000Days

Comp. to

Senior Judges

100630¹

TotalOPS

030000

Expense

040000Total

Statewide 51 19,729.76 19,729.76 0.00

1 213 81,033.72 81,033.72 0.00

2 142 54,022.48 54,022.48 0.00

3 81 30,815.64 30,815.64 0.00

4 305 116,034.20 116,034.20 0.00

5 52,000 498 189,459.12 241,459.12 0 0.00

6 382 145,328.08 145,328.08 0.00

7 52,000 491 186,796.04 238,796.04 0 0.00

8 119 45,272.36 45,272.36 0.00

9 407 154,839.08 154,839.08 0.00

10 224 85,218.56 85,218.56 0.00

11 691 262,884.04 262,884.04 0.00

12 176 66,957.44 66,957.44 0.00

13 339 128,969.16 128,969.16 0.00

14 122 46,413.68 46,413.68 25,000 25,000.00

15 324 123,262.56 123,262.56 0.00

16 42 15,978.48 15,978.48 0.00

17 520 197,828.80 197,828.80 0.00

18 244 92,827.36 92,827.36 0.00

19 163 62,011.72 62,011.72 0.00

20 288 109,566.72 109,566.72 0.00

Total 104,000 0 5,822 2,215,249.00 2,319,249.00 0 25,000 25,000.00

Note: Shaded cells indicate adjustments for any new resources, permanent budget amendments and internal transfers, actions

approved by the TCBC, non-recurring funding items, and approved personnel actions.

Circuit



Senior Judge Days - General Revenue

Cost Center - 630


of 247

Approved FY 2017-18

Circuit FTE Circuit FTE Circuit FTE Circuit FTE

1 4.0 1 1 4.0 1

2 5.0 2 2 5.0 2

3 1.0 3 3 1.0 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 2.0 6 6 2.0 6

7 1.0 7 7 1.0 7

8 2.0 8 8 2.0 8

9 8.0 9 9 8.0 9

10 2.0 10 10 2.0 10

11 11 11.0 11 11 11.0

12 3.0 12 12 3.0 12

13 11.0 13 13 11.0 13

14 2.0 14 14 2.0 14

15 2.0 15 15 2.0 15

16 1.0 16 16 1.0 16

17 2.0 17 17 2.0 17

18 18 18 18

19 19 19 19

20 20 20 20

Total 46.0 Total 11.0 Total 46.0 Total 11.0


Due Process Cost Sharing - General Revenue Fund

Court Interpreting

Cost Center 730


Court Reporting

Cost Center 729

Court Interpreting

Cost Center 730

Court Reporting

Cost Center 729


of 247

Agenda Item VI.C. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Non-Due Process Contractual Allocations: Senior Judge Days, Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers, Additional Compensation to County Judges, and Mediation

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.C.: FY 2019-20 Allocations - Non-Due Process Contractual Allocations: Senior Judge Days, Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers, Additional Compensation to County Judges, and Mediation Each year, the Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) and the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) review contractual allocations for possible reallocation due to changes in expenditure trends and variability caused by other factors. Proposed allocations are developed, as appropriate, using a three-year average of expenditures, contacting circuits for comment, and striving to maintain a 10% target for reserve. Circuit-level FY 2019-20 contractual authority allocations need to be determined. A vote is required by the TCBC for all issues listed below: 1. Senior Judge Days Background For FY 2016-17 the Legislature re-appropriated the unexpended senior judge days from FY 2015-16. These days were distributed throughout the circuits in addition to their regular allocations. FY 2017-18 followed the same methodology as FY 2016-17, as the Legislature re-appropriated the unexpended days from FY 2016-17. The daily rate of pay for senior judges increased to the rate of $375.00. Due to the increase in the daily rate of pay for senior judges from $350.00 per day (plus $5.08 FICA) to $375.00 per day (plus $5.44 FICA), circuit regular FY 2017-18 allocations were reduced by $324,000 or 913 days. For FY 2018-19 the Legislature did not re-appropriate any unexpended FY 2017-18 days to the trial courts but provided $304,000 of non-recurring funding for senior judges and administrative support staff for Citrus County and Flagler County courts, specifically for county court workload. During the 2019 Session, the Legislature did not re-appropriate any unexpended FY 2018-19 days. However, the GAA provided $125,000 of non-recurring general revenue funds for senior judges in the 14th Circuit. This specific appropriation may help address the significant increase in cases related to Hurricane Michael. According to the proviso language, $25,000 of the non-recurring funds is provided to reimburse travel expenditures. In addition, if the TCBC determines at the end of the third quarter of the fiscal year that a portion of these funds will not be needed in support of senior judges in the 14th Circuit for the remainder of the fiscal year, the TCBC may reallocate that portion of funds to one or more other circuits.

of 247

The number of days used by each circuit beginning FY 2016-17 through estimated FY 2018-19 is depicted in Attachment A-1. As noted in the chart, the trial courts’ Estimated FY 2018-19 Number of Days Used (5,062) is estimated to fall below the number of FY 2018-19 Regular Days Allocated (5,822). Due to unknown factors such as outstanding and pending payments, the estimate may change. Prior to developing proposed allocations, staff contacted circuits regarding contractual allocations. The 20th Circuit requested an additional 20 senior judge days to address heightened circuit civil case filings in Lee and Collier counties as a result of Hurricane Irma’s landfall in September 2017. The current allocation methodology is based on a rate of $375.00 per day, holding 51 days in reserve and using a proportional distribution based on circuit judicial need as calculated during the most recent certification process and actual county judges, plus the special appropriation for the 14th Circuit (see Attachment A-2). Decision Needed Option 1: Approve proposed FY 2019-20 circuit allocations using current methodology and incorporating the 20th Circuit’s hurricane relief request, plus the special appropriation for the 14th Circuit and holding 50 days in reserve. Modified Option 1: Approve proposed FY 2019-20 circuit allocations using current methodology plus the special appropriation for the 14th Circuit and holding 51 days in reserve. Option 2: Do not approve and consider an alternative. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously approve Modified Option 1, instead advising the 20th Circuit to request additional resources from other circuits or the reserve. 2. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers (CTIHO) The current methodology applies the percent of total average contractual expenditures to the total appropriation ($2,042,854) using the three-year average expenditures for each circuit. Prior to developing proposed allocations, staff contacted circuits regarding the civil traffic infraction hearing officer element. The 7th Circuit noted that reducing their FY 2019-20 allocation to $75,000 would be sufficient to meet circuit needs. An adjustment has been made to accommodate this request. Option 1: Approve proposed circuit allocations based on the above methodology with an adjustment for the 7th Circuit. (see Column H in Attachment B) Option 2: Do not approve and consider an alternative. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously approve Option 1.

of 247

3. Additional Compensation to County Court Judges The current methodology distributes the $75,000 appropriation (less $100 in reserve) based on each circuit’s percent of the total statewide expenditures using three years of historical expenditure data. If the number of circuit-related work hours performed by county judges exceed a circuit’s allocation, any unspent funding remaining at the end of the fiscal year is used during the certified forward process to cover uncompensated hours on a first come, first serve basis. In order to accurately capture circuit needs, expenditure data used in the development of proposed allocations include both compensated and uncompensated hours submitted.

Option 1: Approve proposed FY 2019-20 circuit allocations using the current methodology (see Column H in Attachment C).

Option 2: Do not approve and consider an alternative. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously approve Option 1. 4. Mediation The methodology for this element utilizes a funding ceiling applied to each circuit (see Attachment D-1). The ceiling is calculated using a standard cost per mediation session held ($20 for small claims sessions, $37.50 for other civil sessions, and $300 for family and dependency sessions) with modifiers applied for coordination, multiple facilities, and the use of volunteers. The proposed contractual allocation is based on three-year average expenditures provided the circuit’s total budget does not exceed the funding ceiling. The three-year maximum number of actual sessions held was used in calculating the funding ceiling. A funding floor based on the total cost of salaries, benefits, and expenses for an Alternative Dispute Resolution Director, a Mediation Services Coordinator, and an Administrative Assistant I position is also utilized in developing the proposed allocations. Prior to developing proposed allocations, staff contacted circuits regarding the mediation element. The 14th Circuit requested an additional $10,000 for increased mediation need, due to Hurricane Michael. The 14th Circuit currently receives funds for dependency mediation from Big Bend Community Based Care; however, they have historically exhausted those funds in Bay County and Jackson County and have had turn to contractual dollars, when available, and/or Court Innovation funds (county) for relief. Option 1: Approve contractual allocation based on the above funding methodology. Place remaining funds in the statewide reserve. In this option, the 2nd, 6th, and 13th circuits are held partially harmless by limiting their funding to FY 2018-19’s contractual allocation instead of based on the 3-year historical expenditures. FTE’s were held harmless for all circuits. In addition, the 14th Circuit’s request for hurricane related assistance is incorporated. (See Column I in Attachment D-2.) Option 2: Approve contractual allocation based on Option 1 funding methodology. A 5% cushion was applied to each circuit as long as it did not cause the circuit to exceed its funding

of 247

ceiling. Place remaining funds in the statewide reserve. FTE’s were held harmless for all circuits. (See Column J in Attachment D-2.) Modified Option 2: Approve contractual allocation based on Option 1 funding methodology. A 2.5% cushion was applied to each circuit as long as it did not cause the circuit to exceed its funding ceiling. Place remaining funds in the statewide reserve. FTE’s were held harmless for all circuits. (See Column K in Attachment D-2.)

Option 3: Do not approve and consider an alternative. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Unanimously approve Modified Option 2, providing a larger reserve amount.

of 247

Circuit Responses – Non-Due Process Contractual Elements First Judicial Circuit Additional Compensation to County Judges – We have exceeded the budget the last three years and are requesting an additional $1,000. Mediation/Arbitration Services – Increase of $20,000 due to the ADR Director not being certified in Family (will become certified). Second Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – Second Circuit was forced to drastically curtail senior judge usage in the second half of Fiscal Year 2018-19. We used many days to cover routine dockets because the assigned judges were hearing the extraordinary number of capital cases, tobacco trials, and cases of statewide jurisdiction in the Second Circuit. The additional days will allow us an adequate number of this critical resource. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - $22,241 (same as FY 2018-19). Additional Compensation to County Judges - $1,675 as provided for FY 2018-19 and request a 20% increase for FY 2020-21 of an additional $335. The Second Circuit runs out of funds at the end of each Fiscal Year. Only two of our ten county judges request this additional compensation. Mediation/Arbitration Services - $50,608 in mediation services (same as FY 2018-19). Third Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – Remain the same. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - Infractions fluctuate so it is difficult to determine peaks & valleys. Recommend leaving funding status quo. Additional Compensation to County Judges - We exhausted all funds. Budget should be increased 35%. Mediation/Arbitration Services – Remain the same. Fourth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – Need additional days. Additional Compensation to County Judges – Need more funding allocated to pay out compensation that is due. Fifth Judicial Circuit Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - Additional civil traffic infraction coverage of $30,000 is required for docket coverage for Lake County. Lake County due to its geographic location has I-75, the Florida Turnpike, and the new 429 interchange connecting to Orlando in Lake County. Lake County also has over 16 cities/towns within the county which results with higher civil traffic hearing cases.

of 247

Sixth Judicial Circuit Additional Compensation to County Judges - In the past, we have spent all of our allocation early in the fiscal year and typically end the year with uncompensated county judge hours. In FY17-18, our allocation was $5,867 and our total expenditures were $13,421.43. In FY18-19, our allocation was decreased to $5,406 and our current expenditures, as of April, are $8,077.79. We project the expenditures will increase when the judges submit their uncompensated hours. We need an increase in this allocation and hope not to experience another decrease. Mediation/Arbitration Services - If the mediation funding formula has been recalculated for our circuit based on the movement of the positions from mediation element into the case management element that was approved by the TCBC in FY18, our contractual expenses should be in line with our allocation. Seventh Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days - Our current allocation of 229 "regular" senior judge days should be sufficient to meet our needs for FY 2019-20. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - A reduction in our allocation to $75,000 would be sufficient to meet our needs for FY 2019-20. Additional Compensation to County Judges - An increase in our "add comp" allocation of $3,524 is requested for FY 2019-20. Mediation/Arbitration Services - An increase in our allocation to $95,000 is requested for FY 2019-20. Current contractual obligations total $90,000. An additional $5,000 is sought to cover unforeseen circumstances. Eighth Judicial Circuit None. Ninth Judicial Circuit None. Tenth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – 224 Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - $24,455 Additional Compensation to County Judges – 2,324 Mediation/Arbitration Services - $26,459 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days - The circuit is requesting 840 senior judge days in FY 19/20; the circuit 3-year average usage including beginning allocations and days transferred from other circuits. Over the last three years, on average, the circuit has had fourteen (14) vacancies per year.

of 247

Civil Traffic Infraction Officer - The circuit is requesting $631,567 for FY 19/20; the estimated 3-year average expenditure. Additional Compensation to County Judges - The circuit is requesting $22,000 in FY 19/20. Each fiscal year, county court judges report circuit work that is not paid due to limited funds. The pay owed to these judges is paid in the subsequent fiscal year creating a shortfall from one fiscal year to the next. Mediation/Arbitration Services - The circuit is requesting $178,000 for FY 19/20; the same allocation amount as FY 18/19. Twelfth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days - We consistently exceed our allocation of senior judge days and get days from other circuits. We would request an additional 25 senior judge days. Mediation/Arbitration Services - We are adding a second dependency judge in Manatee and anticipate the referrals to mediation will increase accordingly. We would like $25,000 in contractual dollars to bring in contractual mediators to assist with the additional referrals. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Additional Compensation to County Judges - Estimated shortfall for FY 19 is approximately $1,700. Request allocation of 15,630. Mediation/Arbitration Services - Circuit had to move expense dollars ($80,000) from other cost centers in order to pay anticipated expenditures during current fiscal year. Request Allocation of $450,000. Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Additional Compensation to County Judges - Historically, we run out of money for Additional Compensation to County Judges around February/March each year. Our current allocation is $1,285. We will run approximately $600 short. Mediation/Arbitration Services - Over the past few years, our numbers for mediation have increased, although it is not reflected in FY 2018-19 due to Hurricane Michael. Currently, we receive fund for dependency mediation from Big Bend Community Based Care, but we historically exhaust those funds in Bay and Jackson County and have to turn to State contractual dollars, if available, and/or Court Innovation funds (county). As a result, we are requesting and additional $10,000 in funding over our current allocation of $43,571. Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days - Absent any emergency situation, the allocation of senior judge days is sufficient. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - The estimated expenditure data for FY 2018-2019 is low. We expect expenditures to be closer to $107K.

of 247

Additional Compensation to County Judges - This allocation is too low, and an increased allocation is needed. County Court Judges covering Circuit work are not being fully compensated because $1,602 is insufficient to meet those payments. Mediation/Arbitration Services - This cost center is experiencing expenditures of $9K to $10K each month. Thus, the FY2018-2019 estimate is too low. Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations. Additional Compensation to County Judges - All county judges in the 16th Judicial Circuit perform circuit work. Our budget was expended in March 2019 for the current fiscal year. Would request additional funding in this area for FY 20-21. Mediation/Arbitration Services - Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations. Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer – The circuit would like to increase the amount paid to the Civil Traffic Hearing Officer. Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days – We request 60 days above the normal allocation to address a very large backlog of county civil cases. Additional Compensation to County Judges – We spent our $740 allotment by August 2018 this fiscal year. Some of that was carry over. An allotment of $2,500 would be helpful for FY19-20. Nineteenth Judicial Circuit None. Twentieth Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Days - The Twentieth Judicial Circuit is respectfully requesting an additional twenty (20) Senior Judge day allotment, totaling 308 days in FY2019-20, to effectively address heightened circuit civil case filings in Lee and Collier counties. Since Hurricane Irma’s landfall in September of 2017, the Twentieth has experienced an increase in filings within the sub-case types of Contract and Indebtedness and Insurance Claims (as a direct consequence of the natural disaster). Based on a comparison of the most recent three-months of available Summary-Reporting-System (SRS) data, the Twentieth is currently facing a circuit wide increase in Circuit Civil – Part 1.d. cases (all types) of 219.6% from the same three-month period in 2017 (Jan.-Mar.). Of note, the same sub-case types between the same three-month periods of 2018 and 2019 (Jan.-Mar.) experienced a 101.0% spike. Similarly, the sub-case type of Contract & Indebtedness (from Circuit Civil – Part 1.a. of the SRS) is experiencing an increase of 114.2%

of 247

over the most recent three months (as compared to the same prior to period) within the most Irma-affected counties of Lee and Collier since 2017. A closer examination of the sub-case types within Circuit Civil – Part 1.d. reveals that Lee County possesses an increase in Insurance Claims of 406% over the last year, which is up 830% as compared to 2017. Similarly, Collier County is experiencing Insurance Claims as a prime driver of additional workloads: up 1,038% since last year; up 2,113% as compared to 2017. Taken together these two counties have increased the circuit’s total Insurance Claims filings by 1,249% between the periods of Jan.-Mar. of 2017 and 2019. Given the relative case weights of both Insurance Claims and Contract & Indebtedness the Twentieth is facing an unmistakably observable and substantial result from the consequences of Hurricane Irma. Additional Compensation to County Judges - Original Budget: $9,988, reverted $0, ending budget: $9,988 The budget was exhausted mid-way thru January. As of April 30th, there have been 851.75 hours served that were uncompensated totaling $4,761. The 20th Circuit respectfully requests a funding allocation of $14,000 to cover projected FY2019-20 expenditures in this category. All Lee and Collier County Problem-solving Courts are presided over by County Court Judges with a circuit court assignment. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer - Original Budget: $51,380, reverted $7,018, ending budget: $44,362 Estimated to Spend: $40,377; 3-yr Average: $43,135. No anticipated special circumstances that would require additional funding in this budget category beyond the three-year average calculation of expenditures. Mediation/Arbitration Services - Original Budget: $511,123, reverted $28,000, ending budget: $483,123 Estimated to Spend: $471,150; 3-yr Average: $478,875. No anticipated special circumstances that would require additional funding in this budget category beyond the three-year average calculation of expenditures.

of 247

A B C D E F G H I J

CircuitDays

AllocatedDays Used Difference

Days Allocated

Days Used Difference

Days Allocated

Estimated Days

Used* Difference

1 256 153 103 243 227 16 213 162 51

2 171 165 6 163 183 -20 142 148 -6

3 97 38 59 104 38 66 81 28 53

4 377 358 19 350 358 -8 305 335 -30

5 308 269 39 271 207 64 236Citrus (County Court Workload) 262

6 469 339 130 433 156 277 382 180 202

7 297 239 58 266 184 82 229Flagler (County Court Workload) 262

8 154 132 22 138 105 33 119 109 10

9 460 345 115 466 366 100 407 478 -71

10 268 259 9 252 239 13 224 191 33

11 824 819 5 791 915 -124 691 815 -124

12 207 238 -31 205 192 13 176 161 15

13 422 448 -26 387 333 54 339 314 25

14 140 91 49 139 106 33 122 108 14

15 366 264 102 377 272 105 324 199 125

16 54 27 27 48 27 21 42 14 28

17 611 529 82 600 584 16 520 598 -78

18 297 317 -20 284 259 25 244 203 41

19 198 107 91 190 159 31 163 104 59

20 359 356 3 335 330 5 288 271 17

Reserve 50 50 51

Total 6,385 5,493 842 6,092 5,240 802 5,822 5,062 709


Senior Judge Days Historical Allocations and Days Used Including Regular and Re-Appropriated Days

*Fiscal Year 2018-19 estimated days used are based on the average monthly days used from July 2018 through May 7, 2019, with a statewide adjustment for June, as those expenditures are typically higher.

FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

402 96

242 249

Agenda Item VI.C - Attachment A-1

of 247

A B C D

CircuitRegular Days

Allocated

Percent of Total

Judicial Need1

Based on Total

Judicial Need2

1 213 4.0% 2112 142 2.7% 1413 81 1.5% 774 305 5.9% 3095 236 4.7% 245

Citrus (County Court Workload)3 262

6 382 7.3% 3817 229 4.6% 244

Flagler (County Court Workload)3 262

8 119 2.3% 1219 407 7.7% 404

10 224 4.2% 22111 691 12.8% 67212 176 3.3% 17113 339 6.4% 33814 122 2.4% 125

14th Circuit Special Appropriation3 262

15 324 6.2% 32816 42 0.8% 4017 520 9.9% 52018 244 4.8% 25319 163 3.1% 160

20 288 5.4% 286Reserve 51 51

Total 5,822 100.0% 5,560


Senior Judge Days FY 2019-20 Allocation

1 Fiscal Year 2019-20 percent of total judicial need is based on judicial need weighted caseload for circuit court plus the actual number of county court judges.

3Citrus County, Flagler County, and the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit are non-recurring appropriations.

2Option 1 distributes 5,298 regular days based on the percent of Total Judicial Need and special appropriation for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit.

FY 2018-19

FMC RecommendationFY 2019-20 Allocation

Agenda Item VI.C - Attachment A-2

of 247

A B C D E F G H I

Circuit

FY 2018-19 Beginning

Contractual Allocation

FY 2016-17 Contractual

Expenditures


Expenditures1

FY 2018-19 Estimated

Contractual Expenditures1

Three Year Average

Contractual Expenditures

(FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19Estimated

Contractual Expenditures)

Percent of Total Average Contractual

Expenditures (FY 2016-17 to



Based on Percent of

Total Average Contractual

Expenditures2

Percent Difference

(FY 2018-19 Beginning


and Proposed

Allocation)

1 $13,410 $12,514 $10,995 $10,613 $11,374 0.6% $12,923 -3.6%2 $22,241 $19,856 $20,494 $13,824 $18,058 1.0% $20,518 -7.7%3 $4,229 $3,201 $3,039 $2,559 $2,933 0.2% $3,333 -21.2%4 $67,907 $59,400 $62,600 $58,800 $60,267 3.3% $68,477 0.8%5 $91,764 $99,863 $89,679 $121,163 $103,568 5.7% $117,677 28.2%6 $60,883 $54,614 $45,275 $53,675 $51,188 2.8% $58,161 -4.5%

7 3 $82,382 $69,200 $74,900 $68,400 $70,833 3.9% $75,000 -9.0%

8 4 $0 $31,000 $0 $0 $10,333 N/A $0 N/A9 $241,267 $217,491 $215,217 $186,782 $206,497 11.5% $234,627 -2.8%

10 $24,455 $20,700 $22,438 $24,550 $22,563 1.3% $25,636 4.8%11 $704,430 $695,050 $614,500 $585,150 $631,567 35.0% $717,604 1.9%12 $55,932 $49,000 $49,000 $49,468 $49,156 2.7% $55,852 -0.1%13 $138,696 $134,175 $116,880 $126,015 $125,690 7.0% $142,813 3.0%14 $16,037 $13,048 $12,113 $11,603 $12,254 0.7% $13,924 -13.2%15 $114,590 $107,648 $101,049 $65,265 $91,321 5.1% $103,761 -9.5%16 $30,162 $24,721 $24,796 $26,745 $25,421 1.4% $28,884 -4.2%17 $272,741 $222,490 $228,973 $236,655 $229,373 12.7% $260,620 -4.4%18 $13,362 $13,605 $12,898 $13,680 $13,394 0.7% $15,219 13.9%19 $36,986 $34,063 $31,963 $36,456 $34,160 1.9% $38,814 4.9%20 $51,380 $47,593 $41,549 $40,262 $43,135 2.4% $49,011 -4.6%

Total $2,042,854 $1,929,231 $1,778,355 $1,731,666 $1,813,084 100.0% $2,042,854 0.0%

4 The 8th Circuit has not requested civil traffic infraction hearing officer resources for the last three years.

Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers FY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation

Meeting June 25, 2019Trial Court Budget Commission

1 FY 2018-19 estimated contractual expenditures are based on the average monthly expenditures from August 2018 through March 2019 plus July 2018 expenditures. An estimate for certified forwards is included.2 FY 2019-20 proposed contractual allocation applies each circuits percent of total average contractual expenditures to the total FY 2018-19 appropriation of $2,042,854.

FMC RecommendationFY 2019-20


3The 7th Circuit requested a decreased allocation of $75,000 for FY 2019-20.

Agenda Item VI.C. - Attachment B

of 247

A B C D E F G H I

Circuit

FY 2018-19 Beginning Allocation

FY 2016-17 Expenditures1

FY 2017-18 Expenditures1


Expenditures1

Total Expenditures (FY 2016-17 to


Expenditures)

Percent of Total

Expenditures (FY 2016-17 to


Expenditures)

Based on Current

Methodology2

Percent Difference (FY 2018-19

Beginning Allocation and

FY 2019-20 Proposed

Allocation)

1 $1,675 $2,241 $8,326 $6,614 $18,427 4.8% $3,561 112.6%2 $1,399 $1,685 $1,579 $1,363 $6,260 1.6% $1,210 -13.5%3 $6,100 $7,939 $5,622 $6,761 $27,543 7.1% $5,322 -12.8%4 $1,970 $2,571 $1,921 $0 $6,390 1.6% $1,235 -37.3%5 $959 $1,271 $1,835 $1,590 $5,365 1.4% $1,037 8.1%6 $5,406 $6,379 $14,583 $11,973 $38,033 9.8% $7,349 35.9%7 $3,524 $4,191 $4,142 $4,903 $17,096 4.4% $3,304 -6.2%8 $2,299 $2,885 $3,486 $3,972 $13,688 3.5% $2,645 15.1%9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% $0 N/A

10 $2,324 $3,285 $3,303 $4,829 $14,402 3.7% $2,783 19.8%11 $16,770 $18,144 $20,571 $31,661 $88,706 22.9% $17,142 2.2%12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% $0 N/A13 $13,314 $16,133 $12,293 $12,953 $62,222 16.1% $12,024 -9.7%14 $1,285 $1,340 $1,752 $2,021 $6,271 1.6% $1,212 -5.7%15 $1,602 $3,246 $0 $1,807 $5,172 1.3% $999 -37.6%16 $2,781 $3,365 $2,453 $2,762 $12,635 3.3% $2,442 -12.2%17 $137 $131 $0 $0 $502 0.1% $97 -29.2%18 $740 $1,673 $2,172 $2,237 $6,377 1.6% $1,232 66.5%19 $2,627 $3,519 $2,639 $2,447 $12,007 3.1% $2,319 -11.7%20 $9,988 $10,779 $11,084 $13,245 $46,506 12.0% $8,987 -10.0%

Reserve $100 $0 $0 $100Total $75,000 $90,777 $97,761 $111,138 $387,602 100.0% $75,000 0.0%


Additional Compensation for County Judges FY 2019-20 Allocation

1 Fiscal Year 2016-17, 2017-18, and estimated 2018-19 include uncompensated invoices. Fiscal Year 2018-19 estimated expenditures are based on the average monthly expenditures from August 2018 through March 2019.2 FY 2019-20 proposed allocation, using current methodology, distributes $75,000 (less $100 in reserve) based on the percent of total expenditures.

FMC RecommendationFY 2019-20Allocation

Agenda Item VI.C. - Attachment C

of 247

A B C D E F G H I J

Circuit Small ClaimsOther County

Civil Family DependencyTotal Projected Sessions Held

Direct Mediation Services2

Number of Facilities

Coordination/ Volunteer/ Pro Bono/

Multi-Facility Adjustments3

FY 2019-20 Funding Ceiling4

1 465 8 317 339 1,129 $206,400 6 $92,880 $299,2802 1,089 35 493 5 1,622 $172,493 8 $77,622 $250,1153 323 0 303 157 783 $144,460 7 $65,007 $209,4674 653 150 1,498 26 2,327 $475,885 4 $214,148 $690,0335 2,253 134 1,583 1,277 5,247 $908,085 5 $408,638 $1,316,7236 2,571 42 1,334 304 4,251 $544,395 6 $244,978 $789,3737 530 536 1,097 0 2,163 $359,800 5 $161,910 $521,7108 561 56 780 72 1,469 $268,920 6 $121,014 $389,9349 3,731 401 3,257 60 7,449 $1,084,758 2 $433,903 $1,518,661

10 432 293 1,059 107 1,891 $369,428 5 $166,243 $535,67111 1,718 1,506 4,118 407 7,749 $1,448,335 8 $651,751 $2,100,08612 1,616 90 669 265 2,640 $315,895 6 $142,153 $458,04813 1,660 170 2,043 210 4,083 $715,475 2 $286,190 $1,001,66514 489 158 464 422 1,533 $281,505 6 $126,677 $408,18215 3,492 977 2,133 622 7,224 $932,978 4 $419,840 $1,352,81816 140 41 74 21 276 $32,838 3 $14,777 $47,61517 2,682 2,432 2,007 288 7,409 $833,340 4 $375,003 $1,208,34318 1,482 80 1,280 299 3,141 $506,340 4 $227,853 $734,19319 446 114 704 208 1,472 $286,795 5 $129,058 $415,85320 3,488 66 1,866 630 6,050 $821,035 7 $369,466 $1,190,501

Total 29,821 7,289 27,079 5,719 69,908 $10,709,160 103 $4,729,111 $15,438,271

2 Direct mediation services is the sum of median cost of a session multiplied by the average number of hours per session multiplied by the maximum sessions held for small claims, other county civil, family, and dependency. 3 Coordination/volunteer/pro bono/multi-facility apply adjustments to direct mediation services. All circuits receive a 50% increase for coordination and a 20% reduction for volunteer and pro bono. The multi-facility adjustment includes a 10% increase for circuits with 2 to 3 facilities and a 15% increase for the 16th Circuit and circuits with 4 or more facilities. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.4 FY 2019-20 funding ceiling is the sum of direct mediation services and the coordination/volunteer/pro bono/multi-facility adjustments.


Maximum Sessions Held1 Funding Methodology

1 Maximum sessions held reflects the maximum number of actual sessions held over a three-year period.

Mediation FY 2019-20 Funding Ceiling

Agenda Item VI.C - Attachment D-1

of 247

A B C D E F G H I J K

Circuit



FY 2018-19 FTE

Allocation1

FY 2018-19 Salaries,

Benefits, & Expenses1

Three Year Average


(FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 Estimated


FY 2019-20 Estimated Budget2

FY 2019-20 Funding Ceiling3

Amount Under/Over (-)

FY 2018-19 Funding Ceiling (Ceiling minus

Estimated Budget)

Option 1 Current

Methodology4

Option 2 5 Percent

Increase of Option 14

FMC RecommendationModified Option 2

2.5 Percent Increase of Option 14

1 $109,562 3 $170,855 $113,716 $284,571 $299,280 $14,709 $113,716 $119,402 $116,5592 $50,608 4.5 $285,610 $55,057 $340,667 $250,115 -$90,552 $50,608 $50,608 $50,6083 $13,214 3 $194,211 $12,637 $206,848 $209,467 $2,619 $12,637 $13,269 $12,9534 $0 9 $584,733 $0 $584,733 $690,033 $105,300 $0 $0 $05 $143,031 4 $286,837 $133,876 $420,713 $1,316,723 $896,010 $133,876 $140,570 $137,2236 $449,380 5.5 $350,897 $477,978 $828,875 $789,373 -$39,502 $449,380 $449,380 $449,3807 $92,176 3 $208,235 $89,502 $297,737 $521,710 $223,973 $89,502 $93,977 $91,7408 $69,402 4 $270,378 $68,123 $338,501 $389,934 $51,433 $68,123 $71,529 $69,8269 $568,751 8.5 $495,334 $557,282 $1,052,616 $1,518,661 $466,046 $557,282 $585,146 $571,214

10 $35,536 6 $354,859 $26,459 $381,318 $535,671 $154,353 $26,459 $27,782 $27,12011 5 $177,244 11 $746,328 $98,884 $845,212 $2,100,086 $1,254,874 $177,244 $186,106 $181,67512 $0 5 $390,116 $0 $390,116 $458,048 $67,932 $0 $0 $013 $343,882 11 $703,633 $436,497 $1,140,130 $1,001,665 -$138,465 $343,882 $343,882 $343,882

14 6 $43,571 4 $273,261 $38,106 $311,367 $408,182 $96,815 $53,571 $56,250 $54,91015 $114,902 9.5 $636,894 $124,513 $761,407 $1,352,818 $591,412 $124,513 $130,739 $127,62616 $11,629 3 $192,872 $7,713 $200,585 $47,615 $0 $7,713 $8,099 $7,90617 $193,103 12 $821,662 $196,488 $1,018,150 $1,208,343 $190,193 $196,488 $206,312 $201,40018 $135,034 6.5 $428,220 $134,394 $562,614 $734,193 $171,579 $134,394 $141,114 $137,75419 $2,211 5 $327,245 $1,467 $328,712 $415,853 $87,141 $1,467 $1,540 $1,50420 $511,123 6 $291,954 $478,875 $770,829 $1,190,501 $419,672 $478,875 $502,819 $490,847

Reserve $100,000 $134,629 $25,836 $80,232

Total $3,164,359 123.5 $8,014,134 $3,051,564 $11,065,698 $15,438,271 $4,525,543 $3,154,359 $3,154,359 $3,154,359

6Circuit 14 includes an additional $10,000 in Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 from the reserve for hurricane relief, starting with last year's allocations instead of 3 year averages.

5Circuit 11 is based on FY 2018-19 Beginning Contractual Allocation instead of 3 year average due to decisions made in the previous year.

4 FY 2019-20 contractual allocation Option 1 is based on the three year average contractual expenditures as long as the proposed contractual allocation does not cause a circuit to exceed the ceiling calculation. Option 2 is the same as Option 1, but provides a 5 percent increase as long as the increase does not cause a circuit to exceed the ceiling calculation. Option 3 provides a 2.5 percent increase. Circuit 2, 6, and 13 are held partially harmless in Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3.

3 FY 2019-20 funding ceiling is the sum of direct mediation services and the coordination/volunteer/pro bono/multi-facility adjustments.

2 FY 2019-20 estimated budget is the sum of FY 2018-19 salaries, benefits, & expenses and three year average contractual expenditures.


Mediation FY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation Options

1 FY 2018-19 FTE allocation, salaries, and benefits are based on March 31, 2019 circuit payroll liability projections. In addition, expenses include OPS for circuit 6 and lease purchase in circuits 4, 15, and 17.

Note: If unanticipated expenditures arise during the year that cannot be covered by the approved allocation, additional funds may be requested from the reserve.

FY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation


of 247

A B C D

Circuit


Expenditures


Expenditures



1 $131,724 $99,100 $110,325

2 $47,120 $58,950 $59,100

3 $14,935 $11,121 $11,854

4 $0 $0 $0

5 $130,019 $126,804 $144,804

6 $482,550 $482,253 $469,133

7 $88,160 $87,600 $92,745

8 $68,295 $63,556 $72,519

9 $517,852 $566,544 $587,449

10 $32,375 $27,946 $19,055

11 $82,481 $81,331 $132,839

12 $0 $0 $0

13 $430,873 $427,954 $450,664

14 $45,609 $44,276 $24,432

15 $92,475 $144,225 $136,838

16 $11,673 $6,831 $4,635

17 $186,933 $215,520 $187,011

18 $133,018 $140,590 $129,574

19 $2,100 $1,550 $750

20 $501,300 $449,800 $485,525

Total $2,999,491 $3,035,952 $3,119,251


Mediation Contractual Expenditures

FY 2016-17 through Estimated FY 2018-19

1 FY 2018-19 estimated contractual expenditures are based on the average monthly expenditures from August 2018 through March 2019 plus July 2018 expenditures. An estimate for certified forward is included.


of 247

Agenda Item VI.D. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Due Process Contractual Allocations: Court Interpreting, Expert Witnesses, Court Reporting, and Cost Recovery

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.D.: FY 2019-20 Allocations – Due Process Contractual Allocations: Court Interpreting, Expert Witnesses, Court Reporting, and Cost Recovery For FY 2019-20, the Legislature appropriated the lump sum amount of $19,468,110 in due process contractual funds to the trial courts for court interpreting, expert witness, and court reporting resource needs. Based on a recommendation from the Funding Methodology Committee (FMC), the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) needs to determine how much to allocate to each element and, within each element, to each circuit. Additionally, the TCBC needs to determine how much to allocate to statewide due process initiatives and how much to hold in reserve. Background As recommended by the Due Process Workgroup, and approved by the TCBC, decisions were made on how to address the reduction in contractual expenditures for expert witnesses because of policies approved by the Supreme Court in 2017. For FY 2017-18, the TCBC approved utilizing the remaining balance of contractual funds to increase court interpreting services by purchasing $1.7 million in Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) equipment in the FY 2017-18 year-end spending plan. Further, for FY 2018-19, the Workgroup recommended and the TCBC approved redistributing resources among the three elements to enable the circuits to meet additional interpreting needs by either increasing contractual services, maintaining VRI capabilities, or a combination of these resources. The TCBC deferred to the FMC on recommending how much to allocate to each of the due process elements and, further, to each of the circuits. The chart below depicts a three-year overview of due process allocations and expenditures.

FY 2016-17 through Annualized FY 2018-19 Due Process Allocations and Expenditures

Court Interpreting Expert Witness Court Reporting Fiscal Year Allocations Expenditures Allocations Expenditures Allocations Expenditures FY 2016-17 $3,407,702 $3,584,252 $7,425,057 $8,033,835 $7,907,404 $7,482,715 FY 2017-18 $3,532,940 $3,663,830 $7,900,764 $6,655,070 $7,715,354 $7,158,037 FY 2018-191 $4,831,067 $3,987,415 $6,581,888 $7,412,604 $7,655,842 $7,386,378

Virtual Remote Interpreting Statewide Call Manager

OpenCourt Digital Court Reporting Total

Fiscal Year Allocations Expenditures Allocations Expenditures Allocations Expenditures FY 2016-17 $27,840 $20,868 $190,000 $191,508 $18,958,003 $19,313,176 FY 2017-18 $113,931 $73,187 $280,000 $227,348 $19,542,989 $17,777,472 FY 2018-191 $108,100 $108,100 $280,000 $280,000 $19,456,897 $19,174,497

Note: The above figures do not include the amount held in reserve. The reserve is accessed when one or more circuits has a due process deficit. 1FY 2018-19 annualized expenditures are based on data beginning in FY 2016-17 and capture seasonality, while weighting recent data more strongly (i.e., if spending tends to go up in March, historically, compared to February, the model will reflect that trend).

of 247

For FY 2018-19, the FMC recommended and the TCBC approved placing 2.5% of the due process appropriation into the statewide due process reserve and subtracting funds for the Statewide Call Manager for remote court interpreting and OpenCourt for digital court reporting. An additional 5% of the due process appropriation was allocated to the expert witness and court reporting elements, as a cushion to accommodate a potential increase in filings or circuit expenditures. Finally, an emphasis was placed on increasing the allocation of the court interpreting element to enable circuits to meet additional interpreting service needs. The below chart depicts the FY 2018-19 due process element allocations:

FY 2018-19 contractual allocations were determined for each circuit based on a three-year average of expenditures, except for the expert witness element, which was based on estimated FY 2017-18, with adjustments made in the court interpreting element based on circuit specific growth rates. The rate relied on the 2010 Census statistics for the difference between the number of “People who speak English at home less than very well” in Florida from 2000 to 2010. Other adjustments included the installation and maintenance cost of VRI equipment for the 11th and 18th circuits. The remaining funds were distributed out proportionally, while holding the 5th and 11th circuit constant, due to their current funding levels. A. OpenCourt – Digital Court Reporting

In FY 2017-18 the TCBC approved the total OpenCourt allocation be increased from $190,000 to $280,000 in order to include an additional $90,000 to fund a Support/Tester, as a non-recurring allocation. Additionally, they directed the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of OpenCourt, including the cost avoidance of vendor maintenance agreements, in advance of the FY 2018-19 budget allocation cycle. The funding provides support for: 1) Deployment and training assistance for circuits that are implementing OpenCourt and 2) Development and On-going technical support for OpenCourt. OpenCourt currently operates in 11 circuits, 45 counties, and 439 courtrooms. Recent planning and discovery interest for OpenCourt include the 5th, 15th and 11judicial circuits (Attachment A). The support transition activities between the Cross Jurisdictional Support Unit at OSCA and the 8th Judicial Circuit are in the final phase. The Cross Jurisdictions Support Unit will begin fully managing the development and deployment of OpenCourt for all circuits.

Court Interpreting

Expert Witness

Court Reporting

Statewide Call

Manager OpenCourt Total

FY 2018-19 Due Process Appropriation $19,955,792 $19,955,792 2.5% Reserve Amount $498,895 $108,000 $498,895 Statewide Issues $108,100 $280,000 $388,100 FY 2018-19 Allocations $4,831,067 $6,581,888 $7,655,842 $19,068,797 $19,068,797 % of Total 25.3% 34.6% 40.1% 100.0%

of 247

At its June 2018 meeting, the TCBC requested that all consultant contracts transition to the OSCA by June 2019. The Cross Jurisdictional Unit will begin the contract monitoring and payments beginning July 1, 2019. Currently, the TCBC funds OpenCourt with $190,000 in recurring contractual support and $90,000 in non-recurring contractual support, for a total of $280,000. The CJSU recommends the need for the following to accommodate the support services for the circuits:

1. $156,000 additional recurring contractual funding for a senior level architect developer contractor.

2. Convert the current non-recurring contractual funding of $90,000 to recurring contractual funding.

3. $18,000 new recurring expense funding for administrative overhead and other technology-related hardware and software. Currently, the operational support, and related costs are provided by 8th Circuit.

A total of $436,000 ($280,000 for current resources + $156,000 for a senior architect/developer) recurring contractual funding is needed, along with $18,000 expense funding for hardware and software to support the CJSU. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the conversion of the $90,000 contractual funding to recurring, the new $156,000 contractual funding as recurring, and the $18,000 expense funding as recurring. This funding would come from the statewide due process reserve. Option 2: Approve Option 1 as non-recurring funding. This funding would come from the statewide due process reserve.

Option 3: Recommend an alternative amount of funding. Option 4: Do not approve and make alternative recommendations. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Approve Option 1. B. Statewide Call Manager - Remote Interpreting In FY 2016-17, the recurring amount of $27,840 was allocated to support the continuation of the regional pilot on remote interpreting. The funds provide network bandwidth and ongoing maintenance and support for the statewide call manager, which is hosted by the OSCA. In addition, in FY 2017-18, the TCBC approved an additional $80,260 (recurring) and $5,831 (non-recurring) to implement a cloud-based “bridge” service to enable remote interpreting to occur beyond a single point-to-point call to a multi-point call, incorporating endpoints that are both Cisco-based as well as Polycom-based. Such functionality is critical for circuits currently experiencing difficulties in obtaining certified court interpreters. A single point-to-point call connects a remote interpreter to one courtroom at a time. A multi-point call connects a remote interpreter to two courtrooms at a time, such as a courthouse courtroom and a jail courtroom concurrently.

of 247

The recurring funding for the statewide call manager will continue to provide support to the virtual remote interpreting project, with specific enhancements needed based on the growth in usage as a result of the end-of-year spending plans for last few fiscal years. Remote interpreting services are currently used in at least 15 circuits (3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th), with most calls routing through the statewide call manager. Decision Needed No decision needed. For informational purposes only. C. Element Allocations The below chart provides an overview of the FY 2018-19 estimated expenditures based on April 31, 2019, operating reports.

FY 2018-19 Due Process Allocations and Annualized Expenditures

Court Interpreting

Expert Witness

Court Reporting Total

FY 2018-19 Actual Allocations $4,831,067 $6,581,888 $7,655,842 $19,068,797

FY 2018-19 Annualized Expenditures2

$3,987,415 $7,412,604 $7,386,378 $18,786,397

Percentage of Total 21.2% 39.5% 39.3% 100.0%

FY 2018-19 Estimated Remaining Balance

$843,652 ($830,716) $269,464 $282,4001

Given the estimated FY 2018-19 expenditures, the TCBC may wish to consider the appropriate amount of initial element allocation and appropriate level of statewide reserve that should be maintained while allowing circuits sufficient funding to address their needs in FY 2019-20. Decision Needed

1FY 2018-19 Reserve Beginning Balance of $498,895 was utilized for circuit deficit requests and year-end spending needs. 2FY 2018-19 annualized expenditures are based on data beginning in FY 2016-17 and capture seasonality, while weighting recent data more strongly (i.e., if spending tends to go up in March, historically, compared to February, the model will reflect that trend).

Court Interpreting

Expert Witness

Court Reporting

Virtual Remote Interpreting

Statewide Call Manager

OpenCourt Digital Court

Reporting

Total

FY 2019-20 Due Process Appropriation $19,468,110 $19,468,110

Reserve Amount $282,178 Statewide Issues $108,100 $454,000 $562,100 FY 2019-20 Proposed Element Allocations $4,431,293 $7,348,460 $6,844,079 $18,623,832

Percentage of Total 23.8% 39.5% 36.7% 100.0%

of 247

Option 1: Approve the element allocations based on the estimated FY 2018-19 expenditure percentage total, which considers the TCBC approved 4th Circuit service delivery model change. Option 2: Consider an alternative recommendation. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Approve Option 1. D. Circuit Allocations A recommendation from the TCBC is needed for determining circuit due process allotments. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Based on Element Allocation Option 1 recommendation by the Funding Methodology Committee, under the preceding issue, FY 2019-20 proposed circuit allocation recommendations are as follows: Court Interpreting – Attachment B Column I Expert Witness – Attachment C Column G Court Reporting – Attachment D Column

of 247

Due Process Contractual Allocations – Cost Recovery Background Each year the Funding Methodology Committee and the Trial Court Budget Commission review the due process cost recovery methodology due to changes in revenue collections and to ensure the allocations meet the needs of the circuits. The due process cost recovery allocations represent budget authority only. Budget authority is the legislative authorization to spend up to the appropriation amount approved in the General Appropriations Act. Actual spending is allowed based on the availability of cash and supporting budget authority. Available cash consists of carried forward cash from previous fiscal years and revenue collected in the current fiscal year. Additionally, as outlined in the Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum, expenditures may be of any type of allowable state expenditures but only in support of due process elements. Beginning allocations are allotted to the circuits based on available cash and allotments are adjusted once a month as revenue is collected, up to the circuit’s approved allocation amount. This budgetary step is necessary to avoid spending when there is an insufficient available cash balance to support expenditures. Current Issue Past methodology approved was based on the circuit’s prorated share of their projected revenue. For FY 2018-19, the due process cost recovery allocation of $1,104,930 was based on each circuit’s average of three years expenditures and the remaining budget authority was placed in the statewide reserve. The FY 2018-19 methodology was developed to provide each circuit with sufficient budget authority based on historical spending and provide a mechanism for circuits needing access to additional authority quickly. The TCBC developed procedures to allow access to the statewide reserve by circuits to spend available cash if needed. The addition of the statewide reserve also would be available to address any due process deficits if needed. As of June 10, 2019, four circuits (4th, 12th, 13th, and 16th) requested and received additional budget authority totaling $22,196 from the statewide reserve. Attachment E depicts two options for FY 2019-20 allocations. Decision Needed Option 1: Allocate the due process cost recovery budget authority based on each circuit’s average of three years revenue collection. Allocate the remaining budget authority to the statewide reserve. Option 2: Allocate the due process cost recovery budget authority based on each circuit’s average of three years expenditures. Allocate the remaining budget authority to the statewide reserve. Funding Methodology Recommendation – Unanimously approve Option 2.

of 247

Circuit Responses – Due Process Contractual Elements First Judicial Circuit Expert Witness – An increase of $50,000. Second Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - $33,155, in addition to the 1.0 FTE Certified court Interpreter requested in our FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request. We do not have a local ASL person, and interpretations are increasing in number and duration. Expert Witness - $317,115 (same as FY 2019-20). This could change depending upon future trends of expert witness expense. Court Reporting - $57,711 (same as FY 2018-19). Third Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - Even though our statistics have decreases, DOJ requirements to offer services for all case types will increase numbers. Expert Witness - Increase funding. Our costs have increased 35% Court Reporting - Increase funding. Our costs have increased 46% Fourth Judicial Circuit None. Fifth Judicial Circuit Expert Witness - An additional need of $43,000 is required for competency to proceed evaluations for the court due to increase needs for the five-county circuit. Court Reporting - An additional need of $16,000 is required for transcription services for the court due to increase needs for the five-county circuit. Sixth Judicial Circuit Expert Witness - We have one FTE who conducts adult competency evaluations in Pinellas County. Her workload has doubled requiring us to hire contractors causing our expenditures to spike. We project we will need approximately $29,000 in additional funds in our expert witness allocation for FY2019-2020. Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - A slight reduction in our allocation to $90,000 would be sufficient to meet our needs for FY 2019-20. Expert Witness - A slight reduction in our allocation to $185,000 would be sufficient to meet our needs for FY 2019-20. Court Reporting - An increase in our allocation to $140,000 is requested for FY 2019-20. Expected increase in number of death penalty resentencing’s. Eighth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting – Requesting increase to $50,000 in contractual expenditures, for the following: (1) FY’18- ‘19 estimated expenditures, as reflected in the 3-year average chart, are significantly understated. Due to the number of trials and transcripts in the 4th quarter, contractual expenditures for FY'18-'19 are projected to be about $50,000, (2) The 3-year average calculation is skewed by aberrantly low expenditures in FY '17-'18 resulting from staff changes and performance issues rather than lack of demand, (3) No less than 5 death penalty cases are anticipated in the upcoming fiscal year, which will tax our resources and require additional contractual expenditures.

of 247

Ninth Judicial Circuit None. Tenth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - $71,966 Expert Witness - $479,616 Court Reporting - $355,683 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - The circuit is requesting $670,000 in FY 19/20; this includes $565,000 FY 18/19 estimated expenditure and $103,748 recurring funds allocated in FY 18/19 for WAN expansion - with request to transfer from contractual to the expense category. Expert Witness - The circuit is requesting the FY 18/19 estimated expenditures for FY 19/20 of $1,450,000. The expert witness fee schedule was modified in October 2018 to include a slight increase in allowable fees. Court Reporting - The circuit is requesting $1,730,000 in FY 19/20; the FY 18/19 estimated expenditure. The circuit's Court Reporting Invitation to Bid resulted in contracts with a slight fee increase for services effective October 2018. Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - If additional positions are received, contractual allocation can be reduced accordingly. Expert Witness - We consistently exceed our allocation of expert witness dollars and need to either transfer funds or use our cost recovery funds to pay for this. This year we had to transfer $28,700 to cover a potential shortfall. Court Reporting - We consistently exceed our allocation of court reporting dollars and need to either transfer funds or use our cost recovery funds to pay for this. This year we had to transfer $18,500 to cover a potential shortfall. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - Circuit had to move due process dollars ($25,000) from other due process cost centers to pay anticipated expenditures during current fiscal year. Request allocation based on 3-year avg. $248,000. Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting - Our current allocation of $7,758 in contractual services is not enough to cover our need to maintain due process equipment and contractual court reporting services. In FY 2018-19, we had to request $10,000 in transfers from other circuits to make it through the end of the fiscal year. Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - The estimated expenditures are based on 3 quarters. The Circuit expects to experience significant expenditures in the 4th quarter. Expert Witness - The estimated expenditure data is close to what the Circuit expects will transpire with a bit of an increase in the final quarter. Court Reporting - The Circuit expects a continued increase of expenditures due to an increase of transcript requests. Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting – Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations. Expert Witness – Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations. Court Reporting - Current allocation is sufficient for continued operations.

of 247

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Expert Witness – Needs could be increasing due to Legislative actions. Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting – Based on trials scheduled before the conclusion of this fiscal year, we expect to spend approximately $51,000 rather than the $32,616 projected in the chart. This will increase the three-year average. Expert Witness – The Brevard County Public Defender’s Office is more frequently requesting a competency evaluation. The FY18-19 forecast is $187,827. We believe we will need that amount in FY19-20. Nineteenth Judicial Circuit None. Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court Interpreting - Original Budget: $642,892, reverted $0, ending budget: $642,892 Estimated to Spend: $471,037; 3-yr Average: $457,769. The 20th Circuit respectfully requests a funding allocation of $475,000 to adequately cover projected FY2019-20 due process expenditures. Expert Witness - Original Budget: $280,557, reverted $0, ending budget: $280,557 Estimated to Spend: $322,000; 3-yr Average: $340,647. No anticipated special circumstances that would require additional funding in this budget category beyond the three-year average calculation of expenditures. Court Reporting - Original Budget: $463,325, reverted $1,000, gave $4,000 to 14th circuit ending budget: $458,325 Estimated to Spend: $456,000; 3-yr Average: $467,710. No anticipated special circumstances that would require additional funding in this budget category beyond the three-year average calculation.

of 247

1

8

8

9

12

4

6 13

9

20

17

16

4

5

15

20

1

14 2

5

7

20

19

19

7

7

11

18

2

18

5

10

1

8

3

8 14

20

12

3

2

14 14

10

5

10 12

2 2

7

5

3

19

4

19

1 8 14

20

3

2

6

3 8

14

3

3

Map of Florida identifying DCR Services by Circuit

DCR Services by Vendor

OpenCourt (49 counties) Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Holmes, Indian River, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Martin, Nassau, Okeechobee, Polk, Putnam, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Washington, Duval, Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion, and Sumter

CourtSmart (12 counties) Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Escambia, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Okaloosa, Pasco, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, and Walton

VeriCore (3 counties) Clay, Orange and Osceola

FTR (2 counties) Miami-Dade and Palm Beach

BIS - Monroe

Agenda Item VI.D. - Attachment A

of 247

A B C D E F G H I

1 0 $71,290 $50,302 $55,564 $71,437 $59,101 1.9% $69,1002 0 $33,155 $27,471 $18,657 $30,943 $25,690 0.8% $29,5563 0 $34,615 $30,095 $17,651 $18,111 $21,952 0.7% $24,7424 0 $422,388 $286,999 $380,105 $333,574 $333,559 11.0% $393,3485 5 $177,070 $176,345 $171,811 $187,996 $178,717 $187,9966 0 $349,688 $263,631 $268,176 $266,224 $266,010 8.5% $304,2637 3 $92,172 $59,881 $65,795 $76,783 $67,487 2.2% $78,2018 1 $60,683 $44,152 $44,637 $46,340 $45,043 1.4% $51,6099 10 $267,814 $208,218 $230,191 $237,739 $225,383 7.4% $265,034

10 6 $95,446 $68,378 $70,993 $70,184 $69,851 2.3% $83,17311 48 $741,918 $542,748 $460,255 $582,401 $528,468 $670,00012 2 $335,453 $256,524 $142,978 $182,196 $193,899 6.3% $225,52813 10 $197,148 $149,520 $183,170 $241,537 $191,409 6.2% $220,54814 0 $57,136 $47,936 $37,074 $45,497 $43,502 1.4% $50,35815 13 $268,397 $195,905 $254,513 $234,889 $228,436 7.5% $266,54516 2 $23,088 $19,968 $15,377 $16,959 $17,435 0.5% $19,40017 15.5 $230,445 $162,438 $216,338 $209,259 $196,012 6.3% $225,61118 1 $57,638 $49,016 $51,145 $36,885 $45,682 1.5% $58,73919 2 $672,631 $505,266 $513,748 $641,185 $553,400 18.6% $664,21420 7 $642,892 $439,459 $465,651 $457,275 $454,128 15.2% $543,328

Reserve 4Total 129.5 $4,831,067 $3,584,252 $3,663,830 $3,987,415 $3,745,165 100.0% $4,431,293

1 FY 2018-19 FTE allocation for CC 131 and CC 730 as of March 31, 2019.2 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2018-19 estimated expenditures are based on data beginning in FY 2016-17 and captures seasonality while weighting recent data more strongly. (i.e. if historically spending tends to go up in March compared to February, the model will reflect that.)3 Estimated annual growth rate is based on the 2000 and 2010 Census. The rate is based on the difference between the number of "People who speak English at home less than very well" in Florida from 2000 to 2010.4 FY 2019-20 contractual allocation Option 1 distributes to each element based on the Annualized FY 2018-19 expenditure percentages.. In addition, proposed contractual allocation for the 5th Circuit is set at fiscal FY 2018-19 estimated expenditures excluding cost recovery. The 11th Circuit elected to receive $670,000 which is lower than their FY 2018-19 allocation. The 18th Circuit includes $6,500 for maintenance of VRI equipment.

% of Average Contractual (not including 5th and 11th

circuits)3

Three-Year Average





Expenditures2


Expenditures2



FY 2018-19FTE

Allocation1Circuit

FMC Recommendation FY 2019-20

Contractual Allocation Option 14


Court InterpretingFY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation

Note: If unanticipated expenditures arise during the year that cannot be covered by the approved allocation, additional due process funds may be requested from the due process reserve in accordance with the due process deficit procedures.

Agenda Item VI.D - Attachment B

of 247

A B C D E F G

1 0 $312,886 $398,244 $325,558 $380,246 $376,9552 0 $317,115 $439,164 $335,876 $344,703 $341,7203 0 $28,630 $35,011 $33,900 $45,863 $45,4664 0 $180,285 $164,019 $178,727 $158,447 $157,0765 0 $162,057 $225,450 $160,155 $207,877 $206,0786 1 $335,256 $318,447 $333,478 $386,583 $383,2377 0 $186,628 $171,800 $188,151 $178,357 $176,8148 0 $100,727 $93,740 $93,336 $77,380 $76,7109 0 $488,408 $562,790 $516,510 $600,444 $595,248

10 0 $375,139 $684,922 $350,446 $421,893 $418,24311 0 $1,153,381 $1,277,450 $1,213,075 $1,440,353 $1,427,88912 0 $271,301 $337,497 $271,374 $312,099 $309,39813 0 $692,178 $959,484 $620,091 $528,888 $524,31114 0 $139,349 $159,519 $132,178 $80,526 $79,82915 0 $374,202 $390,991 $385,975 $424,191 $420,52116 0 $25,068 $29,464 $25,605 $35,743 $35,43317 0 $785,155 $921,908 $856,711 $965,661 $957,30518 0 $136,693 $169,739 $134,163 $176,217 $174,69219 0 $236,875 $293,208 $228,553 $316,801 $314,06120 0 $280,557 $409,431 $277,368 $333,333 $327,474

Total 1 $6,581,890 $8,042,278 $6,661,230 $7,415,605 $7,348,4601 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2018-19 estimated contractual expenditures are based on data beginning in FY 2016-17 and captures seasonality while weighting recent data more strongly. (i.e. if historically spending tends to go up in March compared to February, the model will reflect that.)2 FY 2019-20 proposed contractual allocation Option 1 distributes to each element based on the Annualized FY 2018-19 expenditure percentages.


Expert Witness FY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation





Expenditures1


Expenditures1



FY 2018-19 FTE

AllocationCircuit



Agenda Item VI.D. - Attachment C

of 247

A B C D E F G H

1 22 $64,549 $75,336 $47,962 $88,088 $70,462 $66,2612 15 $21,402 $18,825 $24,454 $29,825 $24,368 $22,9153 6 $14,724 $14,633 $19,386 $29,671 $21,230 $19,964

4 5 1 $1,252,861 $1,251,833 $1,258,204 $1,151,778 $1,152,760 $662,9485 16 $221,208 $279,932 $278,881 $266,279 $275,031 $258,6326 41 $553,826 $547,648 $592,889 $525,429 $555,322 $522,2117 14.5 $114,892 $107,049 $123,843 $160,998 $130,630 $122,8418 16 $30,843 $34,969 $47,117 $72,493 $51,526 $48,4549 45 $125,616 $115,343 $187,830 $123,980 $142,384 $133,89510 14 $389,167 $420,646 $396,129 $400,881 $405,885 $381,68511 4 $1,729,926 $1,771,322 $1,530,727 $1,741,682 $1,681,244 $1,581,00112 18 $76,456 $31,450 $54,069 $44,301 $43,273 $40,69313 14 $1,313,297 $1,377,193 $1,313,316 $1,367,141 $1,352,550 $1,271,90514 7 $7,758 $8,802 $12,201 $16,398 $12,467 $11,72415 25.75 $346,614 $373,766 $301,928 $352,124 $342,606 $322,17816 5 $24,669 $22,736 $26,681 $34,439 $27,952 $26,28517 31 $662,640 $747,233 $679,666 $572,070 $666,323 $626,59418 13 $172,855 $178,581 $160,786 $174,989 $171,452 $161,22919 13 $73,354 $121,751 $90,661 $101,313 $104,575 $98,34220 15 $463,325 $481,197 $498,564 $501,525 $493,762 $464,322

Total 336.25 $7,659,982 $7,980,245 $7,645,294 $7,755,404 $7,725,803 $6,844,079

Meeting June 25, 2019Trial Court Budget Commission

2 FY 2018-19 beginning contractual allocation includes contracted services, lease purchase, and maintenance for cost center 129.3 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, fiscal year 2018-19 estimated expenditures are based on data beginning FY 2016-17 and captures seasonality while weighting recent data more strongly. (i.e. if historically spending tends to go up in March compared to February, the model will reflect that.)

5 In February 2019, the TCBC approved a delivery model change for the 4th Circuit, providing 9.0 additional FTE while reducing the contractual allocation by $489,812. The FY 2019-20 proposed contractual allocation takes into account that reduction.

4 FY 2019-20 contractual allocation Option 1 is based on 3-year average estimated contractual expenditures to calculate per-circuit allocations.

Court Reporting FY 2019-20 Contractual Allocation


1 FY 2018-19 FTE allocation for cost centers 129, 267, and 729.

Three-year Average





Expenditures3


Expenditures3


Contractual Allocation2

FY 2018-19 FTE

Allocation1Circuit



Agenda Item VI.D - Attachment D

of 247

A B C D E F

REFERENCE REFERENCE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 REFERENCE

FY 18-19 Beginning

Budget Authority

Allocation

FY 18-19

Expenditures/

Encumbrances as of

May 31, 2019

Average of Three

Years Revenue

Collection and

Balance to Reserve¹

Average of Three

Years Expenditures

and Balance to

Reserve¹

FY 18-19 Projected

Ending Cash

Balance

1 25,060 5,271 57,035 16,201 153,584

2 2,700 0 28,332 2,532 120,605

3 1,855 0 11,473 0 79,717

4² 357 5,797 2,253 2,611 6,194

5 27,487 20,925 33,012 32,285 26,439

6 126,300 86,288 68,159 109,455 636,490

7 10,606 9,786 21,059 11,384 39,353

8 17,995 8,866 20,751 18,216 29,703

9 30,393 23,475 29,628 37,578 159,538

10 36,804 33,390 27,618 46,765 60,643

11 9,575 0 3,825 7,092 30,538

12² 9,178 18,600 26,337 14,140 115,462

13² 7,537 8,386 21,206 8,894 67,859

14 3,510 93 15,348 852 137,644

15 54,599 13,610 77,858 37,765 156,149

16² 4,480 10,613 12,234 6,370 35,881

17 38,003 18,023 40,087 36,555 66,443

18 18,897 5,002 22,894 12,669 88,694

19 36,353 3,084 39,118 30,781 120,015

20 15,027 4,016 17,390 15,117 22,294

RESERVE 628,214 529,313 657,668

TOTALS 1,104,930 275,224 1,104,930 1,104,930 2,153,245

² FY 18-19 Cost Recovery Statewide Reserve accessed

FY 19-20 Trial Court Due Process Cost Recovery Allocation

¹ The 6th and 9th Circuit allocations have been adjusted to cover salaries and benefits for FTE costs and the Expense allocation in the 9th Circuit.

Circuit

Prepared by OSCA Office of Budget Services

Agenda Item VI.D. - Attachment E

of 247

Agenda Item VI.E. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Statewide Allocations

of 247

Line

#

Cost

Center Allotment Description

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

OCO

060000

Add Comp

to County

Judges1

100035

Comp to

Retired

Judges1,2

100630

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase of

Equipment

105281

Mediation

Services

1054151

Due

Process

Contractual1

105420

Other Data

Processing

Services

210014

Total All

Categories

OPS

030000

Expense

040000

OCO

060000

Add Comp

to County

Judges1,2

100035

Comp to

Retired

Judges1,3

100630

Contracted

Services

100777

Lease

Purchase of

Equipment

105281

Mediation

Services

1054151

Due

Process

Contractual1

105420

Other Data

Processing

Services

210014

Total All

Categories

1 000 Statewide Operating-OPS Health Ins. 446,402 446,402 452,921 452,921

2 136 Circuit Operating Reserve 38,000 294,724 54,772 17,615 405,111 38,000 48,489 54,772 17,615 158,876

3 136 County Operating Reserve 15,000 261,480 15,000 100 39,142 330,722 15,000 491,480 15,000 100 39,142 560,722

4 136 Comp. to Retired Judges 19,729.76 19,730 19,022 19,022

5 136 Mediation Services Reserve 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

6 136 Due Process Reserve 498,893 498,893 280,048 280,048

7 499,402 556,204 15,000 100 19,729.76 54,772 56,757 100,000 498,893 0 1,800,858 505,921 539,969 15,000 100 19,022 54,772 56,757 100,000 280,048 0 1,571,589

8 125⁴ ICMS 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000

9 134 Florida Bar Dues 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

10 135 Unemployment Comp 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

11 137 National Center for State Court Dues 298,247 298,247 314,482 314,482

12 144 Property Insurance Premium 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500

13 145 OpenCourt 280,000 280,000 190,000 190,000

14 176 VRI Statewide Call Manager 108,100 108,100 108,100 108,100

15 239 Trial Court Process Improvement 253,200 10,400 263,600 253,200 10,400 263,600

16 262 State Court Network Lines 271,300 97,902 369,202 271,300 97,902 369,202

17 373 Legal Services 50,000 50,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 100,000

18 0 1,419,247 0 0 0 60,400 0 0 388,100 97,902 1,965,649 0 1,435,482 0 0 0 60,400 0 0 298,100 97,902 1,891,884

19 499,402 1,975,451 15,000 100 19,729.76 115,172 56,757 100,000 886,993 97,902 3,766,507 505,921 1,975,451 15,000 100 19,022 115,172 56,757 100,000 578,148 97,902 3,463,473

Note: Shaded cells indicate change from prior year.

1 The reserve amounts for Add Comp, Senior Judges, Mediation, and Due Process are based on FMC recommendations

² County judges are paid for circuit service an additional $4.26 per hour base rate, $6.32 per hour with FICA and retirement

³ 50 days or 19,022 for reserve, $375 per day base rate, $380.44 with Medicare

⁴ Budget amendment required to move funds from Expense to ODPS category

PROPOSED STATEWIDE FUNDING REQUESTS FROM DUE PROCESS CONTRACTUAL FUNDING RECOMMENDED BY FMC

1) Additional recurring for a senior level architect developer contractor 156,000

2) Convert current non-recurring to recurring 90,000

3) New recurring for administrative overhead, technology-related hardware/software 18,000

Note: If any proposed items are not approved, the funding will be allocated to the due process reserve.

Total Statewide Reserve

FY 2018-19 Approved Allocations

Total Other Statewide Allotments

Grand Total Statewide Allotments

FY 2019-20 Proposed Allocations

Agenda Item VI.E. Statewide AllocationsFY 2019-2020 Trial Court Budget Allocations

Statewide Allocations


June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

of 247

Agenda Item VI.E.1. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Statewide Allocations – Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.E.1.: FY2019-20 Allocations - Statewide Allocations - Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Background In May 2018, the Supreme Court requested an assessment of online dispute resolution solutions and the anticipated impact of implementing this technology in court-connected alternative dispute resolution services in Florida. Online dispute resolution (ODR) involves litigants progressing through a series of questions and steps in an online platform designed to assist the litigants with bringing the case to resolution. The Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup was created jointly under the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and the Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy. The Workgroup developed the report, Online Dispute Resolution in Florida’s Trial Courts, which advanced the following three recommendations to the Court: 1) Authorize a pilot to study the application of ODR in Florida’s trial court small claims cases;

2) Communicate to the trial court chief judges and clerks of court the scope and intent of the ODR pilot and emphasize the need for continued compliance with existing court rules and statutes governing court-connected mediation; and

3) Direct a legal analysis of ODR as a method of dispute resolution for court-connected cases. In October 2018, the Court approved the recommendations, with the modification that the ODR Workgroup be reconvened to oversee the establishment of one or more pilot projects to study the application of ODR in Florida’s trial courts for a variety of case types including, but not limited to, small claims, family, and civil traffic. The Court requested that the Workgroup provide a progress report by June 30, 2019, which should address the metrics for performance measurement, the means for evaluating the success of the pilot, expected start and end dates, and sources of funding for each participating circuit. Current Issue In January 2019, the Workgroup began developing the parameters of the pilot. Seven circuits expressed interest in hosting a pilot in one of their counties, and the Workgroup worked with these circuits to identify which case types may be best suited for their circuit. Staff of the Office of the State Courts Administrator then developed a proposed sample size based on FY 2016-17 Summary Reporting System filings in the respective case type, and an associated cost estimate based on preliminary pricing information supplied by vendors (see Attachment A). Each interested circuit was contacted to determine if local funds exist to cover all or a portion of the estimated cost, and, where funds are available, they are reflected in column H of Attachment A. In May 2019, the Workgroup advanced the Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan for

Florida’s Trial Courts to the Supreme Court for consideration. The plan (see Attachment B)

of 247


Orlando, Florida

recommended a pilot involving seven counties (Brevard, Broward, Columbia, Miami-Dade, Lake, Orange, and Polk), three case types (small claims, civil traffic infractions, and dissolution of marriage in cases not involving children), and the use of multiple software vendors (specific vendors have not been identified). The Court approved this plan and instructed the Workgroup to implement services by October 1, 2019 (see Attachment C). The Workgroup was also instructed to measure and report the findings of the pilot project to the Court by September 30, 2020. At its February 1, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) approved in concept funding the pilot with FY 2018-19 funds in the amount of $98,500 pending the Court’s approval of the plan and an opportunity to confirm availability of funds. At that time, the proposal included a cost-out for the Simplified Dissolution case type; however, after further consideration, the case type was changed to Dissolution of Marriage in cases that do not involve children. This change in case type led to an increase in the sample size associated with the new case type and, therefore, an increase in the requested funds. Additionally, staff modified software integration costs to accommodate integration with three distinct clerk case maintenance systems. Although the Court approved the pilot plan on June 6, 2019, it was not feasible to obligate FY 2018-19 funds within the fiscal year deadlines; therefore, the issue of funding the pilot project using FY 2019-20 trial court reserves is being brought to the TCBC.

Decision Needed Following the Court’s approval of the pilot plan, the Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup seeks funding to cover the portion of the ODR pilot that will not be covered by local funds. Option 1: Allocate FY 2019-20 funding for the online dispute resolution pilot project based on the estimate of $124,680 (Attachment A, Column I). Option 2: Do not allocate funds for the online dispute resolution pilot project.

of 247

A B C D E F G H I J

3 Small Columbia Small Claims 712 290 $8,700 $8,700 $0 ClericusLake Small Claims (Non-Integrated1) 1,762 560 $16,800 $0 $16,800 Showcase

9 Large Orange Small Claims (Integrated1) 23,857 1,360 $34,000 $10,000 $24,000 Odyssey10 Medium Polk Dissolution without Children2 2,463 465 $18,600 $6,500 $12,100 New Vision11 Extra Large Miami-Dade Civil Traffic Infractions3 515,901 1,530 $15,300 $15,300 $0 Odyssey17 Extra Large Broward Dissolution without Children2 8,634 927 $37,080 $0 $37,080 Odyssey18 Medium Brevard* Small Claims 4,186 890 $26,700 $10,000 $16,700 FACTS

$18,000 N/A $18,0006,022 $175,180 $50,500 $124,680

*The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit executed a vendor contract on December 11, 2018. Their participation in the Court-supported pilot is undetermined at this time.

Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan for Florida Trial Courts

Circuit Circuit Size Pilot County Pilot Case Type

Total FY 2016-17

Filings in Pilot Case Type

Proposed Sample of

Cases4

Estimated State

Funding Needed

5

Local Funding6

Clerk Case Maintenance

System

1Refers to the integration method between the ODR platform and the clerk case maintenance system. 2Includes only those dissolution of marriage cases where no children are involved. Does not include simplified dissolution cases. 3Includes only those civil traffic infraction proceedings presided over by a judge or hearing officer. 4Proposed sample developed by estimating the number of filings in a six-month period and then determining the appropriate sample size needed to ensure a 95-percent confidence interval with a 2.5-percent margin of error. 5Funding estimates developed using maximum sample costs provided by multiple online dispute resolution software vendors. Actual costs may vary based on final pilot plan. Costs for the Ninth Judicial Circuit are held to the integrated vendor cost estimate. 6 Where funds are available, circuit has committed to providing all or a portion of the estimated funding needed. Funding available in the Ninth and Eighteenth circuits is estimated.

Medium

Software Programming and Integration FeeEstimated Total

Total Maximum Estimated Funding Needed5

Attachment A

of 247

Online Dispute Resolution

Pilot Project Plan for Florida’s Trial Courts

Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup

May 2019

Attachment B

of 247

Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan for Florida’s Trial Courts

Page 2

ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WORKGROUP

MEMBERS Chair: The Honorable William F. Stone, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit Matthew Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator, Ninth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Gina Beovides, County Judge, Dade County, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Heather Blanton, Mediation Services Coordinator, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Eric Dunlap, Esq., ADR Neutral, Ninth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Stephen Everett, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit Oscar Franco, Ph.D., ADR Neutral, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit W. Jay Hunston, Jr., Esq., ADR Neutral, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Jeanne Potthoff, Alternative Dispute Resolution Director, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable William Roby, Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Christopher M. Shulman, Esq., ADR Neutral, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

STAFF SUPPORT Office of the State Courts Administrator Arlene Johnson, Chief, Court Services Susan Marvin, Chief, Alternative Dispute Resolution Lindsay Hafford, Senior Court Operations Consultant Kimberly Kosch, Senior Court Operations Consultant

Attachment B

of 247


Page 3

Table of Contents

ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................................. 4

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 4

COORDINATION OF PILOT PROJECT ......................................................................... 5

PARTICIPATING CIRCUITS ......................................................................................... 5

CASE TYPES ............................................................................................................... 5

METHODS OF PARTICIPATION ................................................................................... 8

TIMEFRAME OF PILOT ............................................................................................... 9

SOFTWARE PLATFORMS AND DATA SECURITY ........................................................ 9

FUNDING ...................................................................................................................10

PROGRAM ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................11

Attachment B

of 247


Page 4

ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Online dispute resolution (ODR) involves litigants and, in some instances, court personnel in resolving disputes using a web-based platform designed to lead participants through a series of steps toward the goal of case resolution. The steps include posing standardized questions, providing an opportunity for response, allowing parties to make and accept case negotiation offers with or without the assistance of a third party neutral, and, in some instances, automatic generation of a settlement agreement. ODR has been identified as a viable point of access to the courts for selected case types and its use is expanding rapidly across state courts. ODR is expected to provide an innovative way for litigants to resolve cases while preserving time and resources.

BACKGROUND

In May 2018, the Florida Supreme Court directed a review of ODR solutions and the anticipated impact on court-connected alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services. The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability (TCP&A) and the Committee on ADR Rules and Policy (ADRR&P) were tasked with performing the analysis and the chairs of those respective bodies jointly created the ODR Workgroup (Workgroup). The Workgroup developed a report (Appendix A) which included the following three recommendations:

Recommendation One: Establish a pilot to study the application of ODR in Florida’s trial court small claims cases. Recommendation Two: Communicate to the trial court chief judges and clerks of court the scope and intent of the ODR pilot and emphasize the need for continued compliance with existing court rules and statutes governing court-connected mediation. Recommendation Three: Conduct a legal analysis of ODR as a method of dispute resolution for court-connected cases.

That report was submitted, and the Court considered it in October 2018. The Court approved the recommendations with the modification to Recommendation One that the Workgroup establish one or more pilot projects to study the application of ODR for a variety of case types including, but not limited to, small claims, family, and civil traffic cases. To move forward with the pilot project, the Court requested that the Workgroup develop an implementation plan for its consideration. The Workgroup met several times in January 2019 to examine the potential applications of ODR in Florida’s trial courts. It considered elements such as the appropriate case types, number of participating circuits, number of cases to process in the pilot phase, timeframe for operating the pilot, means for conducting an outcome analysis, and anticipated costs.

Attachment B

of 247


Page 5

Based on its research and discussions, the Workgroup is recommending that three case types be piloted over seven counties via two different software vendors. Additional details regarding each aspect of the pilot project are discussed further in this proposed implementation plan.

COORDINATION OF PILOT PROJECT

The Workgroup recommends that the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) coordinate statewide pilot project efforts in order to maintain consistency and serve as a resource for participating circuits. However, participation at the local level will be critical to the success of the pilot project due to the nature of the services being implemented. A significant amount of the workload associated with launching these services will be the responsibility of the circuit. OSCA will provide support to assist with vendor selection, program design and implementation, development of workflows, and post-pilot analysis.

PARTICIPATING CIRCUITS

To identify potential pilot sites, the state courts administrator consulted with the chief judges and trial court administrators of each judicial circuit. Seven circuits expressed an interest in hosting a pilot in one of their counties, and the Workgroup worked with the interested circuits to identify which case types may be best suited for their circuit. Because of the enthusiasm and interest surrounding this project, the Workgroup recommends including all seven circuits in the pilot. Additionally, including all interested circuits will add geographic and demographic diversity to the project. The table below reflects the recommended circuits, the selected county within the circuit, the designated case type, and circuit size. Table 1. Proposed ODR Pilot Sites Circuit Circuit Size1 County Pilot Case Type

3 Small Columbia Small Claims 5 Medium Lake Small Claims 9 Large Orange Small Claims 10 Medium Polk Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 11 Extra Large Dade Civil Traffic Infractions 17 Extra Large Broward Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 18 Medium Brevard Small Claims

1Circuit size determined by the Office of the State Courts Administrator and is based on number of filings.2 Includes only those dissolution of marriage cases where no children are involved. Does not include simplified dissolution cases.

CASE TYPES

The Workgroup proposes piloting ODR in small claims, dissolution of marriage in cases that do not involve children, and civil traffic infraction cases. For each case type, certain characteristics

Attachment B

of 247


Page 6

remain constant such as that at any stage in the process, litigants can forego continued participation in ODR and undertake traditional court processes; parties can communicate asynchronously within the ODR platform; and time limits for attempting resolution in ODR will apply. Additional information regarding each case type is below. Small Claims

As of March 2018, ODR is an option in small claims cases for litigants in courts in selected jurisdictions in California, Michigan, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Initial reports indicate that ODR expands access to the courts and saves both litigants and the courts valuable resources. The ODR process includes four stages: diagnosis, negotiation, mediation, and adjudication. In some jurisdictions, litigants are invited to participate in ODR via a postcard that is received at the time of filing for the petitioner and at the time of service for the defendant. If either litigant initiates ODR, the other litigant is sent an email invitation to participate. At the diagnosis stage, the ODR intelligent software poses a series of questions to query the litigant’s position on monies owed, monies sought, and flexibility to accept a range of offers. The litigants then enter the negotiation phase with the hope that they can resolve their case. If they are not successful at negotiation, litigants can request mediation with a third party neutral. ODR mediators are assigned by the court and communicate asynchronously with the parties using the secure online platform. If the parties reach an agreement in either the negotiation or mediation phase, the ODR platform generates a settlement document which can be signed electronically and filed with the court. A sample caseflow for a small claims case in the ODR environment may involve the following steps:

Dissolution of Marriage in Cases That Do Not Involve Children

There are essentially four types of dissolution of marriage actions that are resolved in the courts: simplified dissolution, dissolution of marriage with children, dissolution of marriage with property but no children, and dissolution of marriage with no property or children. To qualify for a simplified dissolution filing, the parties must have no children from the marriage, no marital property, and must file the petition and marital settlement agreement with the clerk of

1: Small Claims Action Filed

2: Court Issues Notice

to Appear; Provides ODR

Option

3: If ODR is Selected, Parties

Attempt Resolution in

Online Platform

4: If Resolution Reached,

Settlement Agreement is

Generated

5: If Resolution is not Reached, Case is

Referred to Mediator

6: Mediator Interacts with Parties in ODR

Platform Asynchronously

7: If Resolution Reached, Settlement

Agreement is Generated

Attachment B

of 247


Page 7

court having resolved all matters at issue themselves. The Florida State Courts System has implemented measures over the years to make this type of dissolution as easy and accessible as possible for those that qualify. For dissolution actions that do not qualify for the simplified filing option, parties must file for dissolution of marriage. In cases where children are involved, there are complexities that require additional research before the Workgroup would recommend the use of ODR. However, for the dissolution of marriage cases where no children are involved, the Workgroup agreed that ODR could provide a valuable alternative to the traditional case resolution method. The standard activities and processes associated with these cases could just as easily be conducted through an online exchange of documents and negotiated offers. Once a settlement is reached, a final hearing can be set in which both parties appear before the judge, or the judge can enter the final judgement outside of the presence of the parties. In conducting outreach to several Florida court judges, the merits of allowing parties to resolve the myriad issues that must be addressed in these types of cases in an online, arms-length manner were repeatedly identified. Applying this case resolution method to dissolution is thought to not only save judicial time, but to save the parties valuable resources by offering a more streamlined, and less acrimonious approach to a potentially painful process. The Workgroup looked to other states’ use of ODR in the family court environment and learned that Nevada is employing ODR for parenting plans in their Clark County (Las Vegas) courts and Michigan is employing ODR for child support enforcement actions in Ottawa County. Parenting plan ODR involves negotiation and mediation between the litigants; child support enforcement ODR involves communications and actions between a parent and the court. The Workgroup considered these case types as ones that may be suitable for ODR in the Florida courts but agreed that offering it in dissolutions would provide a more valuable service for the pilot phase. A sample caseflow for a dissolution of marriage case in the ODR environment may involve the following steps:

1: Dissolution of Marriage Action Filed

2: Case Set for Pre-Trial Hearing; Parties Presented with ODR

Option

3: If ODR Selected, Parties Interact in Online Platform to

Resolve All, or Portions of, Disputed Matters

4: If All Matters Resolved, Marital

Settlement is Generated

5: Unresolved Matters May be

Resolved by Court at Final Hearing

6: Judge Enters Final Order

Attachment B

of 247


Page 8

Civil Traffic Infractions

Currently, when a law enforcement officer issues a citation for a civil traffic infraction, the recipient of the citation (defendant) is presented with the option of admitting guilt and paying the penalty, electing to take driver improvement school to reduce the number of points assessed, or requesting that the issue be set for a hearing before the court. If a hearing is requested, in most jurisdictions, the case will be calendared for a pre-trial hearing before a Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer (CTIHO). Pursuant to rule 6.630(d), Fla. Rules of Judicial Admin., the CTIHO shall have the power to accept pleas from defendants, hear and rule upon motions, decide whether a defendant has committed an infraction, and adjudicate or withhold adjudication in the same manner as that of a county court judge. At the pre-trial hearing, the defendant is given the option to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. If the defendant pleads not guilty, the issue will be set for trial. If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, they can make requests for actions including extension of payment deadline, reconsideration of the number of points assessed to the license, and permission to attend driver improvement school. In consideration of these requests, the CTIHO evaluates the defendant’s driving record and, where appropriate, makes offers based on their request. It is for these cases that ODR is recommended. The Workgroup agreed that the activities currently undertaken in person by the CTIHO could be offered in the ODR platform where the defendant would interact with the CTIHO to reach a case resolution. A sample caseflow for a civil traffic infraction case in the ODR environment may involve the following steps:

METHODS OF PARTICIPATION

The Workgroup recommends ODR be offered as an option for litigants to choose among other case resolution alternatives. Other case resolution options (judicial, in-person mediation, etc.) should be made clear in communications to litigants. The Workgroup notes that presenting ODR as one of several case resolution options may affect adoption rates but placed a higher value on litigants engaging in ODR by choice.

1: Citation Issued;

Defendant Requests Hearing

2: Defendant Selects ODR

Option Rather than In-Person

Hearing

3: Case Assigned to CTIHO; CTIHO

Initiates Case Activity in ODR

Platform

4: Defendant Enters Plea and Accompanying

Requests

5: CTIHO Reviews Defendant Driving

Record; Makes Offer in ODR Platform

6: Defendant Accepts Offer Online; Order Generated for

CTIHO Review

7: CTIHO Enters Order

Attachment B

of 247


Page 9

TIMEFRAME OF PILOT

The Workgroup recommends that the pilot project be case-delimited rather than approaching the project from a defined start and end date. This approach allows for an appropriate sample size of cases to be determined based on a statistical analysis of each jurisdiction and case type under evaluation. The Workgroup does, however, recommend that a time limit be established for pilot conclusion even if the target number of cases has not been processed. It is anticipated that each pilot site would have the ability to intake cases within three months from commencement of the pilot and that the pilot would conclude within six-months from initial case intake. In addition, structuring pilot case acceptance in this manner maximizes cost controls. The table below reflects the proposed sample size of cases expected to be processed in each participating county. Table 2. Proposed Sample Size for ODR Case Processing

Circuit County Case Type Proposed Sample Size in Number of Cases1

3 Columbia Small Claims 290 5 Lake Small Claims 560 9 Orange Small Claims 1,360 10 Polk Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 465 11 Dade Civil Traffic Infractions 1,530 17 Broward Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 927 18 Brevard Small Claims 890

1 Sample developed using FY 2016-17 total filings by case type to estimate the number of filings in a six-month period and then determine the appropriate sample size needed to ensure a 95 percent confidence interval with a 2.5 percent margin of error. Samples for dissolution of marriage without children are based on an estimate that 27 percent of cases fall into this category. 2 Includes only those dissolution of marriage cases where no children are involved. Does not include simplified dissolution cases.

SOFTWARE PLATFORMS AND DATA SECURITY

Over 25 software vendors providing ODR services have been identified. Of these, there are two primary vendors working with other state courts, Modria and Matterhorn. The Workgroup recommends contracting with a minimum of two vendors during the pilot phase. Working with multiple vendors will allow data to be collected on the available services and products including software design, integration capabilities, application program interfaces, adaptability to multiple case types, user experience, and cost. Vendors indicated an ability to tailor their software to the particular case type and existing electronic document management systems. ODR software also has the ability to integrate directly with the clerk of court’s case maintenance systems, which is expected to offer a more seamless experience to the user. The integration capabilities and associated programming costs vary slightly among the vendors and clerks’ systems presently in use.

Attachment B

of 247


Page 10

With regard to information security, the Workgroup has consulted with the Office of the State Courts Administrator’s (OSCA) Office of Information Technology and plans to engage them in the development of the pilot to ensure court and user data remains secure and uncompromised.

FUNDING

The pilot is expected to be funded through a combination of state and local funds. Most ODR vendors follow a cost model that is based on a per-case processing fee. In order to develop a funding estimate, the Workgroup worked with the interested circuits to identify which case types may be best suited for their circuit. OSCA staff then developed a proposed sample size based on FY 2016-17 Summary Reporting System filings in the respective case type, and an associated cost estimate based on preliminary pricing information supplied by vendors. Interested circuits were contacted to determine if local funds exist to cover all or a portion of the estimated costs and, where funds are available, they are reflected in the table below.

Table 3. Proposed Funding Model

Circuit Pilot

County Pilot Case Type

Proposed Sample

of Cases4

Total Maximum Estimated Funding Needed5

Local Funding6

Estimated State

Funding Needed7

3 Columbia Small Claims 290 $8,700 $8,700 $0 5 Lake Small Claims (Non-Integrated1) 560 $16,800 $0 $16,800 9 Orange Small Claims (Integrated1) 1,360 $34,000 $10,000 $24,000

10 Polk Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 465 $18,600 $6,500 $12,100

11 Dade Civil Traffic Infractions3 1,530 $15,300 $15,300 $0 17 Broward Dissolution of Marriage without Children2 927 $37,080 $0 $37,080

18 Brevard Small Claims 890 $26,700 $10,000 $16,700 Programming and Integration Fee $7,000 N/A $7,000

Estimated Total 6,022 $164,180 $50,500 $113,680 1 Refers to the integration method between the ODR platform and the case maintenance system. 2 Includes only those dissolution of marriage cases where no children are involved. Does not include simplified dissolution cases. 3 Civil Traffic includes only those civil traffic infraction proceedings presided over by a judge or hearing officer. 4 Proposed sample developed by estimating the number of filings in a six-month period and then determining the appropriate sample size needed to ensure a 95 percent confidence interval with a 2.5 percent margin of error. 5 Funding estimates developed using maximum sample costs provided by multiple online dispute resolution software vendors. Actual costs may vary based on final pilot plan. 6 Where funds are available, circuit has committed to providing all or a portion of the estimated funding needed. Funding available in the Ninth and Eighteenth circuits is estimated. 7 State funding will be requested from the Trial Court Budget Commission.

The Workgroup submitted a proposal to the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) at their February 1, 2019, meeting requesting approval for the TCBC to authorize FY 2018-19 funding to

Attachment B

of 247


Page 11

cover the anticipated costs of the online dispute resolution pilot project.i In their request, the Workgroup specified that use of funds would be contingent on the Court’s approval of the pilot implementation plan. The TCBC approved the request, contingent on the continued availability of funds at the time of Court approval. If FY 2018-19 funds are not used, the TCBC could be asked to consider a request to authorize the use of FY 2019-20 funds. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Staff of the OSCA will monitor the operations of the pilot project and conduct an outcome analysis to measure the success of using ODR. For the quantitative analysis, OSCA will rely on data supplied by the vendors which will allow staff to determine the percentage of users who selected ODR, amount of time spent interacting in the ODR platform, average number of days it took to resolve the case, number of cases that resolved without the assistance of a third party neutral, time of day litigants used the system, and similar metrics. For the qualitative analysis, OSCA staff plans to administer a survey to litigants and court personnel that will be designed to measure overall satisfaction and likelihood to use and recommend ODR in the future. The qualitative survey for litigants will include participant experience metrics such as ease of access and use, quality of instructions and information provided, and perceptions of procedural fairness. The survey for court personnel will focus on workload, the ability to integrate ODR with existing case resolution offerings, service delivery, and time and cost savings. Case outcomes, costs, and participant satisfaction will be compared to analyze the various perspectives on using ODR in the future.

i Anticipated costs were developed using a maximum sample costs provided by multiple online dispute resolution software vendors. Costs vary by case type and, subsequent to the TCBC meeting, anticipated costs were adjusted upward to account for the increased costs associated with processing cases in the dissolution case type.

Attachment B

of 247

$upreme (!Court of jfloriba 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 C HARLES T . CANADY

CHIEF JUSTICE

RICKY POLSTON

JORGE LABARGA

C . ALAN LAWSON

BARBARA LAGOA

R OBERT J . LUCK

CARLOS G. M uN!Z

JUSTICES

The Honorable Diana L. Moreland Chair, Commission on Trial Court

June 6, 2019

Performance and Accountability Twelfth Judicial Circuit 1051 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206

The Honorable Michael S. Orfinger Chair, Committee on Alternative Dispute

Resolution Rules and Policy Seventh Judicial Circuit 125 East Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

Dear Judge Moreland and Judge Orfinger:

JOHN A. TOMASINO

CLERK OF C OURT

S ILVESTER D AWSON

MARSHAL

On May 22, 2019, the Supreme Court considered the Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan submitted by the Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup, a joint workgroup of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and the Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy. The Court approved the Workgroup's recommendation for the establishment of an online dispute resolution pilot project in small claims cases, civil traffic infraction cases, and dissolution of marriage cases that do not involve children. The Court also approved the Workgroup's recommendation that the pilot project be implemented in seven counties using multiple software vendors.

Attachment C

of 247

The Honorable Diana L. Moreland and The Honorable Michael S. Orfinger June 6, 2019 Page 2

We request that the pilot project be launched to the public by October 1, 2019. Additionally, we request that the Workgroup monitor the operation of the pilot project and present its findings to the Court, through the state courts administrator, no later than September 30, 2020.

The Court appreciates the efforts thus far on this innovative initiative.

CTC:LH:dgh

Sincerely, // --- /+ v~ !- ~ Charles i. Canady ,

Attachment C

of 247

Agenda Item VI.E.2. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Statewide Allocations – Integrated Case Management System

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.E.2.: FY 2019-20 Allocations - Statewide Allocations - Integrated Case Management System Background The Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) began providing support as part of the statewide allocations for the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) in FY 2014-15, since the funding received from the National Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement to help develop the Case Application Processing System (CAPS) was due to run out. At that time, ICMS was deployed in four circuits and 15 counties. In FY 2018-19, ICMS expanded coverage and was in production in six circuits and 26 ½ counties (see Attachment A). The TCBC allocated a total of $230,000 (recurring) for ICMS to the Eighth Circuit for the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Eighteenth judicial circuits ($38,333 per circuit, or $8,679 per county) for ongoing programming and support of ICMS. This figure is in line with the $500 per user annual maintenance fee proposed by the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) for ongoing maintenance and support of in-house systems. The amount allowed the six circuits to keep ICMS compliant with CAPS and maintain functionality and continued operation. The funds were expended as follows: 1 Contract Developer @ $140,000 1 Contract Support/Tester @ $90,000 It is anticipated that the cost to maintain ICMS will continue in out-years, to support the expansion for additional circuits implementing ICMS. Those costs could be requested through the state appropriation process or through the same process as this request. In addition to these funds, the Cross Jurisdictional Support Unit (CJSU) at the OSCA is providing management and developer support for CAPS. The CJSU will manage all ICMS consultant contracts beginning July 1, 2019. The CJSU unit provides support to those circuits currently using ICMS and is available to other circuits using non-vendor systems. FY 2019-20 Support In FY 2019-20, the CJSU in the Office of Information Technology at the OSCA will continue to support the six circuits and 26 ½ counties. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit (Clay county), Second Circuit (five and a half counties), Sixteen Circuit (Monroe County), and Eighteenth circuit (Seminole County) are on track to go to production in FY 2019-2020.

of 247

The Fifth Circuit (five counties) could potentially have all counties running test servers in FY 2019-2020, including the three counties that currently have test/evaluation servers and could possibly convert to ICMS in the next fiscal year. The CJSU is managing the development and deployment of ICMS for additional twelve and half counties going to production by the end of the next fiscal year. While the expansion and success of the system is a direct reflection of the mature and well-supported product, all the current resources are at capacity. The CJSU recommends retaining a developer that is currently funded by Clay County in order to continue the expansion for Clay County implementation and Monroe County programing needs. Currently, the TCBC funds ICMS with $230,000 in recurring contractual support. The CJSU recommends the need for the following increase in funding to accommodate the growth in system deployments, enhancements, and support of ICMS:

1) $145,600 additional recurring contractual funding for a senior level developer contractor. 2) $15,000 new recurring expense funding for administrative costs for technology-related

hardware and software. Currently, the operational support, and related costs are provided by 8th Circuit.

A total of $390,600 ($230,000 for current resources + $145,600 for a senior developer) recurring contractual funding is needed, along with $15,000 expense funding for hardware and software to support the CJSU. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the new $145,600 contractual funding as recurring funding and the new $15,000 expense funding as recurring funding. Option 2: Approve Option 1 as non-recurring funding. Option 3: Recommend an alternative amount of funding.

of 247

* Cross-hatched pattern reflects counties deploying a CAPS or transitioning to an alternate CAPS in FY 2019-20; Stripe pattern reflects separate CAPS for the criminal divisions. June 2019

Miami-

1

8

8

9

12

4

6 13

9

20

17

16

4

5

15

20

1

14 2

5

7

20

19

19

7

7

11

18

2

18

5

10

1

8

3

8 14

20

12

3

2

14 14

10

5

10 12

2 2

7

5

3

19

4

19

1 8 14

20

3

2

6

3 8

14

3

3

Map of Florida Identifying CAPS Systems by Circuit (current)

CAPS Systems by Vendor

Mentis/aiSmartBench (30 counties) Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, DeSoto, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Glades, Hendry, Hernando, Indian River, Jefferson, Lake, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade (civil*), Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Lucie, Sumter, Taylor (civil*), Wakulla, and Walton

Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) (26 counties) Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Highlands, Holmes, Jackson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Monroe, Nassau, Polk, Suwannee, Union, and Washington (Taylor-criminal)

Pioneer/Benchmark (5 counties) Sarasota, Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns, and Volusia

Judicial Automated Workflow System (JAWS) (3 counties) Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas

In-House System (3 counties) Broward, Palm Beach, and Seminole

Agenda Item VI.E.2. - Attachment A

of 247

* Cross-hatched pattern reflects counties deploying a CAPS or transitioning to an alternate CAPS in FY 2019-20; Stripe pattern reflects separate CAPS for the criminal divisions. June 2019

Miami-

1

8

8

9

12

4

6 13

9

20

17

16

4

5

15

20

1

14 2

5

7

20

19

19

7

7

11

18

2

18

5

10

1

8

3

8 14

20

12

3

2

14 14

10

5

10 12

2 2

7

5

3

19

4

19

1 8 14

20

3

2

6

3 8

14

3

3

Map of Florida Identifying CAPS Systems by Circuit (Future)

CAPS Systems by Vendor

Mentis/aiSmartBench (19 counties) Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Escambia, Glades, Hendry, Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Miami-Dade (civil*), Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Lucie, Taylor (civil*), and Walton

Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) (37 counties) Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Highlands, Holmes, Jackson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Monroe, Nassau, Polk, Suwannee, Union, Washington (Taylor-criminal), Franklin, Wakulla, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Citrus, Lake, Hernando, Marion, and Sumter

Pioneer/Benchmark (5 counties) Sarasota, Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns, and Volusia

Judicial Automated Workflow System (JAWS) (3 counties) Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas

In-House System (2 counties) Broward, Palm Beach

Agenda Item VI.E.2. - Attachment A

of 247

Agenda Item VI.F. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Problem-Solving Courts Appropriation/Advisory Group Update

of 247


Orlando, Florida Agenda Item VI.F.: FY 2019-20 Allocations – Problem-Solving Courts Appropriation/Advisory Group Update Initial FY 2019-20 Allocations On February 1, 2019, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) approved the recommendation of the Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group (Advisory Group) for the development of FY 2019-20 budget allocations for problem-solving courts. In doing so, the TCBC prioritized the following:

• Problem-solving courts receiving funding in the current fiscal year would receive priority funding in FY 2019-20;

• Problem-solving courts that received nine-month funding in the current fiscal year could request additional funding for the full year; and

• If additional funding becomes available for FY 2019-20, the circuits would have the opportunity to submit requests for funding through an application process.

On April 12, 2019, the TCBC considered initial allocations for FY 2019-20 based on requests from problem-solving courts receiving funding in the current fiscal year. Specifically, the TCBC:

• Provided continuation funding at the circuit-requested FY 2018-19 funding levels ($8,847,633 with $79,213 remaining in reserve);

• Decided that, if additional funds were received during the 2019 legislative session, increased funding would be provided to meet the annualized nine-month funding cost ($377,230); and

• Decided that, if additional funds are remaining after the annualized funding cost is addressed, all circuits would have the opportunity to request new funding through an application process.

FY 2019-20 Appropriation In its enacted FY 2019-20 General Appropriations Act, the Legislature provided $2.3 million in new funding as part of the special-category appropriation for problem-solving courts, $1.9 million of which is recurring and $452,313 of which is non-recurring. Thus, the total appropriation for FY 2019-20 is $11.3 million. Proviso language accompanying the appropriation:

• Continues to designate $1.425 million for veterans’ treatment intervention programs in the same nine counties designated in the current-year state budget;

• Retains the requirement for the TCBC to allocate funds not designated by the Legislature for the specified veterans courts;

• Continues to specify that the funds allocated by the TCBC are for treatment services, drug testing, case management, and ancillary services, but adds new authority for the funds to support training and education for multidisciplinary problem-solving court team members to gain up-to-date knowledge on best practices;

• Retains the non-state matching requirements from the current-year state budget; and

of 247

• Adds a requirement for the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to submit a report by January 1, 2020, which details the number of participants in each problem-solving court for each fiscal year the court has been operating and the types of services provided, each source of funding for each court during each fiscal year, and information on the performance of each court based upon outcome measures established by the courts.

Additional FY 2019-20 Allocations Based on the TCBC’s prior decision, approximately $377,230 of the new recurring funding for FY 2019-20 is allocated to meet annualized funding costs for problem-solving courts that received nine months of funding in the current year. The remaining recurring balance available for allocation for FY 2019-20 is approximately $1.6 million. Thus, the TCBC initiated an application process for new problem-solving court funding. On May 24, 2019, an application packet was distributed to chief judges and trial court administrators with a submission deadline of June 14, 2019. The application packet required submission of a program budget to provide detailed information on planned uses of funding. Following review by OSCA staff for consistency with legislative requirements and TCBC-approved guidance, the Advisory Group will consider the applications and submit allocation recommendations to the TCBC. In the FY 2019-20 GAA, the Legislature also re-appropriated any unspent funds from the current fiscal year. Once all eligible current year expenditures are paid from these funds, the balance will be available on a non-recurring basis for use in FY 2019-20. As noted above, the Legislature also appropriated $452,313 in new non-recurring funding for FY 2019-20. It is recommended that the TCBC, with input from the Advisory Group, separately consider how to make best use of all available non-recurring funding once the balance is ultimately known in September. Data Reporting Requirements

The TCBC previously decided that problem-solving courts receiving funding will be required to collect and report data using standards and data elements. Problem-solving courts are required to use the Florida Drug Court Case Management System and the Florida Dependency Court Information System as the mechanisms to report data unless use of a different, compatible system is approved. On June 11, 2019, the Advisory Group finalized client-level data reporting recommendations for drug courts, veterans courts, mental health courts, and early childhood courts. The recommendations were scheduled to be presented to the Steering Committee on Problem-Solving Courts on June 21, 2019, for approval. It is anticipated that the recommendations may then be presented to the Supreme Court for consideration. Once adopted, the data reporting requirements will be distributed to the circuits to begin reporting in FY 2019-20. Decision Needed This agenda item is presented for informational purposes. It is anticipated that the TCBC will be presented with further FY 2019-20 allocation decisions in August, based upon the Advisory Group’s review of circuit applications for new funding.

of 247

Agenda Item VI.G. FY 2019-20 Allocations - Allocations for Other Special Appropriations

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.G.: Allocations for Other Special Appropriations 1. Domestic Violence Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Technology

In the fiscal year 2019-20 General Appropriations Act (GAA), the Legislature appropriated recurring funding totaling $316,000 in the Domestic Violence Offender Monitoring category for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit to continue its program to protect victims of domestic violence with Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology. Under the program, a judge may require a defendant or an offender in a criminal case involving domestic violence to wear a GPS device as a condition of being released into the community.

Specifically, proviso states: “Funds in Specific Appropriation 3251 are provided to the Eighteenth

Judicial Circuit to continue its program to protect victims of domestic violence with Active Global

Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology (recurring base appropriations project).”

Cost Center 178

Circuit

Domestic Violence Offender Monitoring

101078 (recurring)

18 $316,000

Decision Needed: Informational purposes only.

2. Vivitrol/Naltrexone to Treat Alcohol- or Opioid-Addicted Offenders In the fiscal year 2019-20 General Appropriations Act, the Legislature appropriated recurring funding totaling $5,000,000 in the Contracted Services category for Vivitrol/Naltrexone to treat alcohol- or opioid-addicted offenders. Specifically, proviso states: “From the funds in Specific Appropriation 3250, $5,000,000 in

recurring general revenue funds are provided for naltrexone extended-release injectable medication

to treat alcohol- or opioid-addicted individuals involved in the criminal justice system, individuals

who have a high likelihood of criminal justice involvement, or who are in court-ordered, community-

based drug treatment (recurring base appropriations project). The Office of the State Courts

Administrator shall contract with a non-profit entity for the purpose of purchasing and distributing

the medication.”

Cost Center 755

Circuit

Drug Treatments for Drug Court Participants

100777 (recurring)

Statewide $5,000,000

of 247

In addition, $6,000,000 in recurring general revenue funding in the Contracted Services category is appropriated for medication-assisted treatment of substance abuse disorders. Specifically, proviso states: From the funds in Specific Appropriation 3250, $6,000,000 in recurring

general revenue is provided to the Office of State Court Administrator for medication-assisted

treatment of substance abuse disorders in individuals involved in the criminal justice system,

individuals who have a high likelihood of becoming involved in the criminal justice system, or

individuals who are in court-ordered, community-based drug treatment. Such medication-assisted

treatment may include, but is not limited to, methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone extended

release injectable. The Office of the State Courts Administrator shall contract with a non-profit

entity for the purpose of purchasing and distributing the medication.

Decision Needed: Information purposes only.

of 247

HarperK

Typewritten Text

HarperK

Typewritten Text

HarperK

Typewritten Text

HarperK

Typewritten Text

HarperK

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item VII. Recruitment and Retention Pay Issue for State Courts System Employees

of 247

Trial Court Budget Commission Meeting June 25, 2019

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VII. – Recruitment and Retention Pay Issue for State Courts System Employees

Special Pay Issue The fiscal year 2019-20 General Appropriations Act (GAA) (SB 2500, Enrolled, 2019 Reg. Sess.) provides:

SECTION 8. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS - FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 (2) SPECIAL PAY ISSUES (b) Judicial Branch Employees Effective July 1, 2019, recurring funds are provided in Specific Appropriation 2049 in the amount of $9,790,235 from the General Revenue Fund and $515,736 from trust funds for position classification salary adjustments for judicial branch employees, excluding judges, to encourage employee retention, provide equity adjustments to equalize salaries between the judicial branch and other public and private sector employers for similar positions and duties, and provide market-based adjustments necessary to remedy recurring employee recruitment and retention problems for specific position classifications. The funds available for these adjustments shall be allocated proportionately among circuit and county courts, the district courts of appeal, the Supreme Court, the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission, based upon the total number of full-time-equivalent positions, excluding judges employed by each of those components of the judicial branch. “

The Legislature presented the GAA to the Governor on June 14, 2019. The Governor has 15 consecutive days from the date of presentation to act on the measure. Classification and Compensation Study

Background and Two Primary Objectives

In March, the State Courts System (SCS) contracted with a vendor, Evergreen Solutions, Inc., to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study that will culminate in a new position classification and compensation system that the SCS can maintain. Moreover, it will provide the same rigorous evidence-based research to support an implementation plan for the $10.3 million pay issue.

of 247

Goals

To ensure the new position classification and compensation system is fair and effective and assists the SCS in attracting and retaining qualified employees, the following must be achieved:

• Ensure positions performing similar work with essentially the same level of complexity, responsibility, and knowledge, skills, and abilities are classified together.

• Provide salaries commensurate with assigned duties. • Provide justifiable pay differentials between individual classes. • Provide a competitive position with other truly comparable government entities and

private employers within the same geographical areas. • Analyze total compensation, meaning that in the study and examination of true

comparable classes and positions and consider the complete pay package for employees, including all forms of salary, bonuses, benefits, and services offered.

• Provide a competitive salary structure for the specific job market for comparable positions in the public sector.

Three-Phase Approach

Phase 1: Validation and benchmarking of the current position and classification and compensation system. Phase 2: Development of the new position classification and compensation system. Phase 3: Roll-out of a training process and materials (including development of a straightforward, easily understood position classification manual that can be used by human resources staff to objectively evaluate new and revised positions to keep the system current and equitable).

Study Schedule

The study is projected for completion in July 2019. Decision Needed This issue is presented for informational purposes. As noted, the compensation and classification study will provide information that helps inform the Trial Court Budget Commission’s recommendations to the Chief Justice on the trial court portion of the special pay issue implementation plan. The TCBC will meet the week of August 26, 2019, to consider the study and develop its pay issue recommendations.

of 247

Agenda Item VIII. FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

of 247

Agenda Item VIII.A. FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) - LBR Timeline

of 247

AGENDA ITEM VIII.A.

FY 2020-2021 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Timeline Trial Courts

Friday, April 12 Approval of LBR plan for new issues; Trial Court Budget Commission

meeting Telephone Conference

Tuesday, April 23 Notice of LBR plan, LBR timeline, and LBR instructions (if applicable)

distributed to Chief Judges and Trial Court Administrators Monday, June 17 Approval of preliminary LBR recommendations; TCBC Funding Methodology Committee meeting

Telephone Conference Tuesday, June 25 Approval of final LBR recommendations; Trial Court Budget Commission meeting

Orlando, Florida Friday, June 28 Notice of TCBC final LBR decisions distributed to circuits Friday, July 12 Budget issue appeals, if any, due to TCBC (10 days following notice of TCBC final LBR decisions) Monday, July 22 TCBC to address budget issue appeals, if needed Thursday, July 25 Joint meeting of leadership materials sent out via email Monday, July 29 Joint meeting of leadership with the Chief Justice, District Court of Appeal Budget Commission, Trial Court Budget Commission, JQC, Judicial

Conference Chairs, and OSCA to review the LBR recommendations Telephone Conference

Thursday, August 1 Final LBR recommendations distributed to the Supreme Court for Court Conference

Thursday, August 15 Approval of LBR recommendations by the Supreme Court Thursday, September 12 Public Hearing Tallahassee, Florida Friday, September 13 or Submission of the Legislative Budget Request to the Legislature Monday, September 16 (Tentative dates pending governor’s office distribution of LBR instructions)

of 247

Agenda Item VIII.B. FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) - Issues for Consideration

of 247


Orlando, Florida Agenda Item VIII.B.: FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Issues for Consideration Summary of Initiatives Typically, trial court LBRs have been developed using a more traditional approach for specific elements of the court system (e.g., case managers or law clerks) and have been based on statewide funding formulas to determine the resources needed to request that year. Additionally, the requests are routinely developed as a statewide need, fit within the official funding formulas for the elements, and are uniform across the state. At its April 12, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified four statewide initiatives for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request recommendations to the Supreme Court. A new approach was used to develop policy-based budget issues that support the achievement of specific outcomes or goals in the trial courts. Additionally, while the TCBC recommends and advocates for the interests of the trial courts as a whole rather than the interests of a particular circuit or division, it wanted to ensure that specific issues and potential budget problems, as well as possible innovative programs for state funding, in the best interests of the trial courts generally, are considered. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the four initiatives and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals. Further, chief judges and trial court administrators were asked to identify local needs that were not addressed by the statewide initiatives being considered. Each circuit was asked to indicate their overall ranking of each initiative with regard to how critical that need is to them. Below is a summary of the four statewide initiatives, circuit specific needs, and courthouse furnishing needs, as requested by each circuit (Option 1) and based on a formula calculation of need (Option 2).

Option 1 - Circuit Requests Option 2 – Formula Based Need

FTE Salary, Benefits,

Expenses Contractual

or Other FTE Salary, Benefits,

Expenses Contractual

or Other

1. Leadership and Accountability 60.5 $6,137,429 $20,000 80.0 $7,964,609 $120,080 2. Civil Case Efficiency Initiative 130.0 $9,713,785 $423,189 111.5 $8,575,164 $405,597 3. Children and Families 123.5 $9,930,527 $587,682 95.0 $7,368,687 $61,080 4. Interpreting Services 43.5 $3,828,195 $599,520 1.0 $101,297 $2,757,735 5. Circuit-Specific Needs 28.0 $1,858,127 $70,826 NA NA NA 6. Courthouse Furnishings NA NA $1,117,330 NA NA NA Total 385.5 $31,468,063 $2,818,547 287.5 $24,009,757 $3,344,492

of 247

1. Leadership and Accountability - Increase operational efficiency and transparency in the administration of Florida’s judicial branch.

Option 1 - Circuit Requests Option 2 - Formula Based Need

FTE

Salary, Benefits, Expenses

Contractual or Other FTE


Contractual or Other

Chief Deputy 4.0 $517,404 NA 5.0 $646,755 NA General Counsel 10.0 $1,274,172 NA 9.0 $1,190,565 NA Public Records 11.0 $1,070,737 NA 10.0 $895,736 NA Security/Marshal 9.0 $862,391 NA 20.0 $1,927,960 NA Administrative Services 12.0 $1,145,618 NA

36.0 $3,303,593 NA Operations/Administration Support 14.5 $1,267,107 NA

Additional Compensation to County Judges NA NA NA NA NA $61,066

Technology Training Subscription NA NA NA NA NA $59,014

Senior Judge Days Travel Expense NA NA $20,000 NA NA NA

Total 60.5 $6,137,429 $20,000 80.0 $7,964,609 $120,080 60.5 FTE and $6,157,429 80.0 FTE and $8,084,689

2. Civil Case Efficiency Initiative - Improve resolution time for civil/business cases to respond

to increasingly numerous and complex caseload.


FTE





Law Clerks 44.0 $3,566,948 $25,894 40.0 $3,242,680 $0 Case Managers 66.0 $4,532,550 $33,248 31.5 $2,165,544 $0 Mediation/Online Dispute Resolution 9.0 $618,075 $50,000 NA $0 $112,000

Technology Focused 9.0 $873,666 $228,267 20.0 $1,941,480 $0

Data Reporting 2.0 $122,546 $10,000 20.0 $1,225,460 $0 Senior Judge Days 0.0 $0 $75,780 0.0 $0 $293,597 Total 130.0 $9,713,785 $423,189 111.5 $8,575,164 $405,597 130.0 FTE and $10,136,974 111.5FTE and $8,980,761

3. Children and Families - Improve the experience and outcome of children who are involved

in litigation through better coordination of cases, ideally under a one-family, one-judge model; proper utilization of dispute resolution; and support for self-represented litigants.

of 247


FTE





General Magistrates and Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers

14.5 $1,851,943 $0 17.5 $2,239,201 $0

Case Management 61.5 $4,566,989 $75,478 26.5 $1,819,989 $0 Law Clerks 9.0 $729,603 $0 NA NA NA Mediation/Online Dispute Resolution 9.0 $723,708 $78,000 NA NA $61,080

Operations/ Administration 29.5 $2,058,284 $434,204 51.0 $3,309,497 $0

Total 123.5 $9,930,527 $587,682 95.0 $7,368,687 $61,080

123.5 FTE and $10,518,209 95.0 FTE and $7,429,767

4. Interpreting Services - Address the delivery of interpreting services while ensuring due process rights of litigants are met.


FTE





Additional Resources 27.5 $2,551,992 $43,000 0.0 $0 $1,178,269 American Sign Language Interpreting 5.0 $463,980 $10,000 1.0 $101,297 $0

Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting 2.0 $194,148 $543,520 0.0 $0 $1,579,466

Operations/Administration 9.0 $618,075 $3,000 NA NA NA Total 43.5 $3,828,195 $599,520 1.0 $101,297 $2,757,735

43.5 FTE and $4,427,715 1.0 FTE and $2,859,032 5. Other Local Requests

Option 1 - Circuit Requests

FTE Salary, Benefits,

Expenses Contractual or

Other Due Process Digital Court Reporting 9.0 $581,644 $35,000 Problem-Solving Courts 10.0 $618,075 NA Miscellaneous 9.0 658,408 $35,826 Total 28.0 $1,858,127 $70,826

28.0 FTE and $1,928,953

of 247

6. Courthouse Furnishings - The circuits were asked to review their individual needs for new or renovated courthouse furnishings in non-public areas.

Fiscal Year 2020-21 LBR Furnishings Request Summary

Circuit Expenses OCO Total

New or Renovated Furnishings 5 42,752 75,425 118,177 14 80,579 63,557 144,136

Subtotal 123,331 138,982 262,313

Replacement of Existing Furnishings 9 4,421 85,647 90,068 10 178,999 0 179,000 11 211,599 374,350 585,949

Subtotal 395,019 459,997 855,017

Total 518,350 598,979 1,117,330

of 247

Details of Initiatives and Decisions Needed 1. Leadership and Accountability

At its April 12, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified a number of statewide issues for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request recommendations to the Supreme Court, including Leadership and Accountability as one of the critical needs in the trial courts. This issue was identified with a goal to increase operational efficiency and transparency in the administration of Florida’s judicial branch. The TCBC identified general counsel positions; staff for public records requests; and other administration positions as possible components or resources needed by the trial courts to achieve the goal. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the issues and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals. The following components or resources were identified and requested by the trial courts:

A. Chief Deputy Court Administrator to serve in a leadership capacity and act as Trial Court Administrator (TCA) in the absence of the TCA.

B. General Counsel to address demands for legal counsel support including contract oversight, legal redaction, and formulation of policies to comply with statutory and rule requirements.

C. Public records and communication staff to respond to public records requests, coordinate crisis communications and other high-profile media needs, and direct court public publications and outreach programs, providing transparency in court operations to the public.

D. Personnel for circuit-wide security coordination and oversight, including implementation and maintenance of courthouse security policies.

E. Administrative services positions to manage fiscal activity, conduct statistical analysis, and provide more local support for human resources and budget management.

F. Operations and administrative support positions to help optimize direct services to the public.

G. Senior Judge Day travel expenses. Option 1 is based on the circuit requests (see Attachment A) for resources in the above categories. Option 2 is based on current resources (see Attachment B), giving each circuit a 1.0 FTE for Chief Deputy Court Administrator, General Counsel, Communications Coordinator, and Chief Deputy Marshal, if the circuit does not currently have the resource. An exception was made for the extra small circuits, which received 0.5 FTE for the public records/information category. Administrative services and operations/administration were determined based on the average FTE needed by size of circuit, as extra-small (4.0), small (6.0), medium (10.0), large (17.0), and extra-large (36.0) circuits. If the average net need results in negative net need, it defaults to zero.

of 247

The positions are costed out as Human Resource Managers, Budget Services Managers, Court Operations Managers, and Administrative Assistant IIIs. A few other components could be considered in this issue. Specifically: • Additional Compensation to County Judges – Although specific requests for additional

compensation to county judges were not included in this issue, the current appropriation of $75,000 has not been sufficient to cover the invoices for payments for the work performed by county judges for circuit level cases over the last several years. In order to accurately capture circuit needs, expenditure data used in the development of proposed allocations includes both compensated and uncompensated hours submitted. This information, as well as comments from court administration during the budget development process, indicates that an additional $61,066 funding is needed to provide compensation based on the compensated and uncompensated work, applying the growth rate in compensated and uncompensated hours reported from the last two years.

• Gartner, Inc. Technical Professionals Advisor small and midsize business enterprise access

subscription for trial court technology staff support - $59,014

Leadership and Accountability Summary of Option 1 and Option 2 Option 1 Option 2

Circuit Requests Formula Based Need

Component FTE FTE Costs Senior Judge

Expense FTE FTE Costs

Add Comp and IT

Expense Chief Deputy 4.0 $517,404 NA 5.0 $646,755 NA General Counsel 10.0 $1,274,172 NA 9.0 $1,190,565 NA Public Records 11.0 $1,070,737 NA 10.0 $895,736 NA Security/Marshal 9.0 $862,391 NA 20.0 $1,927,960 NA

Administrative Services 12.0 $1,145,618 NA

36.0 $3,303,593 NA Operations/Administration Support 14.5 $1,267,107 NA

Additional Compensation to County Judges NA NA NA NA NA $61,066

Technology Training Subscription NA NA NA NA NA $59,014

Senior Judge Days Travel Expense NA NA $20,000 NA NA NA

Total 60.5 $6,137,429 $20,000 80.0 $7,964,609 $120,080 Decisions Needed Option 1: Approve the 60.5 FTE and $20,000 expense based on the circuits’ request, as shown in in Option 1 (see Attachment C) or specific components within Option 1.

of 247

Option 2: Approve the 80.0 FTE and $120,080 formula-based need request, as shown in

Option 2 (see Attachment C) or specific components within Option 2. Option 3: Approve an alternative. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request. 2. Civil Case Efficiency Initiative Last fiscal year, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) considered an initiative to reduce the time in resolving civil case disputes with multiple components to achieve its goal. Ultimately, the TCBC decided not to recommend this initiative as part of the FY 2019-20 Supreme Court Legislative Budget Request (LBR) package, and instead submitted one request highlighting their primary concern, State Court System (SCS) employee pay. On April 12, 2019, the TCBC noted the continuation of increases in specific cases types in the circuit civil, county civil, and probate court divisions (Attachment D) and discussed possible resource solutions to improve the timeliness of civil case processing. The TCBC authorized the Executive Committee to work with staff from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to solidify the components of the LBR for presentation at the Funding Methodology Committee meeting on June 17, 2019, and the TCBC meeting on June 25, 2019. In addition, on May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the statewide LBR issues up for consideration and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded to achieve the stated goals. Each court division handles specific filing types, which contain unique factors that influence the needed time and resources to resolve a case. Staff further examined information related to the circuit civil, county civil, and probate divisions and identified the following components that would increase the efficiency in handling those cases.1 A) Law Clerks Law Clerks provide legal research for complex circuit civil cases as well as other circuit civil cases. Although handled in the same division of court, complex circuit civil cases may contain multiple parties or attorneys, address complex subject matter, involve complicated testimony concerning causation, contain requisites of a class-certification order, or incorporate complex substantive law. Due to these components, the duration of time to disposition or settlement is greater than non-complex circuit civil filings.

1 This initiative does not address the need for additional judicial resources, as it is not within the jurisdiction of the TCBC.

of 247

Professional malpractice, products liability, other negligence, commercial foreclosure, and other civil case types are examples of complex circuit civil filings. One particular phenomena that may be contributing to the longer time to disposition are the Engle Tobacco cases. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court allowed members of the original class action lawsuit who suffered from smoking-related illnesses to file cases individually against tobacco companies. As of July 28, 2018, only 252 cases had reached a verdict, leaving 3,058 cases pending. According to the National Center for State Courts, complex litigation requires more intensive judicial management; thus, judges may benefit from additional support resources such as law clerks. In Florida’s trial courts, complex circuit civil filings represent approximately 45% of the total circuit civil filings. Providing additional law clerks in the circuit civil court division may not only increase the quality of functions by providing direct assistance and research to a judge through making legal determinations and in writing opinions, but also increase the quantity of cases being addressed or more efficiently manage docket time. Based on circuit feedback, law clerks are needed to assist and advise circuit court judges with pending litigation and issues, drafting memoranda, opinions, orders and reports, conducting legal research, reviewing briefs and case files. Fifteen of the 20 judicial circuits requested law clerks. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment E). Option 2 is a funding formula based on a ratio of 1 law clerk for every 2 circuit civil judges and general magistrates (see Attachment F).

FTE FTE Cost Non-Recurring

OCO Option 1 - Circuit Requests 44.0 $3,566,948 $25,894 Option 2 - Formula Based Need 40.0 $3,242,680 $0 Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 44.0 FTE and $25,894 non-recurring OCO based on the circuits’ requests,

as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment E).

Option 2: Approve the 40.0 FTE formula based need request, as shown in Option 2 (see Attachment F).

Option 3: Approve an alternative. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request. B) Case Managers Case managers help with timely processing of other circuit civil and probate cases. Other circuit civil and probate filing trends show increases over the past two years, specifically in auto negligence, contract and indebtedness, condominium, and guardianship case types. Circuits report that after Hurricane Irma in 2017 and Hurricane Michael in 2018, there has been

of 247

continued increase of related contract indebtedness, insurance claim, and construction defect filings. For example, at the state level, contract indebtedness has increased by 27%. In order to help manage circuit civil and probate cases, case managers are identified as a potential component to further assist in the timeliness of case disposition. Case managers provide early and continuous intervention through the life of a civil case that leads to timely disposition. Specifically, case managers perform intake, screening, evaluation, monitoring, tracking, coordinating, scheduling, and referral activities. Case managers provide support to judges in developing and implementing proactive case management initiatives. Case management functions include early screening and classification of civil cases, facilitation of pretrial discovery and case management plans, and scheduling case management conferences in problematic cases to resolve issues contributing to case delay. Utilizing sufficient case managers is expected to provide the minimum increased management support to circuit civil and probate trial judges necessary to improve efficiency and timeliness in case processing. Based on feedback from circuits, increasing the quantity of case manager FTE may not only provide an adequate level of services throughout the state, but also aid in the efficiency of civil cases. Fifteen of the 20 judicial circuits requested case managers. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment E). Option 2 is a funding formula based on appropriate (average) staffing levels and growth in filings (see Attachment G).

FTE FTE Cost Contracted

Service

Non-Recurring

OCO Option 1 - Circuit Requests 66.0 $4,532,550 $5,000 $28,248 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 31.5 $2,165,544 $0 $0

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 66.0 FTE, $5,000 contracted service, and $28,248 non-recurring OCO,

based on the circuit requests, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment E). Option 2: Approve the 31.5 FTE formula based need request, as shown in Option 2 (see

Attachment G). Option 3: Approve an alternative. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request. C) Mediation Mediation serves as an alternative method to resolving disputes. It alleviates pressure from the docket by addressing issues prior to entering and affecting judicial workflow. Providing

of 247

additional mediators is expected to provide an expansion of these services, thus allowing judicial staff to center their efforts on the more intricate county court cases. Since Revision 7 in 2004, the Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation element has never been fully funded. Currently, the trial courts are underfunded by $4.5 million, according to the official funding formula calculation of the funding ceiling. The SCS received additional funding in FY 2006-07. Additional requests were made in FY 2008-09 and FY 2010-11 but not funded. Mediation resources are needed to provide additional options for resolution in county civil cases. Small claims and evictions are examples of county civil case types. Since FY 2015-16, small claims have increased 39%. Five circuits requested additional FTE and mediation services to provide additional assistance when settling county civil cases or drafting settlement agreements. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment E).

FTE FTE Cost Mediation Services

Option 1 - Circuit Requests 9.0 $618,075 $50,000

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) involves litigants progressing through a series of questions and steps in an online platform designed to assist the litigants with bringing the case to resolution. ODR is thought to be suitable for certain case types including, but not limited to, those that may traditionally involve mediation. In May 2018, the Supreme Court directed an assessment of online dispute resolution solutions and the anticipated impact of implementing this technology in court-connected alternative dispute resolution services in Florida.

The Court approved the recommendations of the report, with the modification that the ODR Workgroup be reconvened to oversee the establishment of one or more pilot projects to study the application of ODR in Florida’s trial courts for a variety of case types including, but not limited to, small claims, family, and civil traffic.

On May 22, 2019, the Supreme Court considered the Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan and approved the Workgroup's recommendation for the establishment of an online dispute resolution pilot project in small claims cases, civil traffic infraction cases, and dissolution of marriage cases that do not involve children. The Court also approved the Workgroup's recommendation that the pilot project be implemented in seven counties using multiple software vendors and requested that the pilot project be launched to the public by October 1, 2019. Although the plan is to fund the first year of the pilot through trial court statewide reserve funds, it is anticipated that the pilot project may continue in fiscal year 2020-21. ODR software funds are being requested to specifically address small claims and civil traffic cases in 5 of the 7 approved counties, for a total cost of $112,000.

Expense

Option 2 – ODR Software for Pilot Project $112,000

of 247

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 9.0 FTE and $50,000 mediation services, based on circuits’ requests

(Attachment E). Option 2: Approve $112,000 for the Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project for small claims

and civil traffic cases. Option 3: Approve both options or an alternative. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request. D) Technology In FY 2016-17, the Supreme Court submitted an LBR for $25,299,973 and 65.0 FTE to fund a multi-year comprehensive strategy for addressing the statewide technology needs of the trial courts. For FY 2017-18, each element of the comprehensive request was updated and support for the cross-jurisdictional support unit within the OSCA was added, resulting in a request of $21,846,048. FY 2018-19 used the previous year’s LBR as a base to update cost estimates for the Court Application Processing Systems (CAPS), digital court reporting and remote court interpreting equipment, and a minimum level of technology to support court functions. These requests have not been funded. Currently, there is only one technology staff person funded by the state per circuit, the Trial Court Technology Officer. Based on input from the circuits, OSCA staff identified the need for technology focused FTE and data reporting FTE throughout the circuits to oversee case management systems, which provide more efficient workflow. In addition, data quality/reporting resources are needed to ensure the most accurate information is available in order to target cases and monitor performance through reporting. The proposal includes the following: Technology Focused Option 1 is based on circuit requests, which include 9.0 FTE, $188,267 contracted service, and $40,000 recurring OCO (see Attachment E). Option 2 provides one Information Systems Consultant position per circuit to oversee systems used in case management. Data Reporting Option 1 is based on circuit requests, which include 2.0 FTE and $10,000 contracted service (see Attachment E). Option 2 provides one Data Quality/Reporting FTE per circuit to focus on data quality and data access in the civil division, as well as to develop performance measurements and reliable evaluation and monitoring of data.

of 247

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 11.0 FTE, $100,000 expense, $88,267 contracted services, and $50,000

recurring OCO, based on circuits’ requests as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment E). Option 2: Approve the 40.0 FTE formula based need request, as shown in Option 2. Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request. E) Senior Judge Days

For FY 2019-20, the trial courts are appropriated 5,560 senior judge days. In previous fiscal years unexpended senior judge days have been re-appropriated to assist the circuits in handling additional workload. In FY 2018-19, the unexpended senior judge days were not re-appropriated. Circuits indicated that these days were used to cover routine dockets as assigned judges were hearing an extraordinary number of capital cases and tobacco trials. In addition, senior judge days were used to address a very large backlog of county civil cases. Additional senior judge days were recognized as a beneficial component to achieving the civil case efficiency initiative. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment E). Option 2 is based on the estimated amount of the appropriation spent on circuit civil cases, county civil cases, and foreclosure cases. The observed percent increase in the appropriate categories of SRS filings from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is used to calculate the approximate amount of additional funds needed statewide. This amount represents 771 senior judge days at the rate of $380.44 per day.

Senior Judge Days Option 1 – Circuit Requests $75,780 Option 2 – Formula Based Need $293,597

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the $75,780 for senior judge days, based on circuits’ requests, as shown

in Option 1 (see Attachment E).

Technology Related

Information Systems

Consultant FTE FTE Cost

Data Quality/ Reporting

FTE FTE Cost

Expense and

Contracted Service

Recurring OCO

Option 1 - Circuit Requests 9.0 $873,666 2.0 $122,546 $188,267 $50,000 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 20.0 $1,941,480 20.0 $1,225,460 $0 $0

of 247

Option 2: Approve the formula based need request of $293,597 for senior judge days, as shown

in Option 2.

Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request.

Civil Case Efficiency Initiative Summary of Option 1 and Option 2 Option 1 - Circuit Requests Option 2 – Formula Based Need

FTE





Law Clerks 44.0 $3,566,948 $25,894 40.0 $3,242,680 $0 Case Managers 66.0 $4,532,550 $33,248 31.5 $2,165,544 $0 Mediation/Online Dispute Resolution 9.0 $618,075 $50,000 NA $0 $112,000 Technology Focused 9.0 $873,666 $228,267 20.0 $1,941,480 $0

Data Reporting 2.0 $122,546 $10,000 20.0 $1,225,460 $0

Senior Judge Days 0.0 $0 $75,780 0.0 $0 $293,597

Total 130.0 $9,713,785 $423,189 111.5 $8,575,164 $405,597 3. Children and Families In the early 1990’s, with the Legislature's creation of the Commission on Family Courts (Commission), this State embarked on a mission to improve the resolution of disputes within the judicial system for children and families. When it created the Commission, the Legislature directed it to: (1) develop specific guidelines for the implementation of a family law division within each judicial circuit; (2) provide recommendations for statutory, rule, and organizational changes; and (3) recommend necessary support services. The Commission submitted to the Supreme Court a detailed report emphasizing not only the implementation of a family law division within each judicial circuit, but also the need for providing support services, furnishing additional court personnel, and developing criteria for the assignment of family law judges. The Supreme Court endorsed the guiding principles and characteristics of the model family court and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles. In so doing, the goal continues to be the creation of “a fully integrated, comprehensive approach to handling all cases involving children and families, while at the same time resolving family disputes in a fair, timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner.” It also stresses the importance of “embracing methods of resolving disputes that do not cause additional emotional harm to the children and families who are required to interact with the judicial system.”

of 247

At its April 12, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified a number of statewide issues for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request recommendations to the Supreme Court, including a Children and Families issue as one of the critical needs in the trial courts. This issue was identified with a goal to improve the experience and outcome of litigants and children who are involved in litigation through better coordination of cases, ideally under a one-family, one-judge model; proper utilization of dispute resolution; and support for self-represented litigants. The TCBC identified data systems for differentiated case management; risk/need assessment instruments; on-line dispute resolution; and automated, on-line assistance for preparation of forms as possible components or resources needed by the trial courts to achieve the goal. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the issues and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals. The following components or resources were identified by the trial courts: A) General Magistrate and Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer

General Magistrates (GM) are widely utilized in Florida's trial courts to assist the judiciary in the effective and timely disposition of cases. GMs are appointed to hear Family division cases dealing with a variety of family issues. The issues include the establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support and alimony, dissolution of marriage, parental responsibility and time-sharing issues, property rights, debts, attorney's fees, contested paternity matters, Baker Acts, post judgment proceedings, and any other issues referred to the GM. Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers (CSEHO) are also appointed to hear Family division cases dealing with family support issues. Cases that are heard by a CSEHO include the establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment H). Option 2 projects the FY 2020-21 GM net need in the family division based on the weighted workload of family cases from the official FY 2019-20 allocation charts. The weighted workload in the family division represents 83.3% of all workload performed the GMs. Further, FY 2020-21 CSEHO net need applies the official methodology of the FY 2019-20 allocation charts (see Attachment I).

GM FTE FTE Cost CSEHO

FTE FTE Cost Option 1 - Circuit Request 12.5 $1,601,539 2.0 $250,404 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 16.5 $2,113,999 1.0 $125,202

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 14.5 FTE, based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option 1 (see

Attachment H).

of 247

Option 2: Approve the 17.5 FTE using the current weighted workload of family cases for GMs

and official net need methodology for CSEHOs, as shown in Option 2 (see Attachment I).

Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request B) Case Management

The primary function of the Unified Family Court Case Management is to monitor the case progress and evaluate each case at the outset to determine the appropriate resources and the appropriate way to handle the case. Case managers coordinate and link related cases and assist litigants and the judiciary with carious court process. Further, they monitor movement of cases from point of initiation to disposition by following mechanisms such as early screening and creation of even deadlines to adhere to the Supreme Court case disposition time frames. Case managers also provide procedural assistance to self-represented litigants who have filed domestic relations cases and are available to answer procedural questions that litigants may have. Based on circuit feedback, case managers are part of the effective triage process in family court systems, which is critical for the efficient and effective delivery of services for the judicial branch. Intake is the initial step in case management. The lack of case management on the “front end” may reduce access to the legal system. The judicial circuits are working toward the early evaluation of cases post-filing for differentiated case management and the need for emergency hearings or early focused custody evaluations. Cases are reviewed and scheduled for a temporary hearing, case management conference, alternative dispute resolution services mediation or trial. As reported by the circuits, most case management staff are assigned to the family court division (Attachment J). Additional case management resources are expected to be used to further support current infrastructure and increased demand. For example, some circuits would use case managers to improve services by setting up self-help centers and meet increasing demands associated with pro se litigants. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment H). Option 2 is based on the rate of judges, GM, and CSEHO to case managers in the Family division. This option calculates, for each size tier of circuit (S, M, L, XL), the average number of case managers relative to the sum of family judges, GM, and CSEHO. FTE are then assigned to circuits as appropriate to bring them up to the average of their size tier. Circuits that are at or above the average do not receive additional FTE.

of 247


Services

Non-Recurring

OCO Option 1 - Circuit Request 61.5 $4,566,989 $59,000 $16,478 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 26.5 $1,819,989 $0 $0

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 61.5 FTE, $59,000 contracted services, and $16,478 non-recurring OCO,

based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment H).

Option 2: Approve the 26.5 FTE, as shown in Option 2. Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request C) Law Clerks

Trial Court law clerks perform a variety of functions for the judiciary in both the county and circuit trial courts. They work across all court divisions. Based on current resources in the family court division (Attachment J), judicial circuits express additional need for law clerks. Option 1 is based on circuit specific requests (see Attachment H).

FTE FTE Cost Option 1 - Circuit Request 9.0 $729,603

Decision Needed

Option 1: Approve the 9.0 FTE as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment H). Option 2: Approve an alternative request. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request.

D) Mediation

Based on circuit feedback, the preferred delivery model of mediation services varies. Some circuits prefer full time equivalent positions, others prefer contractual, and some are more effective with a combination of both. The below option depicts circuit mediation requests. Option 1 is based on circuit specific requests (see Attachment H).

of 247

FTE FTE Cost Expense Contracted

Service Option 1 – Circuit Request 9.0 $723,708 $10,000 $68,000

Decision Needed

Option 1: Approve the 9.0 FTE, $10,000 in expense, and $68,000 in contractual, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment H).

Option 2: Approve an alternative request. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request.

Online dispute resolution (ODR) involves litigants progressing through a series of questions and steps in an online platform designed to assist the litigants with bringing the case to resolution. ODR is thought to be suitable for certain case types including, but not limited to, those that may traditionally involve mediation. In May 2018, the Supreme Court directed an assessment of online dispute resolution solutions and the anticipated impact of implementing this technology in court-connected alternative dispute resolution services in Florida.

The Court approved the recommendations of the report, with the modification that the ODR Workgroup be reconvened to oversee the establishment of one or more pilot projects to study the application of ODR in Florida’s trial courts for a variety of case types including, but not limited to, small claims, family, and civil traffic.

On May 22, 2019, the Supreme Court considered the Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Plan and approved the Workgroup's recommendation for the establishment of an online dispute resolution pilot project in small claims cases, civil traffic infraction cases, and dissolution of marriage cases that do not involve children. The Court also approved the Workgroup's recommendation that the pilot project be implemented in seven counties using multiple software vendors and requested that the pilot project be launched to the public by October 1, 2019. Although the plan is to fund the first year of the pilot through trial court reserve funds, it is anticipated that the pilot project will continue in fiscal year 2020-21. ODR software funds are being requested to address dissolution case types without children, for a total cost of $61,080.

Expense Option 1 – ODR Software for Pilot Project $61,080

Decision Needed

Option 1: Approve the $61,080 in expense as shown in Option 1. Option 2: Approve an alternative request.

of 247

Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request.

E) Operations/Administration Option 1 is based on circuits’ requests (see Attachment H). Operations/Administration includes FTE requests for risk/need assessment tool, data reporting/system for case management, operations/support, and other support services. In addition, it includes expense dollars for risk assessment subscriptions/licenses and judicial viewers, contracted service for CCI, social investigations in dissolution cases, and OCO for additional expenses. Option 2 provides 1.0 FTE data reporting/system position per circuit and provides each circuit with the total administrative support net need according to the official methodology in the FY 2019-20 allocation net need charts (see Attachment I).

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 29.5 FTE, $31,261 expense, $173,792 contracted service, and $229,151

OCO based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment H).

Option 2: Approve the 51.0 FTE, as shown in Option 2 (see Attachment I). Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request

Option 1 Option 2 FTE FTE Cost Expense Contracted

Service Recurring

OCO Non-

Recurring OCO

FTE FTE Cost

Data Reporting/ System for Case Management

29.5

$2,058,284

$31,261

$173,792

$66,770

$162,381

20.0

$1,225,460

Other Support Services

31.0

$2,084,037

of 247

Children and Families Summary of Option 1 and Option 2 Option 1 – Circuit Requests Option 2 – Formula Based Need

FTE





General Magistrates and Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers 14.5 $1,851,943 $0 17.5 $2,239,201 $0 Case Management 61.5 $4,566,989 $75,478 26.5 $1,819,989 $0 Law Clerks 9.0 $729,603 $0 NA NA NA Mediation/Online Dispute Resolution 9.0 $723,708 $78,000 NA NA $61,080 Operations/Administration 29.5 $2,058,284 $434,204 51.0 $3,309,497 $0 Total 123.5 $9,930,527 $587,682 95.0 $7,368,687 $61,080

4. Interpreting Services Due to the high concentration of limited-English-proficient (LEP) population in our state, Florida is one of the largest stakeholders in the nation with respect to spoken language access demands. Thus, to afford Floridians the ability to fully participate in the court process, it is critical that the courts adopt strategies designed to remove linguistic barriers and increase both the availability and effectiveness of qualified spoken language court interpreters. Through its Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021, the State Courts System (SCS) has established several goals intended to advance the mission and vision of the judicial branch in the coming years. Such goals include: 1) deliver justice effectively, efficiently, and fairly; 2) enhance access to justice and court services by reducing communication and language barriers to facilitate participation in court proceedings; and 3) modernize administration of justice and operation of court facilities. The State Courts System has made significant strides in the provision of court interpreting services consistent with the SCS’s long-range goals. The SCS strives to provide consistent and equitable assistance to persons with disabilities and to LEP individuals. To enhance the state’s court interpreting program and better equip the courts to provide effective interpreting services, persons who are appointed by the courts to provide these services must comply with rules governing registration and designations, professional conduct, and discipline. On May 16, 2018, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC), approved the following four strategies to address issues related to recruitment, retention, and availability of certified court interpreters: 1. Implement measures to increase the minimum salary for court interpreters and create a court

interpreter incentive plan to improve retention. 2. Establish a competitive area differential (CAD) for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. 3. Expand the circuit’s capacity to use virtual remote interpreting (VRI), which enables access

to interpreting services from remote locations through audio and video technology.

of 247

4. Recommend that the Court Interpreter Certification Board consider the impact of existing certification requirements on recruitment and retention of staff court interpreters by extending the certification timeline from 1 year to 2 years and consider the pros and cons of super scoring the certification examinations.

Further, the TCBC approved increasing the contractual allocation for the court interpreting element, thereby making additional court interpreting dollars available to the circuits. In addition, the TCBC later approved a FY 2017-18 year-end spending plan which provided $1.7 million to circuits to purchase additional Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) hardware to expand access to the statewide pool of qualified interpreters and mitigate the impact of court interpreter vacancies. At its April 12, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified a number of statewide issues for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request recommendations to the Supreme Court, including an Interpreting Services issue as one of the critical needs in the trial courts. This issue was identified with a goal to address the delivery of interpreting services while ensuring due process rights of litigants are met. The TCBC identified additional full-time equivalent court interpreting positions; American Sign Language Interpreters; Virtual Remote Interpreting equipment, maintenance, and support; and operations/administration positions as possible components or resources needed by the trial courts to achieve the goal. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the issues and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals. The goal of the proposed fiscal year 2020-21 LBR continues to support immediate and critical needs for the availability of court interpreters both in person and remotely using technology. There are four components related to court interpreting for consideration: 1) funding to support additional court interpreting resources; 2) funding to support American Sign Language Interpreting; 3) funding for statewide implementation of remote interpreting; and 4) funding to support operations/administration related to interpreting. A) Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources The trial courts continue to experience the effect of market-driven factors leading to difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified court interpreters and increasing contractual costs. Fifteen of the 20 circuits are requesting between 1.0 and 4.0 FTE, with many citing growing demands for interpreting in their respective circuits. Due to staff shortages, many circuits have had to rely on contract interpreting services, in which rates can be significantly higher than typical FTE costs. Interpreters capable of facilitating languages of lesser diffusion are in high demand and short supply. Due process costs may further assist the judicial circuits to meet their unique interpreting needs and expand interpreting services to other court divisions.

of 247

Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment K). Option 2 projects FY 2020-21 due process costs based on the average percent change in expenditures for each circuit from FY 2015-16 to estimated FY 2018-19. Circuits with a negative percent change in expenditures were set at FY 2018-19 estimated expenditures (see Attachment L).


Service

Due Process Costs OCO

Option 1 - Circuit Requests 27.5 $2,551,992 $5,000 $35,000 $3,000 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 0.0 $0 $0 $1,178,269 $0 Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 27.5 FTE, $5,000 contracted services, $35,000 due process cost, and

$3,000 OCO, based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment K).

Option 2: Approve the circuit historical growth rate methodology, as shown in Option 2 for a total request of $1,178,269 (see Attachment L) and direct OSCA staff to work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (due process costs or FTE) needed.

Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request B) Funding to Support American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreting The demand for sign language interpreting services has increased among the state trial courts. Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment K). Five circuits are requesting 1.0 FTE each to address a growing need for American Sign Language interpretation. In addition, the 13th Circuit is requesting $10,000 in due process costs. This does not include the specialized equipment to be used in service delivery.

Option 2 includes the creation of 1.0 FTE staff position who would provide ASL interpreting services via the statewide Virtual Remote Interpreting network. The position would be recruited at the statewide level and housed in the trial court nearest to their home location. This position should be a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) through the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. The request includes non-recurring funds ($8,500) for specialized equipment to be used in service delivery.

of 247

FTE

FTE Cost

Due Process Costs

Option 1 – Circuit Requests 5.0 $463,980 $10,000 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 1.0 $101,297 $0

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 5.0 FTE and $10,000 due process cost, based on circuits’ requests as

shown in Option 1 (see Attachment K).

Option 2: Approve the 1.0 FTE to provide services via the Virtual Remote Interpreting network request, as shown in Option 2.

Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request C) Funding for the Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting

In addition to seeking funds for certified court interpreters, the trial courts continue to seek ways to maximize resources using available technology. While areas that are population centers are home to more interpreters, rural areas of the state lack the same resources. In order to provide higher quality services in areas where resources are scarce, the trial courts requested additional funding as part of the FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 budget requests. This funding was intended to expand the use of remote interpreting technology currently being implemented as a pilot project in a few circuits to test the viability of the system. Remote technology would allow access to qualified interpreters over a broader geographical area, which allows for the pooling of limited resources for certified interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across the state at a lower per-event cost. As previously mentioned, the TCBC approved a $1.7 million FY 2017-18 year-end spending plan to purchase additional Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) hardware to expand access to the statewide pool of qualified interpreters and mitigate the impact of court interpreter vacancies. Additional requests will continue to support, maintain, and refresh the remote interpreting equipment necessary to ensure trial courts statewide are able to meet the needs of judges, court staff, and the public they serve in future years. Among other benefits, the requests:

• Provide access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area, using audio/video technology, which allows pooling of limited resources for certified interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across the state.

• Allow circuits to maximize existing resources across a single county with multiple courthouses, using localized remote interpreting.

• Allow for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.

of 247

• Create potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness testimony.

Option 1 is based on circuit requests (see Attachment K). Option 2 considers the equipment purchased in the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 year-end spending plans and focuses on support services such as the statewide call manager at $108,100 and bandwidth at $1,471,366. Historically, the statewide call manager has been funded by the TCBC statewide reserve. The cost estimate for bandwidth is based on the most recent legislative budget request submission.

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 2.0 FTE, $152,000 recurring expense, $37,500 non-recurring expense,

$20,000 contracted service, $61,420 due process costs, and $272,600 OCO, based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option 1 (see Attachment K).

Option 2: Approve $1,579,466 in due process costs for the statewide call manager and bandwidth.

Option 3: Approve an alternative; either specific components within an option or specific components of both options. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request D) Funding to Support Operations/Administration Related to Interpreting

Six circuits are requesting 9.0 FTE Operations/Administrative positions to support the interpreting resources requested in the above sections. These positions ensure all due process requests are met in a timely manner, as well as accurate scheduling of resources and payment of contract interpreters. Option 1 is based on circuit specific requests (see Attachment A).

FTE FTE Cost OCO Option 1 – Circuit Request 9.0 $618,075 $3,000

FTE FTE Cost

Recurring Expense

Non-Recurring Expense

Contracted Service

Due Process Costs OCO

Option 1 – Circuit Requests 2.0 $194,148 $152,000 $37,500 $20,000 $61,420 $272,600 Option 2 – Formula Based Need 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,579,466 $0

of 247

Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 9.0 FTE and $3,000 OCO, based on circuits’ requests, as shown in Option

1 (see Attachment K).

Option 2: Approve an alternative. Authorize the Executive Committee to review and approve the narrative to be submitted for the legislative budget request

Interpreting Services Summary of Option 1 and Option 2 Option 1 - Circuit Requests Option 2 – Formula Based Need

FTE





Additional Court Interpreting Resources 27.5 $2,551,992 $43,000 0.0 $0 $1,178,269 American Sign Language Interpreting 5.0 $463,980 $10,000 1.0 $101,297 $0 Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting 2.0 $194,148 $543,520 0.0 $0 $1,579,466 Operations/Administration Related to Interpreting 9.0 $618,075 $3,000 NA NA NA Total 43.5 $3,828,195 $599,520 1.0 $101,297 $2,757,735

5. Other Local Requests

At its April 12, 2019, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified a number of statewide initiatives for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) recommendations to the Supreme Court. These initiatives were identified to address specific goals for the trial courts. Additionally, while the TCBC recommends and advocates for the interests of the trial courts as a whole rather than the interests of a particular circuit or division, it wanted to ensure that issues specific to local courts and potential budget problems, as well as possible innovative programs for state funding, in the best interests of the trial courts generally, are considered. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the issues and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals in the statewide initiatives. Further, chief judges and trial court administrators were asked to identify local needs that were not addressed by the statewide issues being considered. The following questions were provided to assist in the recommendation of circuit-specific issues: 1) Are there any other high priority, policy-driven issues your circuit is facing that you believe are not addressed by the statewide issues being considered; 2) If so, are these more local or unique circuit-specific issues appropriate for state funding; and, 3) Should they be considered for inclusion in the Commission’s FY 2020-21 LBR recommendations?

of 247

The below circuit-specific, LBR categories were submitted for consideration.

A) Due Process/Digital Court Reporting

Circuit Goal FTE Non-Recurring

Expense Description 10th Reduce the number of courtrooms monitored by Digital Court Reporter (DCR) staff Digital Court Reporter 2.0 - Preferred ratio is 1 courtroom to 1 DCR staff 11th Digital Court Reporting Refresh

Court Reporting Equipment (PC) - $7,000

Technology refresh for seven courtrooms for DCR. The current equipment is obsolete, and its continued use places the court record in jeopardy.

Software Licensing - $24,500 Timer - $3,500 15th Achieve Due Process Best Practices

Digital Court Reporter 4.0 -

Additional DCRs are needed to ensure that the judicial circuit monitors the required court events according to best practices, i.e., 1 DCR to 3 court events.

Manager of Electronic Court Reporting 1.0 -

A manager of electronic court reporting is needed to assist with the operations of the department.

18th Provide Court Reporting Services

Digital Court Reporter 2.0 - Adding 2.0 FTE would reduce the number of courtrooms monitored per employee 3:1.

Total 9.0 $35,000

FTE FTE Cost

Non-Recurring Expense

Option 1 – Circuit Requests 9.0 $581,644 $35,000 Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 9.0 FTE digital court reporting staff and $35,000 non-recurring expense, based on circuits’ requests. Option 2: Do not approve. B) Problem-Solving Courts Three circuits, the 4th, 14th, and 19th circuits, requested a combined total of 10.0 FTE additional positions to support problem-solving court programs, to address increased demand of services, coordination of operations, case management, and to implement best practices. The TCBC previously decided not to include problem solving courts as a statewide issue for FY 2020-21 LBR consideration due to the Legislature appropriating $1.9 million additional funding for FY 2019-20. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the 10.0 FTE, based on the circuit requests. Option 2: Do not approve.

of 247

C) Miscellaneous Two additional circuit requests were submitted for FTEs. Neither of the requests were able to be combined in the above categories or in the statewide issues. One request was for support for a Mental Health Support Unit (1.0 FTE General Magistrate, 1.0 FTE Administrative Secretary II, and 1.0 FTE Court Program Specialist II). The second request was to assist with Risk Protection Order notification (2.0 FTE Court Program Specialist IIs), to handle post-conviction motions and appeals (4.0 FTE Staff Attorneys), and $35,826 in expense. A third request (from the 9th Circuit) for a case manager to support the newly appropriated judge was included in the Civil Case Efficiency Initiative. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the two miscellaneous circuit requests. Option 2: Approve specific components within Option 1. Option 3: Do not approve. 6. Courthouse Furnishings On April 12, 2019, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) considered possible new issues for the trial court’s FY 2020-21 Trial Court Legislative Budget Request submission. The circuits were notified of the issues to be considered at the TCBC meeting on June 25, 2019. The circuits were asked to review their individual needs for new or renovated courthouse furnishings in non-public areas. Five circuits submitted requests for funding of courthouse furnishings. All items submitted were reviewed for compliance with provisions in section 29.008, Florida Statutes, and with the Department of Financial Services and the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget guidelines. The total of all requests submitted for courthouse furnishings is $1,117,330 ($518,351 Expenses and $598,979 Other Capital Outlay (OCO)) in non-recurring funding. Funding requests for new or renovated furnishings total $262,313, while requests to replace existing furnishings total $855,017. Over the past several years, the TCBC has approved furniture requests only for new or renovated courthouse furnishings. Other furniture needs not meeting this criteria were recommended to be funded through year-end spending plans. A) Fifth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Courthouse Expansions– $118,177

($42,752 Expenses and $75,425 OCO)

1. The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners approved a new courthouse space plan (Hernando County Expansion), estimated for completion in April 2020, which will add new courtrooms to the existing Hernando County Courthouse. The non-public areas in the Hernando Judicial Expansion include three judicial suites, three judicial assistant areas, two hearing officer areas, three conference rooms, and four law clerk offices.

of 247

2. The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners approved a new courthouse space plan (Citrus Judicial Expansion), estimated for completion in February 2020, which will add three new courtrooms to the existing Citrus County Courthouse. The non-public areas in the Citrus Judicial Expansion include three judicial suites, three judicial assistant areas, two hearing officer areas, three conference rooms, and four law clerk offices.

Options: 1. File issue as requested. 2. Propose alternative option. 3. Do not file issue.

B) Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Renovation - $144,136 ($80,579

Expenses and $63,557 OCO)

The Fourteenth Circuit is requesting funding to replace the furniture lost to the severe damage of the 3rd floor of the main Bay County Courthouse due to Hurricane Michael. The 3rd floor will need to be repaired and completely renovated.

Options: 1. File issue as requested. 2. Propose alternative option. 3. Do not file the issue.

C) Ninth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $90,068 ($4,421

Expenses, $85,647 OCO) The furniture items requested are to replace furniture in 10 judicial chambers. The current 22-year-old chamber furniture is showing wear through chips and fading and continued problems with door slides and broken hinges. In recent years, Court Administration has continually pieced together different components using a lot of mismatched furnishings to keep judicial offices functionally furnished.

Options: 1. File issue as requested. 2. Propose alternative option. 3. Do not file issue.

D) Tenth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $179,000 (179,000

Expenses) The Tenth Circuit is requesting furniture for each of the 40 judicial suites. The courts moved into the Polk County Courthouse in July 1987, and each of the judicial suites was fully furnished at that time. Though the old furnishings have stood up to 31 years of everyday use, the majority of the furnishings are worn, and some have become dysfunctional. Laminate is coming away from the desks, credenzas, and conference tables in judges' chambers. Doors on credenzas and desks are broken and drawers are not working properly. Efforts to replace

of 247

furnishings in courtrooms, hearing rooms and other public areas have been in place for the last several years through county funding and improvements have been noted for those areas. The judicial suites are in need of replacing their office furnishings in these non-public areas. Options:

1. File issue as requested. 2. Propose alternative option. 3. Do not file issue.

E) Eleventh Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $585,949 ($211,599

Expenses and $374,350 OCO) The Eleventh Circuit is requesting funding to replace office furniture in non-public areas in various court locations. The existing furniture is 10-19 years old and has exceeded life expectancy. Replacement of these furnishings is necessary to ensure efficient court operations and a safe work environment in the Family, Criminal, Civil Divisions Courthouses and the Branch Courts.

Options: 1. File issue as requested. 2. Propose alternative option. 3. Do not file the issue.

of 247

Component/ Resource Class Title Number of FTE

General Counsel1st General Counsel 1.02nd General Counsel 1.05th Senior Attorney I 1.08th General Counsel 1.011th Sr. Attorney II 1.012th General Counsel 1.014th General Counsel 1.016th General Counsel 1.018th General Counsel 1.019th General Counsel 1.0Total 10.0Public Records2nd Communications Coordinator 1.04th Public Records Officer 1.05th Administrative Services Manager 1.06th Comm Spec 1.08th Comm.Coordinator 1.09th Comm. Coord. 1.011th Sr. Attorney I 1.012th Trial Court Law Clerk 1.013th Administrative Svc Director 1.018th Admin Svcs Mgr 1.0

19th Director of Administrative Services 1.0

Total 11.0Chief Deputy2nd Chief Dep.Ct.Admin. 1.03rd Chief Dep. Ct. Admin. 1.07th Chief Deputy Court Admin. 1.08th Chief Dep Court Adm 1.0Total 4.0

Leadership and AccountabilityGoal: Increase operational efficiency and transparency in the administration of Florida’s judicial branch.

FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment A

of 247


Security/ Marshal2nd Chief. Dep. Marshal 1.03rd Admin Services Mgr. 1.05th Administrative Services Manager 1.06th Training Manager 1.011th Administrative Services Manager 1.018th Admin Svcs Mgr 2.019th Court Operations Manager 1.020th Chief Dep.Marshal 1.0Total 9.0OtherPersonnel

1st HR Manager 1.02nd Personnel Management Analyst 1.07th Human Resources Manager 1.011th Personnel Management Analyst 1.014th Adminstrative Services Manager 1.0Total 5.0Budget

2nd Budget Analyst 1.05th Budget Services Manager 1.018th Budget Svcs Mgr 1.019th Budget Services Manager 1.020th Budget Svcs Mgr. 1.0Total 5.0Administrative Support

2nd Administrative Assistant III 1.06th Administrative Assistant III 2.0

Administrative Assistant I 0.511th Administrative Assistant III 1.013th Administrative Assistant III 1.0Total 5.5Technology

2nd Info.Systems Consultant I 1.0Total 1.0


Leadership and Accountability


of 247


Finance & Accounting

5th Purchasing Manager 1.010th Accounting Services Supervisor 1.0Total 2.0Operations/ Administration

5th Court Operations Manager 2.06th Professional Writer 1.0

Sr. Court Operations Consultant 1.0Sr. Court Statistics Consultant 1.0Administrative Serv. Manager 2.0

Senior Ct Op Manager 1.016th Senior Judge Travel 0.0Total 8.0

Issue Total 60.5


Leadership and Accountability

15th

11th


of 247

1st

2nd

3rd5th

6th

9th

10th

Reclassify our budget manager into this position.The Fifth Judicial Circuit serving Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion, Sumter Counties is Florida’s ninth most populous circuit, serving over 1,127,374 citizens, and spans 6,400 square miles in five counties. Due to the demographic and geographic circumstances of the circuit, additional Court Operations Managers and Administrative Services Managers are required to review and recommend improvements in court services’ policies and procedures deployment, to improve public information responses to general public inquiries regarding high profile cases, and to coordinate local court security for the five-county circuit. Since the RIF, budget services, purchasing, and grant functions have been absorbed by existing staff. A dedicated Budget Services Manager and a Purchasing Manager are requested to help optimize these services to the public (and to the judiciary), as the Court provides in other circuits. A Senior Attorney I is required due to the legal services workload and contracts associated with the General Counsel's Office.

We are requesting an AAIII to handle senior judge coordination in each of our two counties. We are also requesting that an AAI .75 position be brought to full time.Communications Coordinator to support transparency through public outreach and public records.Position needed due to increase in accounts receivable and payable invoices; increase in contracts, FACTS, deliverables/performance measures; travel and new STMS

Chief Deputy Marshal-DCA is closest position to a new position: Trial Court Marshal. Informations Systems Consultant I is our paperless court subject matter expert. These positions would require standard expense allocations for travel, training, office supplies, etc., and OCO for private office set-up.

Circuit Comments:The Circuit is requesting a General Counsel who also be assigned the responsibilities of Public Records and a staff person who is responsible for HR management .


of 247

11th

12th

14th

16th

Sr. Attorney II is needed to serve as a Deputy General Counsel to assist the circuit's General Counsel in performing court legal work (contract review and negotiations, labor relations, litigation in certain instances, etc.).Sr. Attorney I is needed to assist with the increase of public records request to review and conduct legal redaction of social media usage, cell phones/text messaging records, emails and other court documents.Administrative Services Manager is being requested to assist with safety, security, and emergency protocols (active live shooter, stalking, etc.) for 11 circuit facilities/courthouses.Sr. Court Operations Consultant is being requested to perform planning, designing, and managing projects involving court divisions, including technology services. This position works collaboratively with court teams to document project objectives, map project plans and workflows, and prepare and develop documents, forms, reports, and training materials. Sr. Court Statistics Consultant is needed to assist with measuring workload, examining caseload trends, provide an objective basis for administrative policy decisions, evaluate time standards and reasons for delay, and demonstrate accountability. Administrative Assistant III is needed to assist with management of division records (paper and paperless records) according to SCS records retention requirements.Personnel Management Analyst is needed to assist with timely recruitment efforts, employee onboarding, and training initiatives.

We feel it is necessary for the Public Records position to be an attorney to determine what is a public record and what information has to be redacted. Otherwise, we have to use other attorney resources to help the non-attorney person respond to the request.The 14th Circuit does not currently have a General Counsel position that is needed to oversee the law clerks, prepare and review contracts, respond to public records request, and provide legal advice and counsel to the Chief Judge and Trial Court Administrator. This position would be recurring and only $1,757 of the expense dollars would be recurring. The 14th Circuit is also in need of an Administrative Services Manager to oversee personnel and handle human resource issues as well as serve as the public information officer and coordinate communications for the circuit. The position and $1,757 of expense dollars would be recurring.

The 16th Judicial Circuit does not have any resident Senior Judges, as both judges assigned to our circuit perform mediation services in the circuit, thereby precluding them from performing senior judge work. Senior Judges from outside the circuit are utilized, however, there is no additional travel budget allocated for this purpose. In order to increase operational efficiency and maximize our existing expense budget, additional funds for this purpose are requested.


of 247

19th

20th This FTE position would oversee the implementation and maintenance of courthouse security policies and procedures for all five counties within the circuit, in addition to, being the courts direct liason with the private security companies, sheriff's offices and AOC security personnel providing entrance screening for all court users. In 2012, The 20th Circuit was designated as a "large circuit" without any accompanying FTE positions in Court Administration. The position of Budget Svcs. Mgr. would safeguard approximatelty $40,000,000 annually allocated in State & County funds.

These positions will address increasing demands for legal counsel support including formulation of policies to comply with statutory and rule requirements, responding to public records requests, managing fiscal activity, providing circuit-wide security coordination and oversight, directing court public publications and outreach programs, coordinating crisis communications and conducting statistical analysis. Currently, the 19th Circuit Court Administration Office is funded at a level of a small circuit, although, it is a medium-sized circuit.


of 247

Circuit Trial Court Administrator Chief Deputy

Chief Technology

Officer

General Counsel

Public Information

OfficerBudget Finance &

AccountingHuman

ResourcesInformation Technology

Administrative Support Other Total1

1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 12.002 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.50 1.00 10.503 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 8.004 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 20.005 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 14.006 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 5.75 5.00 24.757 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 11.008 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 8.009 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 7.00 20.0010 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.0011 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 10.00 15.00 38.0012 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 13.0013 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 20.0014 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.0015 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 11.00 3.00 26.0016 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.0017 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 21.0018 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.75 12.2519 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 8.0020 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 12.00

Total 20.00 13.80 20.00 10.80 9.70 19.20 38.00 40.00 4.00 65.25 60.75 302.50

Trial Court Budget CommissionJune 25, 2019 Meeting

FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request - Leadership and AccountabilityCurrent Court Administration FTE

1FTE by Judicial Circuit self reported as of May 2019. This does not include OPS, county funded, or grant funded positions.

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment B

of 247

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Circuit Chief Deputy

General Counsel

Public Records

Security/ Marshal

Admin. Services3

Operations/ Admin.

Support4Total Chief

DeputyGeneral Counsel

Public Records

Security/ Marshal

Admin. Services,

Operations and Admin. Support3 4 5

Total

1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.002 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.003 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.004 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.005 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.506 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.007 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.008 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.009 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.00

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0011 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0012 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0013 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0014 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 3.5015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0016 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.5017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0018 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.5019 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 8.0020 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10.0 11.00

Total 4.0 10.0 11.0 9.0 12.0 14.5 60.5 5.0 9.0 10.0 20.0 36.0 80.0

5 FTE Net Need determined by applying average need for extra-small (4.0), small (6.0), medium (10.0), large (17.0), and extra large (36.0) circuits. When this results in negative net need, it defaults to zero. FTE rounded to nearest whole number.


FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request - Leadership and Accountability

1Option 1 is based on Judicial Circuit FTE requests, as of May 2019.2Option 2 is based on current resources, giving 1.0 FTE for chief deputy, general counsel, public records/information, and security/marshal if the circuit does not have the resource, with the exception of the extra small circuits which received 0.5 FTE for the public records/information category. Administrative services and operations/administration were determined based on average resources by size of circuit. 3Administrative Services includes FTE in personnel, budget, and finance & accounting.

Note: The 13th Circuit request includes 1.0 FTE administrative support position from their circuit-specific LBR.

Option 1 Circuit FTE Request1

Option 2 FTE Formula Based Need2

June 25, 2019 Meeting

4Operations/Administration includes FTE in technology and administrative support.

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment C

of 247

Date Small Claims

County Civil Evictions Total

FY 2005/06 215,051 90,005 165,420 470,476FY 2006/07 259,111 103,915 164,098 527,124% Difference 20.5% 15.5% -0.8% 12.0%FY 2007/08 299,489 122,967 172,008 594,464% Difference 15.6% 18.3% 4.8% 12.8%FY 2008/09 241,039 130,128 140,610 511,777% Difference -19.5% 5.8% -18.3% -13.9%FY 2009/10 196,594 147,635 137,169 481,398% Difference -18.4% 13.5% -2.4% -5.9%FY 2010/11 169,333 139,785 140,799 449,917% Difference -13.9% -5.3% 2.6% -6.5%FY 2011/12 239,338 116,649 160,031 516,017% Difference 41.3% -16.6% 13.7% 14.7%FY 2012/13 197,954 91,745 149,164 438,863% Difference -17.3% -21.3% -6.8% -15.0%FY 2013/14 186,079 74,696 147,775 408,550% Difference -6.0% -18.6% -0.9% -6.9%FY 2014/15 214,143 65,067 142,195 421,405% Difference 15.1% -12.9% -3.8% 3.1%FY 2015/16 214,050 67,527 135,540 417,117% Difference 0.0% 3.8% -4.7% -1.0%FY 2016/17 249,360 76,825 133,189 459,374% Difference 16.5% 13.8% -1.7% 10.1%

201706 25,074 8,390 11,897 45,361201707 22,079 6,972 11,570 40,621201708 25,251 7,669 12,661 45,581201709 17,046 4,454 9,007 30,507201710 23,990 6,721 14,015 44,726201711 26,979 6,771 10,786 44,536201712 25,725 7,523 10,690 43,938201801 27,692 8,359 12,613 48,664201802 22,043 6,656 9,907 38,606201803 29,837 8,647 8,952 47,436201804 26,216 7,711 9,401 43,328201805 32,348 10,303 10,615 53,266

FY 2017/18 304,280 90,176 132,114 526,570% Difference 22.0% 17.4% -0.8% 14.6%

201806 27,323 9,200 11,330 47,853201807 29,212 9,196 11,679 50,087201808 32,313 10,065 11,184 53,562201809 23,999 8,070 10,386 42,455201810 31,610 10,327 12,453 54,390201811 25,840 7,651 10,310 43,801201812 27,810 8,523 9,987 46,320201901 45,373 9,517 12,560 67,450201902 30,503 8,651 10,161 49,315201903 30,054 9,494 8,575 48,123

FY 2018/19 (Annualized) 364,844 108,833 130,350 604,027% Difference 19.9% 20.7% -1.3% 14.7%Data obtained from a dynamic database and may be changed in the future.

County CivilAgenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment D

of 247

Date

Professional Malpractice

Product Liability

Auto Negligence

Other Negligence Condos Contracts

Other Circuit

CivilTotal

FY 2005/06 1,398 1,033 20,443 12,139 416 36,632 33,426 72,061FY 2006/07 1,206 756 19,334 11,921 1,081 42,170 34,667 76,468% Difference -13.7% -26.8% -5.4% -1.8% 159.9% 15.1% 3.7% 6.1%FY 2007/08 1,196 2,542 20,249 12,934 2,474 52,965 37,620 92,360% Difference -0.8% 236.2% 4.7% 8.5% 128.9% 25.6% 8.5% 20.8%FY 2008/09 1,263 985 19,597 12,311 2,324 70,559 36,888 107,039% Difference 5.6% -61.3% -3.2% -4.8% -6.1% 33.2% -1.9% 15.9%FY 2009/10 1,529 863 19,647 12,523 2,908 82,319 31,582 119,789% Difference 21.1% -12.4% 0.3% 1.7% 25.1% 16.7% -14.4% 11.9%FY 2010/11 1,645 919 21,095 13,248 2,641 69,279 28,200 108,827% Difference 7.6% 6.5% 7.4% 5.8% -9.2% -15.8% -10.7% -9.2%FY 2011/12 1,591 702 22,213 13,469 2,838 51,808 26,721 92,621% Difference -3.3% -23.6% 5.3% 1.7% 7.5% -25.2% -5.2% -14.9%FY 2012/13 1,477 769 21,764 13,206 2,209 43,986 26,256 83,411% Difference -7.2% 9.5% -2.0% -2.0% -22.2% -15.1% -1.7% -9.9%FY 2013/14 1,518 948 22,143 12,841 2,162 42,266 24,599 81,878% Difference 2.8% 23.3% 1.7% -2.8% -2.1% -3.9% -6.3% -1.8%FY 2014/15 1,489 939 22,828 13,525 2,218 42,048 25,066 83,047% Difference -1.9% -0.9% 3.1% 5.3% 2.6% -0.5% 1.9% 1.4%FY 2015/16 1,544 794 24,686 13,164 1,624 39,409 28,002 81,221% Difference 3.7% -15.4% 8.1% -2.7% -26.8% -6.3% 11.7% -2.2%FY 2016/17 1,545 756 27,224 13,739 1,398 43,480 28,193 88,142% Difference 0.1% -4.8% 10.3% 4.4% -13.9% 10.3% 0.7% 8.5%

201706 121 59 2,634 1,360 113 4,253 2,561 8,540201707 104 59 2,209 1,086 121 3,514 2,218 7,093201708 150 97 2,691 1,347 122 4,087 2,694 8,494201709 123 84 1,958 943 66 2,553 1,759 5,727201710 164 78 2,638 1,215 109 3,672 2,339 7,876201711 140 69 2,458 1,150 127 3,725 2,212 7,669201712 137 71 2,436 1,243 101 3,837 2,495 7,825201801 137 72 2,790 1,244 96 5,231 2,961 9,570201802 109 70 2,547 1,189 109 4,803 3,068 8,827201803 126 56 2,704 1,301 112 5,742 3,723 10,041201804 148 88 2,750 1,222 118 5,355 3,719 9,681201805 137 83 2,884 1,274 116 5,550 4,002 10,044

FY 2017/18 1,596 886 30,699 14,574 1,310 52,322 33,751 101,387% Difference 3.3% 17.2% 12.8% 6.1% -6.3% 20.3% 19.7% 15.0%

201806 142 68 2,706 1,245 130 5,521 3,527 9,812201807 117 64 2,562 1,196 103 5,251 3,669 9,293201808 134 81 2,848 1,415 112 5,693 3,574 10,283201809 112 53 2,557 1,123 95 4,747 3,060 8,687201810 150 85 2,934 1,336 137 5,980 3,382 10,622201811 108 56 2,613 1,138 101 4,570 2,844 8,586201812 111 61 2,525 1,194 98 4,398 2,864 8,387201901 158 99 3,053 1,394 110 5,114 3,314 9,928201902 124 76 2,641 1,282 96 5,080 3,428 9,299201903 118 69 3,023 1,537 104 5,275 3,636 10,126

FY 2018/19 Annualized 1,529 854 32,954 15,432 1,303 61,955 39,958 114,028% Difference -4.2% -3.6% 7.3% 5.9% -0.5% 18.4% 18.4% 12.5%Data obtained from a dynamic database and may be changed in the future.

Circuit Civil (Excluding Foreclosure Cases)

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment D

of 247

Date Probate Guardianship Trust TotalFY 2005/06 64,363 7,487 943 72,793FY 2006/07 57,994 7,244 1,015 66,253% Difference -9.9% -3.2% 7.6% -9.0%FY 2007/08 54,879 6,991 978 62,848% Difference -5.4% -3.5% -3.6% -5.1%FY 2008/09 51,351 6,733 963 59,047% Difference -6.4% -3.7% -1.5% -6.0%FY 2009/10 48,343 6,448 1,002 55,793% Difference -5.9% -4.2% 4.0% -5.5%FY 2010/11 48,649 6,301 998 55,948% Difference 0.6% -2.3% -0.4% 0.3%FY 2011/12 48,147 6,206 901 55,254% Difference -1.0% -1.5% -9.7% -1.2%FY 2012/13 49,956 6,360 1,021 57,337% Difference 3.8% 2.5% 13.3% 3.8%FY 2013/14 52,300 6,477 1,054 59,831% Difference 4.7% 1.8% 3.2% 4.3%FY 2014/15 54,303 6,920 1,004 62,227% Difference 3.8% 6.8% -4.7% 4.0%FY 2015/16 54,936 6,912 1,036 62,884% Difference 1.2% -0.1% 3.2% 1.1%FY 2016/17 56,248 7,020 947 64,215% Difference 2.4% 1.6% -8.6% 2.1%

201706 5,065 649 87 5,801201707 4,511 605 75 5,191201708 5,104 650 68 5,822201709 3,356 382 49 3,787201710 5,038 623 74 5,735201711 4,578 542 64 5,184201712 4,247 509 60 4,816201801 5,009 596 62 5,667201802 5,028 632 77 5,737201803 5,679 674 97 6,450201804 5,438 683 72 6,193201805 5,251 746 74 6,071

FY 2017/18 58,304 7,291 859 66,454% Difference 3.7% 3.9% -9.3% 3.5%

201806 4,949 675 59 5,683201807 4,875 644 69 5,588201808 5,329 724 86 6,139201809 4,473 622 62 5,157201810 5,165 713 60 5,938201811 4,258 600 75 4,933201812 3,967 567 68 4,602201901 5,162 649 66 5,877201902 4,948 621 71 5,640201903 5,421 695 67 6,183

FY 2018/19 Annualized 58,256 7,812 820 66,888% Difference -0.1% 7.1% -4.6% 0.7%Data obtained from a dynamic database and may be changed in the future.

ProbateAgenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment D

of 247

Mediation Services 105415

Recurring Non-Recurring

Case Managers2nd Court Program Specialist II 2.03rd Sr. Ct. Program Specialist 1.0

5th-CircuitSenior Court Program

Specialist 3.0 $5,0005th-County Court Program Specialist II 3.0 7th Court Program Specialist II 5.08th Court Program Spec. 1.09th CPS I 2.0

10thSenior Court Program

Specialist 1.0

11th-CountyCourt Program Specialist II

(7155) 9.0

11th-CircuitCourt Program Specialist II

(7155) 8.013th Crt. Pgm Spec II 12.0 $28,24815th Court Specialist II 6.016th Court Program Specialist II 1.017th Ct. Prgm. Spec II 3.018th Sr Ct Prog Spec 4.0


Specialist 3.020th Court Prog. Spec II 2.0Total 66.0 $0 $5,000 $0 $28,248 $0Law Clerks1st 8370 4.0 2nd Trial Court Law Clerk 1.03rd Trial Court Law Clerk* 2.04th Trial Court Law Clerk 2.05th Trial Court Law Clerk 3.08th Trial Court Law Clerk 1.09th TCLC 2.010th Senior Law Clerk 1.0

11thTrial Court Law Clerk (Civil)

(8370) 2.012th Trial Court Law Clerk 2.013th Tr.Crt. Staff Atty 11.0 $25,89415th Law Clerk 3.018th Trial Ct Law Clerk 5.019th Trial Court Law Clerk 3.020th Trial Court Law Clerk 2.0Total 44.0 $0 $0 $0 $25,894 $0Mediators5th Mediator-County 3.0 $50,00011th Mediator Civil/Family (7620) 1.015th Mediator/Circuit 1.018th Med Svcs Coord 3.0


Component/ResourceOCO 060000

Civil Case Efficiency Initiative Goal: Improve resolution time for civil/business cases to respond to increasingly numerous and complex caseload.

Class Title Number of FTE

Expense 040000

Contracted Service 100777

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment E

of 247


Recurring Non-Recurring


Component/ResourceOCO 060000

Civil Case Efficiency Initiative Goal: Improve resolution time for civil/business cases to respond to increasingly numerous and complex caseload.


Expense 040000


20th Mediator Services Coordinator 1.0Total 9.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000Technology2nd Info.Systems Consultant I 1.0

3rdInformation Systems

Consultant I 2.0

5thInformation Systems

Consultant II 1.0 $88,267 $40,000Application / Database

Administrator 1.0

11thApplications Database/Analyst

(4235) 1.0Information Systems Consultant II (4045) 1.0

14th Info Syst Consult I 1.019th 0.0 $100,00020th Info. Res. Mngt Consultant 1.0Total 9.0 $0 $188,267 $40,000 $0 $0Data Reporting5th Senior Court Analyst II 1.0 9th 1 Smartbench Lic. 0.0 $10,00020th Data Quality / Reporting 1.0Total 2.0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0OtherGeneral Magistrate

2nd Magistrate 1.012th Magistrate 1.0 Total 2.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Administrative

Support

2nd Administrative Secretary II 1.0Total 1.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Senior Judge Days

2nd Senior Judge Days 0.0 $21,1805th Senior Judge Days 0.0 $54,600Total 0.0 $0 $75,780 $0 $0 $0Operations/Administr

ation

3rd Digital Court Reporter 1.05th Court Program Specialist II 1.0 Total 8.0 $0 $151,560 $0 $0 $0Issue Total 141.00 $0 $420,607 $50,000 $54,142 $50,000


of 247

1st2nd

3rd5th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

19th These positions will support the development of effective program practices matching resources with the needs of a case and supporting the possible implementation of a streamlined pathway for cases that present both uncomplicated and complex factual issues. A $100K placeholder for improving courtroom presentation for civil cases is aimed at improving efficiencies within civil courtrooms. This amount is based on the purchase of cart-based presentation systems at a cost of $10,000 each.

We only have one Court Technology Officer and a county-funded technology person to service six counties in our circuit. The county-funded position is limited to Bay County. We would be able to expand our capabilities with ICMS and efiling if we had another technology position to serve the entire circuit. The position and $1,757 of expense are recurring.

Staff Attorneys would be hired to focused on complex civil ligitation.Information Systems Consultant is repeated from above, and is our paperless court subject matter expert (to include case management reports). The Senior Judge contract funds would be sufficuent for 60 days of senior judge time. These positions would require standard expense allocations for travel, training, office supplies, etc., and OCO for private office set-up.

*All law clerks handle all case types.Comments: These additional resources will execute civil case docket control policies that address local variances in practice, including processes for early and continuous monitoring and judicial control of the court calendar, identification of cases that may be amenable to alternative dispute resolution, and rational and effective trial setting policies modernizing the current process to the standards required for the general public and local business community needs. Each case is reviewed for filing activity, pending motions, notices for trial and/or at issue or a lack of filings (stagnant litigation). Thereafter, each case is set for a proper hearing (i.e., motion hearing, case management hearing in those cases that appear stagnant or awaiting trial). Many cases are facing an automatic stay due to bankruptcy, which prohibits further intervention from the court. Those cases are monitored monthly for an order lifting the stay so they can be disposed of as soon as permissible by law.

Two case managers and two law clerks to facilitate and proactively manage civil litigation cases. Studies demonstrate that civil cases are handled more efficiently when a case manager assists the court.Court program specialist positions are needed as activity levels for case managers has heightened, more judges are requesting more case management activities for appropriate and timely disposition of cases; law clerk positions are needed due to increase in workload making it difficult for current law clerks to keep up with the work demands of 28 circuit judges.

Court Program Specialist II are needed to assist with providing information, reviewing filings, managing and preparing cases for hearings and briefing judges, scheduling and attending hearings, and other trial court proceedings, maintaining record/filing system, and performing related administrative support functions, and collecting and reporting on case/program data and maintaining databases as needed. The need is greater with the imminent jurisdictional amount increase.Trial Court Law Clerks are needed to assist and advise county court judges with pending litigation and issues, drafting memoranda, opinions, orders and reports; conducting legal research; reviewing briefs and case files.Mediators are needed for conducting mediations and drafting settlement agreements for the circuit. The need is greater with the imminent jurisdictional amount increase. Applications Database/Analyst is needed for ensuring the operations of the circuit’s databases and SharePoint services, troubleshooting and diagnosing issues, providing services to the various business users and application owners. This includes the planning and implementation of efficient operational processes that support availability, scalability and capacity.Information Systems Consultant II the county and circuit civil divisions are implementing multiple initiatives in support of case management processes including the implementation of time standards. Therefore, a dedicated resource overseeing all initiatives, including the CAPS Viewer, is needed.

There is a huge need for law clerks to assist judges in complex civil cases so that judges can spend more time in the courtroom on hearings and motions. Virtually all of our law clerk resources are spent on criminal cases. Also we are requesting a civil magistrate for Manatee County for the same reason.

We request a 1:1 ratio of law clerks to circuit civil division judges. Currently, we have 14 civil divisions and 3 staff attys assigned to Civil Division Judges.

Circuit Comments:


of 247

20th Since Hurricane Irma’s landfall in September of 2017, the Twentieth has experienced an increase in filings within the sub-case types of Contract and Indebtedness and Insurance Claims (as a direct consequence of the natural disaster). Based on a comparison of the most recent three-months of available Summary-Reporting-System (SRS) data, the Twentieth is currently facing a circuitwide increase in Circuit Civil – Part 1.d. cases (all types) of 219.6% from the same three month period in 2017 (Jan.-Mar.). Of note, the same sub-case types between the same three-month periods of 2018 and 2019 (Jan.-Mar.) experienced a 101.0% spike. Similarly, the sub-case type of Contract & Indebtedness (from Circuit Civil – Part 1.a. of the SRS) is experiencing an increase of 114.2% over the most recent three months (as compared to the same prior to period) within the most Irma-affected counties of Lee and Collier since 2017. A closer examination of the sub-case types within Circuit Civil – Part 1.d. reveals that Lee County possesses an increase in Insurance Claims of 406% over the last year, which is up 830% as compared to 2017. Similarly, Collier County is experiencing Insurance Claims as a prime driver of additional workloads: up 1,038% since last year; up 2,113% as compared to 2017. Taken together these two counties have increased the circuit’s total Insurance Claims filings by 1,249% between the periods of Jan.-Mar. of 2017 and 2019. Given the relative case weights of both Insurance Claims and Contract & Indebtedness the Twentieth is facing an unmistakably observable and substantial result from the consequences of Hurricane Irma.


of 247

A B C D E

Circuit

Total Judicial/ GM Assignment1

CurrentLaw Clerk

FTE2

Law ClerkTotal Need3

(Rounded to the nearest whole FTE)

Law ClerkNet Need4

(Rounded to the nearest whole FTE)

1 3.15 0.00 2.0 2.02 4.20 3.50 3.0 0.03 1.95 2.00 1.0 0.04 9.80 0.00 5.0 5.05 8.30 2.80 4.0 1.06 12.00 1.00 6.0 5.07 5.60 1.00 3.0 2.08 3.20 0.50 2.0 2.09 9.50 4.00 5.0 1.010 6.80 2.25 3.0 1.011 23.85 6.75 12.0 5.012 6.20 1.00 4.0 3.013 13.20 3.00 7.0 4.014 2.20 2.00 1.0 0.015 11.70 4.00 6.0 2.016 1.28 0.50 1.0 1.017 13.00 8.00 7.0 0.018 5.35 1.15 3.0 2.019 4.70 1.45 2.0 1.020 7.60 1.16 4.0 3.0

Total 153.58 46.06 81.0 40.0


FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget RequestLaw Clerks

Option 2: FTE Need Based on Proposed 2:1 Ratio

Circuit Civil 2:1 Ratio

2Law Clerk FTE as reported by circuits as of May 2019.

1 Total Judicial/ GM assignments were self reported in judicial needs assessment as of July 1, 2018.

3 Law Clerk Total Need is based on the current funding methodology ratio of 1 Law Clerk to every 2 circuit court judges/ general magistrates, rounded to the nearest whole FTE.4 Law Clerk Net Need is the difference between Law Clerk Total Need and Circuit Civil Law Clerk FTE by circuits.

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment F

of 247

A B C D E F G

Circuit

Circuit Civil Case Managers Assigned

Case Manager FTE Need

(Based on Circuit Size and 20% filings

increase)

Probate Case Managers Assigned

Case Manager FTE Need

(Based on Circuit Size and 5% filings increase)

Current Case Managers FTE for Circuit Civil and

Probate Divisions1 Total Net Need FTE

2 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.03 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.08 0.5 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.5 1.5

14 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.016 2.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.0 0.0

Average 2.0 1.0 1.34.5

1 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.05 1.2 4.0 0.8 3.2 2.0 1.07 0.0 6.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 2.0

10 1.0 5.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 2.012 0.0 6.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 2.018 5.0 1.0 3.0 0.2 8.0 0.019 1.0 6.0 0.0 3.2 1.0 2.0

Average 5.0 3.0 2.012.0

4 0.0 7.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 4.06 1.0 5.2 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.09 0.0 6.2 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.0

13 0.0 7.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 1.015 5.0 4.2 2.0 0.2 7.0 0.020 6.0 1.2 0.0 3.2 6.0 0.0

Average 6.0 3.0 3.210.0

11 4.0 0.8 7.0 0.4 11.0 0.017 1.0 2.8 1.0 6.4 2.0 5.0

Average 4.0 7.0 6.55.0

31.5

Medium Circuits = 3.0 FTE

Large Circuits =4.0 FTE

Very Large Circuits = 7.0 FTE

1 Totals may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self-reported as of May 2019.


FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request Civil Case Efficiency Initiative

Option 2: FTE Need Based on Appropriate Staffing Level and Growth in Filings

Small Circuits = 2.0 FTE

Case Management

Small Circuits Subtotal

Medium Circuits Subtotal

Large Circuits Subtotal

Very Large Circuits Subtotal

Total

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment G

of 247

Recurring Recurring Non-Recurring

Case Managers1st Court Program Specialist II 6.0 2nd Court Program Spec. II 2.03rd Sr. Ct Program Specialist 1.0 4th Court Program Specialist II 2.05th-UFC Court Program Specialist II 2.0 $5,0005th-Pro Se Court Program Specialist II 2.0 6th CPSII 5.5 8th Court Program Spec. 1.09th CPS I 1.0


Specialist 1.0 Court Program Specialist II 1.0

11thCourt Program Specialist II

(7155) 1.0Court Program Specialist I

(7152) 1.012th Ct Prog Spec II 6.0 13th Crt. Pgm Spec II 7.0 $54,000 $16,47815th Court Specialist II 6.016th Court Program Specialist II 2.0 17th Ct. Prgm. Spec. II 6.018th Sr Ct Prog Spec 4.0


Specialist 2.020th Court Prog. Spec II 2.0Total 61.5 $0 $59,000 $0 $16,478 $0Mediation4th Mediator-Circuit-Family 2.05th Mediator - Circuit/Family 3.0 $50,00010th $10,000

11thMediation Services Coordinator (7630) 1.0

13th $18,00014th Mediator-Circuit/Family 1.0 15th Mediator/Circuit Family 1.019th Mediator/Circuit Family 1.0Total 9.0 $10,000 $68,000 $0 $0 $0Risk/ Need Assessment Tool5th Family Court Manager 1.0 $7,20010th $25,00011th $2,38413th Crt. Pgm Spec II 1.0 $2,354Total 2.0 $27,384 $7,200 $0 $2,354 $0


Component/Resource

Expense 040000 OCO 060000




Children and Families Goal: Improve the experience and outcome of children who are involved in litigation through better coordination of cases, ideally under a one-

family, one-judge model; proper utilization of dispute resolution; and support for self-represented litigants.

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment H

of 247



Component/Resource







Data System for Case Management2nd Info.Systems Consultant I 1.04th $115,000

5thInformation Systems

Consultant II 1.0 $35,000Application / Database

Administrator 1.0 $20,00010th $3,377 $1,592 $10,02711th $150,000Total 3.0 $3,377 $116,592 $55,000 $160,027 $0General Magistrate2nd Magistrate 1.04th Magistrate 2.05th General Magistrate 2.0 12th Magistrate 2.5 13th Magistrate 2.0 $4,70818th Magistrate 2.019th General Magistrate 1.0Total 12.5 $0 $0 $0 $4,708 $0Other Support Services1st 2110 0.52nd Administrative Secretary II 1.03rd Admin Assistant II* 1.0 $5004th Administrative Secretary II 2.07th $50,0008th Admin Sec (GM Asst) 1.012th Sr. Ct Prog Spec 2.0 13th Admin Sec II 2.0 $4,708

Admin Asst II 1.0 $4,70815th Administrative Assist.II 4.0 $2,35417th Adm. Asst. II 1.018th Admin Sec II 3.019th Administrative Secretary II 1.020th Admin. Sec II 2.0Total 21.5 $500 $50,000 $11,770 $0 $0OtherChild Support

Enforcement Hearing

Officer

5th Hearing Officer 1.0 18th Hearing Officer 1.0Total 2.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Law Clerks

2nd Trial Court Law Clerk I 1.09th TCLC 1.0 10th Senior Law Clerk 2.0 15th Law Clerk 2.019th Trial Court Law Clerk 3.0Total 9.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


of 247



Component/Resource







Operations/Support

2nd Court Program Specialist II 1.0 $50,00019th Court Program Specialist II 2.0Total 3.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000Issue Total 123.5 $41,261 $300,792 $66,770 $183,567 $50,000


of 247

1st

2nd

3rd4th

5th

6th

7th

9th

Circuit Comments:2 Early Childhood Court Coordinators; 2 Pro Se Case Managers and 2 UFC Case Managers; P/T Magistrate Support Staff for Family Law Magistrate.Information Systems Consultant is repeated from above, and is our paperless court subject matter expert (to include case management reports). These positions would require standard expense allocations for travel, training, office supplies, etc., and OCO for private office set-up.

*Magistrate Support The workload in Family Court Services, Magistrates and Mediation has increased significantly requiring additional staff to handle the influx of pro se litigants. Over 2,000 pro se litigants walk through family court services monthly which generates additional new and post-filings impacting these three departments. Currently, we are scheduling hearings on the Magistrates and Mediators calendars 8-10 weeks out. The current case management system is antiquated and needs to be integrated as part of ICMS and SOFIA (State of Florida Interactive Access). These changes will allow case managers to import digitally created documents from litigants which will improve efficiency and accuracy of court documents filed with the court.

An effective triage process in family court systems is critical to the efficient and effective delivery of services for the judicial branch. Intake is the initial step in case management. The lack of case management on the “front end” has reduced access to the legal system. The circuit is working toward early evaluation of cases post-filing for differentiated case management and the need for emergency hearings or early focused custody evaluations. Cases are reviewed and scheduled for a temporary hearing, case management conference, alternative dispute resolution services mediation or trial. Please refer to the Model Court Diagram (part of the Unified Family Court, adopted by the Florida Supreme Court). This diagram shows intake and case management as vital parts of the Unified Family Court Model. It is through these two identified elements that referrals are normally made to the Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Since the Fifth Circuit does not currently have either of these two elements fully staffed, the referral process falls predominantly on the Judges’ offices. By increasing staff to the model numbers, the Alternative Dispute Resolution program could conduct its own assessment of new cases and additional filings in old cases to determine the appropriateness of mediation. Appropriate referrals could be made earlier in the process, resulting in preservation rather than destruction of family relationships. It is well documented that the traditional adversarial process is detrimental to children because it drives parents farther apart at the time their children need them to work together to restructure their system of parenting. “It has been established that mediation can resolve a high percentage of these (family) disputes if they are brought before a competent mediator at an early stage of the proceeding. The fact that the mediation service is court-connected is important because it presents the mediator to the parties as a person who will be fair and impartial because of being an arm of the court” (IN RE: Report of the Family Court Steering Committee, SC00-1410).

We are requesting five case management positions to address increasing needs in family, domestic violence, and Problem Solving Courts. We are also requesting that a .5FTE CPSI assigned to family mediation be made full-time.

Contractual dollars to provide social investigations in dissolution cases where parties are unable to afford the service.

One case manager and one law clerk to prioritize, facilitate and proactively manage case processing for the circuit’s unified family court initiative.


of 247

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

19th

Risk assessement subscription is $25,000 for the 1st year; increases 3-5% annually; ODR software, the 10th circuit was chosen as a pilot circuit for ODR; judicial viewers (surface pros $1,874.55 each) for case management staff to use the ICMS in multiple locations; court program specialist positions are needed as activity levels for case managers has heightened, more judges are requesting more case management activities for appropriate and timely disposition of cases; law clerk positions are needed due to increase in workload making it difficult for current law clerks to keep up with the work demands of 28 circuit judges.

These positions will assist the family court manager in providing critical case management services to families to improve services and meet the increasing demands associated with pro se litigants. Functions include drafting administrative orders, assisting with CLE’s, updating and creating new forms, and conducting legal research. The request includes the upgrade of two existing OPS positions to full-time status (2.0 FTE Court Program Specialist II).

Court Program Specialist II is needed to assist with providing information, reviewing filings, managing and preparing cases for hearings and briefing judges, scheduling and attending hearings, and other trial court proceedings, maintaining record/filing system, and performing related administrative support functions, and collecting and reporting on case/program data and maintaining databases as needed. Court Program Specialist I is needed to assist in maintaining databases, collecting and reporting on case/program data, facilitating court referrals such as child support enforcement and domestic violence referrals, interacting with other court personnel and the community to facilitate case management, and perform related clerical support functions.ODR Mediation Services Coordinator is needed to assist with the coordination of technical support, online assistance, language services, and inquiries from ODR system users. Risk/Need Assessment Tools: GAIN (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs) licensing fee @$100 (covers five years); GAIN setup fee @$100 (one-time fee);GAIN user fee @$252 per year per user (total of $452 or $504 for two users) and ASAM (American Society of Addition Medicine) two (2) licenses at $840.00 per year. Assessment tools assist in the screening and diagnosis, as well as plan treatment, placement and help performance monitoring.Data System for Case Management: Requesting funds ($150,000) for the expansion of the CAPS viewer for Family and UCC Divisions. To incorporate these divisions there is a need to expand storage area as the images for these division need to be processed locally through our replicated database increasing storage needs.

The 6 case manager request is to set up self help centers in 3 of our 4 locations with two case managers each. The 2.5 Magistrate request is to have a family law magistrate in Sarasota, a "multipurpose" magistrate (civil, family and dependency) in Desoto County, and a 0.5 Family Law magistrate in our satellite location (Venice) in Sarasota County.

Case Manager Contract Services ($54,000) for CCI investigation.Mediations have increased over the past few years in the 14th Circuit. The decrease in the current fiscal year was due to Hurricane Michael. In addition to State contractual dollars used primarily for family mediation, the 14th Circuit receives funds from Big Bend Community Based Care for dependency mediations. Both Bay and Jackson Counties exhaust those funds, and we have to pay for those mediations from State funds, if we have them, or from Court Innovations (county funding). The position and $1,757 of expense dollars would be recurring.

The Circuit is in need of law clerks to handle family and juvenile related legal issues.

Case Management is a state court element and responsibility, however, the circuit employs case managers through county funds due to the circuit's unique geography. Access to county funds and the budget process can be uncertain. Monies allocated through the county budget process should be allocated for items that are the county's rsponsibility and not state court system elements.


of 247

20th The requested Court Program Specialist II FTE (Case Manager) positions will identify related family cases, as defined by Rule 2.545(d)(2) Fla. Rule Jud. Admin. (2019), and consistently coordiante cases under the One Family, One Judge model in Collier and Lee Counties.


of 247

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Circuit General Magistrate


Hearing Officer

Case Management Law Clerks Mediation

Operations/ Administration3 Total General

Magistrate

Child Support

Enforcement Hearing Officer

Case Management

Data Reporting/

Systems

Administrative Support Total

1 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.52 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 3.53 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.04 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.05 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0

6** 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 0.0 4.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.08 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.09 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 1.0 5.0 11.010 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 5.011 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 8.512 2.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.013 2.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 13.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 5.514 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.015 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.016 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.017 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 5.518 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 11.019 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.020 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 8.0

Total 12.5 2.0 61.5 9.0 9.0 29.5 123.5 16.5 1.0 26.5 20.0 31.0 95.0

**6th operations/administration make .75 a full time position


FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request - Children and Families

3Operations/Administration includes FTE in risk/need assessment tool, data system for case management, and other support services.

The Family Court Division includes General Domestice Relations, Child Support, Dependency, and Delinquency.1Option One: As reported by the circuits.

Option One1

Circuit FTE Requests for the Family Court DivisionOption Two2

Need Based FTE for the Family Court Division

2Option Two: GM and CSEHO based on net need in family division; case management based on ratio in family division; data reporting/systems based on one position per circuit; and, administrative support provides each circuit with their net need according to the official methodology in the FY 2019-20 allocation net need charts.

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment I

of 247

A B C D E F G H

CircuitFamily Court Judges

General Magistrate


Hearing Officer

Case Management Law Clerks Mediation Total

1 8.85 2.90 2.00 12.00 0.00 0.75 17.652 5.64 2.00 1.50 4.00 0.00 3.00 10.503 3.56 0.25 1.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 6.254 10.90 6.70 3.50 20.00 0.00 9.00 39.205 11.00 4.40 2.50 8.00 0.00 3.10 18.006 18.68 5.16 3.00 17.00 4.00 2.50 31.667 10.50 3.40 1.60 11.00 0.00 3.00 19.008 5.55 1.80 1.50 3.00 1.00 3.00 10.309 17.00 4.25 3.00 16.00 1.00 2.00 26.25

10 10.40 2.90 2.05 10.50 2.75 6.00 24.2011 23.65 10.00 4.00 18.00 3.75 10.00 45.7512 7.40 2.90 2.50 6.00 0.00 5.00 16.4013 17.10 5.50 3.00 20.00 3.00 3.00 34.5014 3.97 1.80 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 5.8015 10.90 5.80 2.00 11.00 1.50 6.00 26.3016 1.33 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.50 2.50 5.2017 22.00 6.00 2.00 29.00 0.00 7.00 44.0018 10.63 4.74 2.68 3.50 0.80 2.95 14.6719 7.11 2.15 1.45 6.00 0.50 3.00 13.1020 11.87 3.80 1.30 12.00 0.30 2.00 19.40

Total 218.03 76.65 40.58 216.00 20.10 74.80 428.13

1As reported by the circuits.


FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request Children and Families

The Family Court Division includes General Domestic Relations, Child Support, Dependency, and Delinquency.

Current Resources in the Family Court Division1

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment J

of 247

Class TitleNumber of

FTE


Due Process Costs

105420OCO

060000

RecurringNon-

RecurringCourt Interpreters1st 7505 1.0

2ndCertified Court

Interpreter 1.0 $3,0004th Court Interpreter 3.5

5thAssistant Supervising

Court Interpreter 1.0 Court Interpreter 1.0 $5,000 $10,000

6th Court Interpreter 2.0 Supr Ct Interpreter 1.0

7th Court Interpreter 2.09th Court Interpreter 2.0 10th Court Interpreter 1.0 12th Court Interpreter 2.0 13th $25,00014th Court Interpreter 1.0

16thCertified Court

Interpreter 1.0 18th Cert. Court Interptr 1.0

19thCertified Court

Interpreter 4.020th Cert Court Interpreter 3.0Total 27.5 $0 $0 $5,000 $35,000 $3,000Sign Language5th Court Interpreter 1.0 6th Court Interpreter 1.0 7th Court Interpreter 1.09th Court Interpreter 1.0 13th $10,00017th Interpreter 1.0Total 5.0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0

Virtual Remote Interpreting (Equipment, Maintenance, Support)2nd $24,0003rd $10,0005th Court Interpreter 2.0 $10,000 $49,920 $15,0009th VRI workstations $1,500 $10,50010th $26,000 $73,10012th $37,50018th Maintenance $10,00019th $126,000 $54,00020th $96,000Total 2.0 $152,000 $37,500 $20,000 $61,420 $272,600Other


Component/Resource Expense 040000

Interpreting Services Goal: Address the delivery of interpreting services while ensuring due process rights of litigants are met.

Agenda Item VIII.B - Attachment K

of 247

Class TitleNumber of

FTE


Due Process Costs

105420OCO

060000

RecurringNon-

Recurring


Component/Resource Expense 040000

Interpreting Services Goal: Address the delivery of interpreting services while ensuring due process rights of litigants are met.

Operations/

Administration

2ndCourt Program

Specialist II 1.0 $3,0005th Digital Court Reporter 1.0

10thCourt Program

Specialist II 1.0

15thSenior Court Prog

Specialist 1.018th Sr Ct Prog Spec 2.020th Admin. Assistant II 1.0

Digital Court Rep. 2.0Total 9.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

Issue Total 43.5 $152,000 $37,500 $25,000 $106,420 $278,600

1st

2nd

4th

5th

We would like to keep existing due process contract funds for interpreting services that we will continue to contract for to include ASL, language of lesser diffusion, and for trials where two interpreters are required; these positions are in addition to due process contract funding to handle an expected significant increase in language interpretations. The OCO is for laptops (allowed for due process). We need three extra courtrooms equipped with Video Remote Interpreting equipment, at approximately $8,000 each. These positions would require standard expense allocations for travel, training, office supplies, etc., and OCO for private office set-up.

We continue to see an increase need for interpreters. Adding 3.5 FTE will provide better coverage in Duval County and allow for a dedicated .5 FTE in Clay County.Increased growth involving non-English speaking court users within the Fifth Judicial Circuit (Court) requires an increased need in court interpreting services with Spanish Language and Sign language. Additionally, Supreme Court Certified Spanish-speaking court interpreters are necessary to meet the needs of the Court, in a more cost effective manner rather than utilizing freelance court interpreters. By employing full-time employees (FTE), the Court is able to provide better quality court interpreters, since court interpreter employees are required to obtain Supreme Court language certification for employment. Thus, resources to provide Supreme Court certified interpreters locally for the Court will be more readily available with having employees. The progressive increase in cases involving non-English speaking court users requires the Court to provide even greater due process communication access. In addition to the multiple locations of courthouses and jails, duration of the each proceeding, and the sheer geographic size of the five-county circuit, the court requires sufficient employee coverage for all the potential venues which require a language interpreter via remote court interpreting. Currently, there are 62 potential venues to cover within the five-county circuit. The circuit has developed a mentoring program via local colleges and university programs to help the future recruitment of new court interpreters and has implemented an internal training education program to attract interest for the court interpreting profession. The Fifth Circuit is fully equipped to support other circuits with video remote interpreting (VRI) court interpreting services, and has previously donated a Call Manager Server to enhance the statewide VRI system.

This would be the first staff court interpreter for the circuit; they would also be responsible for supervising contract court interpreters.

Comments:


of 247

6th

9th

10th

12th

14th

15th

18th

19th

20th Hire a Court Interpreter FTE (Creole) for Collier County, Hire two Court Interpreters (Spanish) to be assigned in Hendry County and Charlotte County. The Administrative Assistant II FTE will provide the necessary support and coordination with docket management practices to ensure all due process requests are met in a timely manner, as well as accurate scheduling of resources and payment of contract interpreters. Notably, based on the U.S. Census 5-year “American Community Survey” rolling update (eff. thru 2017), the 20th’s counties possess the State’s 2nd, 9th, 13th, 15th and 41st highest resident populations of persons that are Hispanic or Latino in origin: Hendry 51.9%, Collier 27.2%, Glades 20.8%, and Lee 20.2%. Additionally, beyond Spanish, the U.S. Census reports that only nine Florida counties with 100,000 or more total population and 25,000 or more speakers of languages other than English and Spanish; two of these high-language-need counties reside within the 20th (Collier and Lee counties). The Virtual Remote Interpreting equipment being requested is for portable carts in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties.

We are requesting 1 Supervising interpreter and 1 Court Interpreter to replace our two positions that are currently funded from cost recovery dollars. We are also requesting 1 Court Interpreter for Spanish for Pasco County, and 1 Sign Language Interpreter

Additional Interpreters (Spanish, Creole & ASL) and 3 VRI workstations to support local circuit needs and statewide VRI network.VRI-Nonrecurring equipment and cabling for 3 courtrooms $85,100; recurring maintenance and support $14,000; court program specialist positions are needed as activity levels for case managers has heightened, more judges are requesting more case management activities for appropriate and timely disposition of cases.Since we received two staff interpreters a couple of years ago, we have been able to save contractual dollars and have a more responsive interpreter system. Two additional staff interpreters would bring that same efficiency to all of our locations. Remote interpreting is budgeted for our two furthest out counties (one courtroom each) and one central interpreter room.

Due to the increased need for interpreting services in the 14th Circuit, a Court Interpreter position is requested to oversee the interpreter program and provide interpreting services including remote interpreting. The position and $1,757 of expense are recurring.The Court Interpreter office is extremely busy. The office is in need of a Senior Court Program Specialist to schedule contractual interpreters; administer contracts and invoices; and handle interpretive needs emergencies.The Senior Court Program Specialists will schedule and pay interpreters. We request a position for each county.

Our circuit continues to expand Virtual Remote Interpreting Services that will allow us to increase our use of staff interpreters for providing interpreting services circuit-wide.VRI Expansion – Possibly $180,000$40,000 - Indian River County Courthouse – 2 courtrooms$40,000 – Martin County Courthouse – 2 courtrooms$40,000 – Saint Lucie County Courthouse – 2 courtrooms$20,000 – Saint Lucie West Annex – 1 courtroom (maybe)$20,000 – Okeechobee County Courthouse – 1 courtroom$20,000 - Biamp Mixers, Headsets, Pre-amp, and Miscellaneous$180,000 – Total Estimate (Excluding wiring which is a county responsibility)


of 247

A B C D E F

CircuitFY 2015-16

ExpendituresFY 2016-17

ExpendituresFY 2017-18

Expenditures


Expenditures1


Expenditures2

1 $53,316 $50,302 $55,564 $74,899 $95,1122 $25,430 $27,471 $18,657 $21,778 $21,7783 $25,702 $30,095 $17,651 $13,629 $13,6294 $287,069 $286,999 $380,105 $337,421 $376,8765 $101,730 $176,345 $171,811 $188,178 $294,7866 $272,261 $263,631 $268,176 $276,278 $278,9957 $85,557 $59,881 $65,795 $76,415 $76,4158 $44,673 $44,152 $44,637 $38,655 $38,6559 $175,102 $208,218 $230,191 $265,804 $357,59410 $77,072 $68,378 $70,993 $76,528 $76,52811 $506,051 $542,748 $460,255 $564,340 $607,67512 $357,548 $256,524 $142,978 $178,023 $178,02313 $145,968 $149,520 $183,170 $247,636 $362,62414 $38,581 $47,936 $37,074 $45,165 $50,30415 $173,904 $195,905 $254,513 $237,597 $295,61116 $17,672 $19,968 $15,377 $17,091 $17,09117 $149,759 $162,438 $216,338 $217,350 $282,74818 $35,693 $49,016 $51,145 $32,616 $32,61619 $477,354 $505,266 $513,748 $640,271 $785,95120 $498,686 $439,459 $465,651 $468,198 $468,198

Total $3,549,128 $3,584,252 $3,663,830 $4,017,872 $4,711,209

$1,178,269Option 2: FY 2020-21 LBR

2 FY 2020-21 Estimated Expenditures is based on each Circuit's average percent change in expenditures from 2015-16 to estimated 2018-19. Circuits with a negative percent changes in expenditures were set at FY 2018-19 estimated expenditures.


Court Interpreting FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request - Option 2

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on data beginning FY 2016-17 and captures seasonality while weighting recent data more strongly. (i.e. if historically spending tends to go up in March compared to February, the model will reflect that.)

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment L

of 247

Circuit-Specific Issue Class TitleRecurring vs.

Non-RecurringNumber of FTE

OPS 030000

Expense 040000

General Magistrate Magistrate Recurring 1.0Other Support Services Administrative Secretary II Recurring 1.0Case Managers

Court Program Specialist II Recurring 1.0



OPS 030000

Expense 040000Problem-Solving

CourtsCourt Program Specialist II Recurring 2.0

Teen CourtCourt Program Specialist II Recurring 2.0



OPS 030000

Expense 040000

RPO reporting CPS II Recurring 2.0 $11,9423.850/appeals TCLC Recurring 4.0 $23,884

Comments: The Fourth Judicial Circuit has 9 operational Problem-Solving Courts with only one state funded FTE case manager position. We are implementing an Adult Drug Court in Nassau County. We need 2 FTE case manager positions to help support these programs. Teen Court's casecload has dramatically increased with with the use of Civil Citations through the Sheriff and State Attorney who support these programs. Duval leads the state in using Civil Citations to divert juveniles from the criminal justice system.

6th CircuitNew and Existing Mandates

Comments: We are requesting case managers to assist with RPO notification and reporting, and four TCLC (Staff Attorneys) to handle post-conviction motions and appeals.


2nd CircuitTitle of Issue Goal: Mental Health Support (Baker Acts, Marchman Acts, Risk Protection Orders, Jimmy Ryce Acts, etc.)

Comments: The Mental Health Support Unit would provide support for the increasing number of Baker Acts, Marchman Acts, Risk Protection Orders, Jimmy Ryce Acts, etc. These positions would require standard expense allocations for travel, training, office supplies, etc., and OCO for private office set-up.

4th CircuitProblem-Solving Courts

Agenda Item VIII.B. - Attachment M

of 247




OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Digital Court Reporter 2.0



OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Court Reporting Equipment (PC) N/A Non-Recurring $7,000Software Licensing Non-Recurring $24,500Timer Non-Recurring $3,500



OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Veterans Treatment Sr. Court Analyst II see comments 1.0Court and Therapeutic Justice CourtCriminal Case Management Court Prog Spec II see comments 1.0Comments: Currently we have an OPS Senior Court Analyst II to oversee and coordinate our Veterans Treatment Court and Therapeutic Justice Courts programs. We would like to make that OPS position an FTE to provide ongoing coordination and development of problem-solving court programs. The position would be recurring. A Court Program Specialist II is needed to provide criminal case management for four criminal judges in Bay County and for each of the circuit judges in the remaining five counties of the circuit. This position would be recurring.

Comments: This is for technology refresh for seven courtrooms for digital court reporting. The current equipment is obsolete and its continued use places the court record in jeopardy.

14th CircuitTitle of Issue


Comments: prefer the ratio to be 1 courtroom: 1 DCR staff



of 247




OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Court Reporting Digital Court Reporter Recurring (FTE) 4.0

Court ReportingManager of Electronic Ct Reporting Recurring (FTE) 1.0



OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Court Reporting Dig Ct Reporter Recurring 2.0



OPS 030000

Expense 040000

Screeners Court Program Specialist I 2.0

Clinical Case ManagersSenior Court Program Specialist 2.0

Comments: Adding 2.0 FTEs would reduce the number of courtrooms monitored per employee to 3:1.


Comments: We need "screeners" at first appearances to divert those qualified immediately to the problem solving court docket and case managers. This is one of the key best practices that is causing issues with late referrals. Additionally, we need case managers for our veterans treatment courts to help them coordinate services as the VJO only connects them to the VA. This was recommended to during trainings conducted 2 years ago as a minimum to continue. We also need additional case managers for mental health courts and possibly drug courts to actually be case managers doing things that the others do around the state (clinical/social workers to coordinate services, contact and meet with clients, etc) (not court specialists to perform risk/needs, prepare orders and enter notes we have those already).

15th CircuitDue Process--Best Practices

Comments: Additional DCRs are needed to ensure that the Circuit monitors required court events according to best practices, i.e., 1 DCR to 3 court events. A manager of electronic court reporting is needed to assist with the operations of the department.

18th CircuitTitle of Issue: Court Reporting Services


of 247

Agenda Item VIII.C. FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Priority Ranking of LBR Issues

of 247


Orlando, Florida Agenda Item VIII.C.: FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Priority Ranking of LBR Issues

At its April 12, 2019, meeting the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) identified a number of statewide issues for possible inclusion in the FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request recommendations to the Supreme Court. These initiatives were identified to address specific goals for the trial courts. Additionally, while the TCBC recommends and advocates for the interests of the trial courts as a whole rather than the interests of a particular circuit or division, it wanted to ensure that specific issues and potential budget problems, as well as possible innovative programs for state funding, in the best interests of the trial courts generally, are considered. On May 10, 2019, Judge Margaret Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, sent a letter to the chief judges and trial court administrators, asking them to review the issues and identify specific components and resources that they believed should be included and funded in order to achieve the stated goals. Further, chief judges and trial court administrators were asked to identify local needs that were not addressed by the statewide issues being considered. Each circuit was asked to indicate their overall ranking of each issue with regard to how important that resource is to them. Based on the responses of the chief judges and trial court administrator, the overall ranking was calculated.

FY 2020-21 LBR Issues

Chief Judge/TCA

Average Ranking

Chief Judge/TCA Overall Ranking

FMC Recommended

Ranking

Children and Families 2.30 1 1 Leadership and Accountability 2.35 2 2 Civil Case Efficiency Initiative 2.88 3 3 Interpreting Services 3.45 4 4 Other Circuit-Specific Issue 4.63 5 5 New or Renovated Courthouse Furnishing 5.50 6 6

Decision Needed Recommend a ranking of issues to be presented to the Supreme Court for consideration for the State Courts System FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – The Funding Methodology Committee discussed priority rankings at their June 17, 2019, meeting and unanimously concurred with the chief judges and trial court administrators overall ranking.

of 247

Agenda Item IX. 2020 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item IX.: 2020 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda The judicial branch develops an agenda for proposed statutory changes in the year prior to each legislative session, based on input from court committees, judges, and court staff and as approved by the Supreme Court. Following is a table with the working timeline for development of the judicial branch’s 2020 substantive legislative agenda. The timeline has been provided to staff of court committees and to judicial conference leaders by the Office of Legislative Affairs, which provides staff support for development of the statutory agenda. Estimated Deadline Milestone Friday, June 21, 2019 Deadline for Legislative Team members to

submit initial/preliminary ideas to Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) by email for inclusion on potential issues table.

Monday, July 22, 2019

Deadline for Legislative Team members and staff to committees to submit strategic development plans (“Legislative Issue Information Sheets”) to OLA.

Weeks of July 22 and July 29, 2019 OLA edits and finalizes strategic development plans.

Monday, August 5, 2019 OLA submits strategic development plans to State Courts Administrator for review.

Week of August 19, 2019 OLA completes conversion of final strategic development plans into “Proposed Legislative Issues” for Supreme Court Conference.

Week of August 26, 2019 OLA distributes “Proposed Legislative Issues” packet to Justices in advance of Conference.

Week of September 9, 2019 Proposed legislative issues presented to Supreme Court Conference.

Weeks of September 16 and September 23, 2019

OLA gathers any supplemental information Supreme Court requests as part of consideration of legislative issues and identifies potential sponsors for legislation as necessary (internal identification).

Friday, September 27, 2019 Complete drafts of any amendments or bills and finalize sponsors as necessary.

October 2019 Present approved legislative agenda to Judicial Branch Leadership Meeting.

By Friday, November 1, 2019 OLA completes preparation of educational/informational materials on

of 247

legislative agenda for use by visiting judges and others.

Mid-November 2019 Estimated deadline for submission of draft requests to House and Senate bill drafting units.

December 2019 Estimated deadline for completing changes to drafts in House and Senate bill drafting units.

Tuesday, January 14, 2020 First day of 2020 Regular Session.

of 247

Agenda Item X. County Court Jurisdiction Status Report

of 247


Orlando, Florida Agenda Item X.: County Court Jurisdiction Status Report County Court Jurisdictional Change – General Information

House Bill 337 was approved by the Governor on May 24, 2019. The new law:

a. Increases the threshold to $30,000 on January 1, 2020, and to $50,000 on January 1, 2023.

b. Maintains current law that limits the provision of subsidized court mediation services to county court cases with an amount in controversy up to $15,000.

c. Provides that appeals of county court orders or judgments with an amount in controversy greater than $15,000 will be heard by the district courts of appeal until January 1, 2023, when the provision repeals.

d. Requires OSCA to submit a report making recommendations regarding the adjustment of county court jurisdiction, which includes consideration of the claim value of filings in the trial courts, case events, timeliness in processing cases, and any fiscal impact to the state as a result of adjusted jurisdictional limits. The report must also include a review of fees to ensure that the court system is adequately funded and a review of the appellate jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts, including the use of appellate panels by circuit courts. The report is due to the Legislature and Governor by February 1, 2021.

e. Revises provisions governing budgets of and fees remitted to the clerks of court.

The Supreme Court made a referral to The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee in April 2019 for the consideration of amendments to the civil cover sheet, final disposition form, both forms’ instructions, and any associated references to those forms in rule. The report is due by August 30, 2019.

of 247

2

Small Claims Increase – General Information

In December 2018, the Supreme Court approved the jurisdictional increase of small claims from $5,000 to $8,000 as part of the recommendations from the Judicial Management Council’s Work Group on County Court Jurisdiction. Small claims jurisdictional limits are governed by court rule, not statute.

The Supreme Court made a referral to The Florida Bar Small Claims Rules Committee in April 2019 to propose amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules to increase the small claims jurisdictional limit to $8,000. The report is due by August 30, 2019.

A subset of the Work Group on County Court Jurisdiction has been reconvened to further examine recommendations indicating that small claims cases should be reclassified to: (a) county civil cases when use of the Rules of Civil Procedure is requested by a party and granted by the court; and (b) the appropriate level or division of court when additional damages are sought after filing that exceed the small claims jurisdictional limit. Also, if applicable, additional filing fees should be collected.

of 247

Agenda Item XI. Due Process Workgroup

Update

of 247


Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item XI.: Due Process Workgroup Update

A. Justice Administrative Commission Budget Deficit Update The 2019 GAA includes $13,132,717 in recurring General Revenue for FY 2019-20 to cover the increased need in court appointed due process costs. In addition, there is back of the bill non-recurring funding of $15.6 million to address the current fiscal year deficit. Proviso language included the following language: The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) shall conduct

a review of due process and court-appointed counsel cost containment approaches other states

have undertaken. OPPAGA shall identify options for cost containment measures which

simultaneously preserve the constitutional rights of indigent defendants accused of crimes. The

Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) and the Justice Administrative Commission

(JAC) shall provide OPPAGA with requested data to complete its review. The study shall be

provided to the Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and

Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court no later than December 31, 2019.

Further, the implementing bill included cost containment measures for changing the process for Public Defenders (PD) and Regional Counsels (RC) to conflict out of a case and mechanisms for determining and paying for conflict attorneys: • Requires PD and RC to certify to the court in writing a description for the reason for a

conflict in the case. • Requires JAC document their review of the extraordinary attorney fees before authorizing

payment. • Court must presume JAC objections are correct or have justification in writing that

competent and substantial evidence exists to justify overcoming the presumption. SB 2500 was presented to the Governor for review and signature on June 14, 2019. The Governor has fifteen (15) days to take action. Once action has been taken by the Governor, JAC will issue a press release with information about when the funds will become available to pay court-appointed bills (Attachment A). JAC exhausted the fiscal year 2018-19 funding appropriated by the Legislature to pay for court-appointed expenditures on April 15, 2019. Attachment B1-B2 reflects the conflict counsel payments over the flat fee until the depletion of funds. As of June 6, 2019, JAC reported invoices totaling $1,108,026 that have been approved for payment but are pending back of the bill funds.

of 247

The Workgroup will discuss this issue at its next in-person meeting to further analyze cost drivers and cost management solutions. OSCA staff will continue to work with the JAC over the summer to gather data for the Workgroup’s consideration in developing recommendations of possible policy and procedural recommendations to share with OPPAGA in order to meet its deadline of December 31, 2019. Decision Needed No decision is needed for this agenda item. B. Court Interpreting Update Background Based on a study conducted by the Due Process Workgroup (Workgroup), the following four strategies were approved by the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) to address issues related to recruitment, retention, and availability of certified court interpreters:

1. Implement measures to increase the minimum salary for court interpreters and create a court interpreter incentive plan to improve retention;

2. Establish a competitive area differential (CAD) for the 11th Circuit; 3. Expand the circuits’ capacity to use virtual remote interpreting (VRI), which enables

access to interpreting services from remote locations through audio and video technology; and

4. Recommend that the Court Interpreter Certification Board consider the impact of existing certification requirements on recruitment and retention of staff court interpreters by extending the certification timeline from one year to two years and consider the pros and cons of super scoring the certification examinations.

As part of the strategies above, the TCBC moved 4.0 vacant FTE positions from the 11th Circuit to a statewide reserve. To date, no decision has been made on how to utilize the FTE placed in the statewide reserve. Current On May 6, 2019, the Workgroup met by conference call to receive an update on court interpreting. The Workgroup discussed a request from the 7th Circuit, seeking authorization to use one of the four interpreting FTE from the statewide reserve (see Attachment C). Based on the 7th Circuit’s current status as a remote interpreting service provider and lack of problems with recruitment and retention, the Workgroup recommended that 1.0 FTE court interpreter be transferred from the statewide reserve to the 7th Circuit. Additionally, the 5th Circuit requests (see Attachment D) authorization to exchange one recurring Other Personal Services (OPS) court interpreting position for 1.0 FTE from the due process contingency fund, as allowed in section B.6. of the FY 2018-19 Budget and Pay Administration memorandum. However, the TCBC allocated the remaining FTEs in April 2019,

of 247

and no additional FTEs are available. The 5th Circuit is also currently a remote interpreting service provider to two other circuits. The Workgroup discussed the 5th Circuit’s request but did not have complete information available to make a recommendation at that time. The Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) met on June 17, 2019, to discuss the two requests. Based on information provided by both circuits, the FMC recommended to approve the allocation of the 2.0 FTE. To address future requests for the use of reserve positions, the Workgroup will be considering criteria for an allocation policy at their next meeting. Decision Needed Option 1: Approve the Workgroup’s recommendation to transfer one court interpreting FTE position from the statewide reserve to the 7th Circuit. Table the decision on the 5th Circuit’s request until the Workgroup provides a policy recommendation to address future requests, because the Workgroup did not have complete information for the 5th Circuit at that time. Option 2: Approve the FMC’s recommendation to transfer one court interpreting FTE position from the statewide reserve to the 5th and 7th Circuits. The 5th Circuit has agreed to exchange the OPS recurring funding as part of this transfer. Option 3: Offer an alternative recommendation.

of 247

Florida Justice Administrative Commission 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 2100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (850) 488-2415

Website: www.justiceadmin.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 14, 2019

UPDATE

RE: JAC Funding Shortfall Will Temporarily Delay Payments for Indigent Representation in Florida

Tallahassee, FL {June 14, 2019} – The Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) exhausted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 funding appropriated by the Legislature to pay for court-appointed expenditures on April 15th. As a result, payment of these bills has been temporarily delayed. This includes payments to private court-appointed attorneys and associated due process service vendors (e.g., court reporters, investigators, interpreters, and expert witnesses) and reimbursements to indigent for costs attorneys. Although funds for state-funded indigent representation are currently unavailable, JAC continues to review and process court-appointed bills to ensure they are ready for payment as soon as funds are made available. JAC has also coordinated with the Department of Financial Services to expedite their audit of court-appointed bills, so that compliant bills will be paid soon after funding is available. On May 6, 2019, the Florida Legislature approved $15.6 million in supplemental funding to address JAC’s Court-Appointed funding shortfall in Senate Bill 2500 (SB 2500). On June 14, 2019, SB 2500 was presented to Governor DeSantis for his review and signature. The Governor has fifteen (15) days to take action on SB 2500. Once action has been taken by the Governor, JAC will issue a press release with information about when the funds will become available to pay court-appointed bills.

As required by law, all JAC contracts include provisions specifying that payments are contingent upon funds annually appropriated by the Legislature. JAC sincerely regrets that payments cannot be made in the normal expedient manner; however, as soon as funds are released to JAC, approved bills will be paid. As additional information becomes available, updates will be provided on JAC’s public website at www.justiceadmin.org and on JAC’s Facebook page.

###

Agenda Item XI. - Attachment A

of 247

http://www.justiceadmin.org/

http://www.justiceadmin.org/

Circuit

Total Amount Paid Over the

Flat Fee July 2018


Flat Fee August 2018


Flat Fee September 2018


Flat Fee October 2018


Flat Fee November 2018


Flat Fee December 2018


Flat Fee January 2019


Flat Fee February 2019


Flat Fee March 2019


Flat Fee April 2019*


Flat Fee May 2019


Flat Fee June 2019

Payments from

FY 2018-19 Certified

Funds


Flat Fee FY 2018-19*

Total Amount Paid Over the Flat Fee

FY 2018-19 Annualized

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,785 $3,180 $971 $32,255 $1,620 NA $44,811 $58,254.302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,188 $6,773 $0 $0 $0 NA $15,961 $20,7493 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA $0 $04 $21,958 $103,545 $240,379 $0 $56,660 $19,091 $107,068 $38,631 $64,662 $0 NA $651,994 $847,5925 $70,842 $26,590 $0 $37,518 $101,497 $44,640 $105,290 $200,305 $29,498 $0 NA $616,178 $801,0316 $71,514 $18,930 $251,164 $0 $58,388 $8,063 $0 $43,032 $0 $10,250 NA $461,340 $599,7427 $5,738 $5,500 $22,694 $31,851 $34,190 $0 $0 $38,818 $2,020 $2,318 NA $143,128 $186,0668 $14,508 $0 $0 $38,472 $0 $4,065 $0 $16,924 $48,575 $0 NA $122,544 $159,3079 $95,113 $77,383 $0 $3,080 $0 $13,220 -$13,220 $0 $15,458 $0 NA $191,034 $248,344

10 $0 $38,930 $86,160 $13,150 $58,802 $49,176 $143,641 $74,909 $54,300 $0 NA $519,068 $674,78811 $375,782 $745,974 $239,532 $341,153 $211,359 $187,810 $212,817 $195,064 $371,090 $57,520 NA $2,938,100 $3,819,53012 $81,175 $13,403 $33,020 $79,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA $206,708 $268,72013 $14,662 $0 $69,851 $4,983 $108,380 $5,950 $37,415 $6,574 $0 $0 NA $247,814 $322,15814 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA $0 $015 $52,716 $27,431 $16,000 $102,227 $18,735 $25,470 $0 $0 $0 $7,908 NA $250,487 $325,63216 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA $0 $017 $331,194 $0 $414,580 $543,628 $193,377 $273,573 $60,897 $501,121 $185,544 $5,736 NA $2,509,648 $3,262,542.7318 $19,702 $102,648 $15,598 $0 $0 $80,748 $23,738 $129,925 $11,700 $0 NA $384,059 $499,27719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,170 $24,100 $16,913 $1,468 $9,430 NA $77,081 $100,20520 $188,243 $3,205 $37,928 $117,371 $13,188 $10,623 $162,159 $45,958 $124,753 $3,605 NA $707,030 $919,139

Total $1,343,147 $1,163,539 $1,426,905 $1,312,540 $854,574 $763,570 $873,855 $1,309,145 $941,321 $98,386 NA $0 $0 $10,086,982 $16,391,346*JAC exhausted the fiscal year 2018-19 funding appropriated by the Legislature to pay for court-appointed expenditures on April 15, 2019.Source: Data provided by the Justice Administrative Commission.

Amount Paid Over the Flat Fee for Conflict Counsel Criminal CasesMonthly FY 2018-19

Prepared by OSCA, Resource Planning

Agenda Item XI. - Attachment B1

of 247

CIRCUIT Capital Cases RICO Cases Other Cases TOTAL*

1 $33,226 $0 $11,585 $44,8112 $6,773 $0 $9,188 $15,9613 $0 $0 $0 $04 $419,691 $4,615 $227,686 $651,9925 $451,523 $0 $164,655 $616,1786 $384,171 $0 $77,168 $461,3397 $59,563 $0 $83,564 $143,1278 $83,876 $0 $38,668 $122,5449 $13,220 $172,495 $5,318 $191,03310 $431,202 $2,530 $85,335 $519,06711 $1,795,705 $89,983 $1,052,413 $2,938,10012 $193,305 $0 $13,403 $206,70713 $51,738 $74,950 $121,125 $247,81314 $0 $0 $0 $015 $189,414 $0 $61,073 $250,48616 $0 $0 $0 $017 $1,950,991 $0 $558,657 $2,509,64818 $354,128 $0 $29,931 $384,05819 $49,270 $0 $27,810 $77,08020 $19,275 $374,212 $313,543 $707,030

TOTAL* $6,487,069 $718,785 $2,881,119 $10,086,973

Percent of Total 64.3% 7.1% 28.6%

Note: Data provided by the Justice Administrative Commission.*Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

Expenditure Summary

JAC - Criminal Conflict Attorney

FY 2018-19July 2018 - April 2019

Payments Over the Flat Fee

Prepared by OSCA, Resource Planning

Agenda Item XI. - Attachment B2

of 247

Agenda Item XI. - Attachment C

of 247

S. Sue Robbins Chief Judge

STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ADMINISTRATIVE

OFFICE OF THE COURTS

CITRUS, HERNANDO, LAKE, MARION, AND SUMTER COUNTIES

Jonathan Lin

Trial Court Administrator

April 25, 2019

Honorable Margaret O. Steinbeck Chair of the Trial Court Budget Commission Lee County Justice Center 1700 Monroe Street Fort Myers, FL 33901

RE: Request to exchange court interpreting OPS for FTE

Dear Judge Steinbeck:

I am writing to you to respectfully request the Trial Court Budget Commission’s approval in permitting the Fifth Judicial Circuit to exchange one (1) recurring Other Personnel Services (OPS) due process category contractual services funded position for one (1) additional full-time Spanish language interpreter from positions held in contingency. The annual estimated cost to exchange recurring due process funds for one (1) full-time employee is $86,801.

The Spanish language court interpreter position will remain headquartered in Hernando County and will provide services circuit-wide. As we continue to rollout Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), this position will handle intra-circuit interpretation services remotely from Hernando to jails and select courtrooms circuit-wide.

The addition of a full-time Spanish interpreter allows us more flexibility in offering other circuits VRI services, utilizing members of our court interpreting team. We currently provide Spanish language services remotely to two other circuits and anticipate the ability to expand our service as a remote provider with the addition of this full-time position.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me at (352) 401-7820.

Sincerely,

S. Sue Robbins, Chief Judge

CC: Kris Slayden, Manager, Resource Planning Jonathan Lin, Trial Court Administrator Todd Tuzzolino, Chief Deputy Trial Court Administrator

Citrus County Courthouse

110 N. Apopka Avenue Inverness, FL 34450 (352) 341-6700 (352) 341-7008 FAX

Hernando County Courthouse 20 N. Main Street Brooksville, FL 34601 (352) 754-4402 (352) 754-4235 FAX

Lak e C ount y C ourthouse P.O. 7800/550 W. Main Street Tavares, FL 32778 (352 ) 253 -1604

(352) 253-1630 FAX

Marion County Judicial Center 110 N.W. First Avenue Ocala, FL 34475 (352) 401-6701 (352) 401-7883 FAX

Sumter County Courthouse 215 E. McCollum Avenue Bushnell, FL 33513 (352) 569-6950 (352) 569-6985 FAX

Agenda Item XI. - Attachment D

of 247

Agenda Item XII. Report from Chief Justice Designee to Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Executive Council There are no materials for this agenda item.

of 247

Agenda Item XIII. Other Business There are no materials for this agenda item.

of 247

meeting agenda 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., tuesday, june 25 ......meeting agenda 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.,...

Documents