monday, june 18, 2018 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. video ......2018/06/18 · miami dade’s locality...

Monday, June 18, 2018 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Video Conference Meeting

AGENDA

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks A. Roll Call B. Approval of May 22, 2018 Meeting Minutes

II. FY 2017-18 Budget

A. Salary Budget B. 1st DCA Promotional Increase Exception Request C. 1st DCA Reclassification Exception Request D. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days E. Operating Budgets F. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

III. FY 2018-19 Budget A. Start-Up Salary Budget B. 2018-19 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum IV. FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Updates A. 2nd DCA New Courthouse B. 5th DCA Hurricane Windows C. Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions V. Other Business A. Judicial Suite Staffing Complement Follow-Up

B. 2nd DCA Security Incident and Deputy Marshal Supervisor Position Request Follow-Up C. DCAP&A Clerk Staffing Methodology Recommendations & Financial Implications

VI. Adjournment

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission Video Conference Call

Meeting Minutes May 22, 2018

Members Present Judge Jonathan Gerber, Chair Judge Clayton Roberts, Vice Chair Judge Bradford Thomas Judge Edward LaRose Judge Stevan Northcutt Judge Leslie Rothenberg

Judge Jay Cohen Judge Wendy Berger Judge Vance Salter Marshal Kevin Taylor Marshal Jo Haynes Marshal Veronica Antonoff

Judge Barbara Lagoa Marshal Charles Crawford Judge Spencer Levine Others Present Justice Ricky Polston, Judge Stephanie Ray, Eric Maclure, Dorothy Willard and other OSCA staff Special Note: It is recommended that these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting materials. Agenda Item I.: Welcome and Opening Remarks Judge Jonathan Gerber welcomed members and called the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Judge Gerber inquired if there were any edits to the September 5, 2017, meeting minutes. With no objections, Judge Gerber noted the minutes unanimously approved. Agenda Item II.: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Salary Budget

A. Salary Budget

Dorothy Willard presented the Salary Budget as of April 30, 2018, stating the adjusted liability under salary appropriation at full employment was $681,666. Ms. Willard noted OSCA staff is currently gathering information to prepare FY 18-19 start-up salary budgets to provide to the Salary Committee for review in early June, and for presentation to the commission at the next DCABC meeting scheduled for June 18, 2018.

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission May 22, 2018 Page 2 of 6

B. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days Dorothy Willard presented the Positions Vacant over 180 Days as of April 30, 2018, and noted there are 9.5 FTE that are new to the report. Ms. Willard stated that while there is rate associated with these positions, there is no funding currently associated with them. Judge Gerber noted this will be a discussion item via Agenda Item III.B.4.

C. Operating Budgets Dorothy Willard presented the FY 2017-18 Operating Budgets as of April 30, 2018, and reported the deadline date for Budget Amendments is May 31, 2018, and the deadline date for Budget Transfers is June 26, 2018.

D. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Dorothy Willard presented the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund (SCRTF) Cash Analysis as of April 30, 2018 and reminded the commission this trust fund impacts all budget entities in the branch due to FTE the Salary dollars support. Ms. Willard then reported there is an approximate carry forward into FY 18-19 of $14.3 million and a projected ending balance at June 30, 2019 of approximately $6.3 million. Ms. Willard noted these funds do not compete with any LBR issues. Ms. Willard then presented the Administrative Trust Fund (ATF) Cash Analysis and reminded the commission this trust fund only impacts the 1st DCA due to worker compensation cases. Ms. Willard reported the cash balance as of April 30, 2018 was $601,584.

Agenda Item III.: FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) A. LBR Timeline

Dorothy Willard reviewed the LBR timeline for FY 19-20, noting the date of submission to the Legislature will be October 15, 2018. Judge Gerber then asked if there were any courts other than the 2nd DCA that may be planning to request Fixed Capital Outlay (FCO) funding. Judge Thomas stated the 1st DCA would like to build two additional security doors at the courthouse entrance. Judge Rothenberg stated there are no plans for the 3rd DCA at this time. Judge Cohen stated the 5th DCA would like to install hurricane windows.

of 94


B. Discussion of LBR Issues and Priorities

1. 2nd DCA New Courthouse Site Acquisition and Design Judge Gerber reported that he and Judge Roberts prepared draft language for the FY 19-20 LBR submission and provided an overview of the changes from the FY 18-19 LBR submission. Judge Gerber then reminded the commission that the LBR submission for FY 18-19 of $8,196,359 was based on pre-construction services and land procurement, and stated FY 19-20 LBR can be written using the same approach as last year or could project construction costs for a very non-conservative request. Judge Gerber and Judge Roberts requested permission from the commission to present this issue to the incoming chief justice to obtain input regarding a reasonable cost and to request the Supreme Court’s approval to approach legislators to discuss this issue. Judge Roberts noted helpful direction was received from the legislature for last year’s LBR submission. Judge Gerber then asked Judge LaRose if he would like to add anything to the presentation. Judge LaRose stated the issue was accurately reported and he had nothing to add at this time. Judge Rothenberg asked if the estimated costs would be based on a Tampa location or an open-ended location. Judge Gerber stated that although Tampa is the desired location, it is not specifically mentioned in draft LBR language to utilize discretion. There being no other questions or comments regarding the FY 19-20 LBR draft language, Judge Gerber and Judge Roberts opened the floor to discuss how best to determine the LBR amount. Judge LaRose stated he feels the cost is preliminary until justices and the legislature provide direction. Judge Gerber agrees, but wanted to give all members the opportunity to offer their thoughts. There being no other comments offered, Judge Gerber stated he will notify the members of any progress and/or new information regarding this issue.

2. Judicial Suite Staffing Complement

Judge Gerber asked Judge Thomas to present this issue to the commission. Judge Thomas began by recommending the DCABC ask the chief justice for approval to provide salary dollars for a three (3) law clerk per suite model, and added that that when Justice Canady was chief justice, Judicial Assistant’s pay was reduced from approximately $41,000 to approximately $35,000. Judge Thomas added if approval and funding were available for the three law clerk model, individual suites could determine if a three law clerk model or a JA/law clerk hybrid model would be utilized, therefore providing flexibility within the appellate courts.

of 94


Judge Thomas added one of his primary goals is to increase the number of written opinions, which would be a direct result of the three law clerk model. Currently, suite staffing is on an ad-hoc basis. Judge Thomas then proposed requesting the legislature provide funding to support the three law clerk model. Judge Cohen referenced the federal model and administrative law clerks, and stated three permanent law clerks would be expensive and therefore, consideration should be given to prohibition of more than one or two permanent/career law clerks. Judge Thomas responded positively to Judge Cohen’s comments. Judge Salter added that he researched the federal model, and federal law clerks have locality payments added to their salary. Miami Dade’s locality rate is 22.64% while the remainder of the state’s locality rate is 15%, which would exclude 48 of 176 law clerks in the 3rd DCA. Judge Salter feels this data should be considered. Judge Salter, Chair of the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability (DCAP&A), added the DCAP&A would be happy to gather data from various sources and from that data, prepare proposed policies and procedures for DCABC consideration. Justice Polston then requested to speak, and noted his opposition to the three law clerk model due to funds decreasing across all budget entities statewide. In addition, the legislature could interpret this request as the courts lack of need for Judicial Assistants and possibly eliminate this class within the State Courts System, with no guaranteed increase to FTE within the law clerk class. Justice Polston also noted that when he was an appellate judge at the 1st DCA, any budget cuts that might be realized were to be offset by reducing FTE and not by reducing any specific class title’s base rate of pay. Judge Thomas noted his appreciation for the court’s hierarchy and Justice Polston’s input, then stated he has been measuring written opinions per judge, per month, and they have been increasing. Judge Thomas also noted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s most recent crime data shows that in the State of Florida, crime is down 53% and added he feels strongly about writing more opinions. Judge Gerber then asked OSCA staff about DCABC procedures in conjunction with Judge Salter’s offer on behalf of the DCAP&A. Dorothy Willard stated the DCABC Chair would write to the DCAP&A Chair to ask the DCAP&A to consider raising the issue in their end-of-term report to the Supreme Court and requesting that the issue be included in their FY 18-19 charges. The incoming chief justice would then include or not include this charge in the FY 18-19 Administrative Order.

of 94


Judge Gerber requested a vote to determine if the DCABC would like to move forward with directing the DCAP&A to review staffing models and offer the DCABC recommendations for consideration to file a possible LBR for FY 19-20. Judge Rothenberg requested specific language to the motion to ensure flexibility and guard against permanent restrictions for law clerk positions, and also requested clarification regarding a set amount per suite, as she feels that approach would limit flexibility. Judge Thomas responded that in light of Justice Polston’s comments, he has some trepidation with moving forward. However, asking the DCAP&A to review staffing models and report back to the DCABC would not commit the court to move forward and therefore, he would like to proceed with this approach. Judge Rothenberg then inquired about DCABC consideration per request as opposed to a specific procedure. Judge Thomas agreed that a case by case request to use rate might be a more feasible model if funding exists, and deferred to OSCA staff. Judge Rothenberg asked if the remaining salary dollars being rolled into the State Court Revenue Trust Fund at the end of FY 17-18 could be utilized. Dorothy Willard responded that the funds projected to be remaining at the end of this fiscal year are a result of lapse being realized, which is a one-time action, and then added when the salary reports are presented at the June 18, 2018, DCABC meeting, we will know more. Judge Northcutt then added that the current process regarding salary requests takes too long. Judge Cohen added it is difficult to vote on this issue without structure on where we are going and funding among different suites and agrees with Justice Polston. Judge Gerber then asked Judge Thomas to frame a motion that requests the DCAP&A review this issue for further consideration. Judge Thomas moved that the DCABC recommend that the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability (DCAP&A) consider research and provide recommendations regarding judicial suite staffing models under which a judge could hire a third law clerk (rather than two law clerks and one judicial assistant) and classify the third position as a law clerk. A roll call vote was taken; the motion carried by a vote of seven to three. Judge Gerber asked Judge Thomas to draft a letter for him to distribute to DCABC members for comments. Once finalized, Judge Gerber will send to Judge Salter.

of 94


3. Judicial Suite Funding Model Judge Thomas moved this issue be tabled until the next meeting on June 18, 2018. There being no comments, Judge Gerber noted that Judge Thomas’ motion to table was unanimously approved.

4. Funding of Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions Judge Gerber reported that there are 9.5 unfunded FTE currently in reserve that must be

addressed, as legislative staff has notified OSCA staff that these positions may be swept if they are not utilized. Judge Gerber noted that this issue was not submitted as a LBR for FY 18-19 as the 2nd DCA new courthouse was the priority. Dorothy Willard stated that the Governor’s recommendations for FY 18-19 marked these positions for elimination, and Judge Gerber added these positions have been retained in reserve because it is easier to obtain funding to support the positions than obtain new FTE and recommended maintaining every legislative authorized position.

Judge Gerber then asked 2nd DCA commission members for comment due to the branch’s number one priority being the 2nd DCA courthouse. Judge LaRose indicated that security continues to be a priority for all courts. Jo Haynes added that the trial courts have projected unfunded FTE and use them for model shifts as needed and asked if the legislature would be amenable to that suggestion. Dorothy Willard responded the trial courts have two types of unfunded FTE, one type that is specifically provided for Administrative Trust Fund (ATF) needs and are not under scrutiny and another type that are at risk; however, Jo’s suggestion could be presented to legislative staff, if needed. Jo added a number of deputies are leaving the courts to assist with school security, and therefore, the contractual security model used in the 2nd DCA may not be sustainable and FTE may be needed.

Judge Gerber moved that an LBR be prepared for a final vote at the June 18, 2018, DCABC meeting in the amount of $851,951 to fund 9.5 Deputy Marshal positions. Hearing no objections, the motion was unanimously approved.

Agenda Item IV.: Other Business and Adjournment Other Business Judge Gerber noted the next DCABC meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2018, via video conference, to begin at 3:30 p.m. (EDT). Adjournment With no other business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned.

of 94

II. FY 2017-18 Budget

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget CommissionJune 18, 2018

Video Conference Call

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

Agenda Item II.A.: Salary Budget

1 43,484,429

3 (755)

4 1,797

5 8,796

6 3,842

7 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2018 43,498,109

8 (43,454,531)

9 43,577

10 (856,028)

11 (812,451)

12 8,085

13 (804,366)

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

Actual Payroll Adjustments through April 30, 2018

Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

FY 2017-18 District Courts of Appeal Salary Budget

Projected Law Clerk Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2018

Estimated Remaining Leave Payouts

Salary Appropriation

May 2018

FINAL - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

Projected Law Clerk Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2018

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission June 18, 2018


Agenda Item II.B. 1st DCA Promotional Increase Exception Request Issue: The First District Court of Appeal (1st DCA) requests to authorize a promotional salary increase for position number 004395, at 5% over the minimum of the Chief Deputy Clerk class (see attached memorandum). The minimum rate of the new class is 57,820 and the requested appointment rate is 60,711, which is 2,891 (5%) above the class minimum. The incumbent previously filled an Administrative Secretary I position at a rate of 48,912.60. The minimum rate of the new class represents an 18.21% increase from the previous position class and the requested appointment rate represents a 24.12% increase. Reference: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum, Section A(4)(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 increase is less than five percent (5%), the chief judge or his/her designee 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. The chief judge may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.” Florida State Courts System Personnel Regulations Manual, Section 7.03(5) “5. Salary Increases Upon Promotion

A. When promoted, an employee’s salary shall be increased to the minimum for the class to which the employee is being promoted. If the amount of increase in being moved to the minimum for the class is less than 10% of the employee’s salary before promotion, the employee may be granted an increase of up to 10% above the employee’s salary prior to promotion.

B. If the employee’s salary prior to promotion is at or above the minimum for the higher class, an increase of up to 10% above the employee’s salary prior to promotion may be granted, provided such increase does not place the employee’s salary above the maximum of the pay range for the higher class.

C. If an employee possesses training and/or experience above the minimum training and/or experience for the higher class and the Chief Judge/Justice or designee determines that

of 94

the employee has directly related experience, which is immediately usable, an increase of up to 10% above the minimum of the pay range for the higher class may be granted.

D. When promoted, an employee’s anniversary date for merit salary advancement in the higher class shall be reestablished.

E. An employee who is promoted with trainee status shall be paid in accordance with the approved individual training schedule.”

Decision Needed: Option 1: Approve the requested appointment rate of 5% over the minimum for a Chief

Deputy Clerk class, for a total salary rate in the amount of $60,711. Option 2: Do not approve.

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission June 18, 2018


Agenda Item II.C. 1st DCA Reclassification Exception Request Issue: The First District Court of Appeal (1st DCA) requests to modify current staffing in the Clerk’s Office by deleting position number 004395, Administrative Secretary I, and using the funding towards reclassification of position number 000057, from a Deputy Clerk I to a Deputy Clerk III (see attached memorandum). The Administrative Secretary I, was vacated on June 1, 2018 at a filled rate of 48,912.60. The minimum rate for a Deputy Clerk I is 30,764.00 and the minimum rate for a Deputy Clerk III position is 41,628.00, which results in a reclassification increase of 10,864.00 (35.31%) above the class minimum for a Deputy Clerk I. In accordance with Section 7 of the January 12, 2018, Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget and Pay Administration memorandum, this request would require a budgetary exception from the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission.1 If approved, the DCABC will need to decide if the FTE associated with the Administrative Secretary I should be held in reserve and unfilled to be repurposed at a later date, or eliminated through the legislative budget process. Decision Needed: Option 1: Approve the 1st DCA’s request to modify current staffing in the Clerk’s Office by

using the funding associated with the Administrative Secretary I position towards reclassification of position number 000057, from a Deputy Clerk I to a Deputy Clerk III. If approved, the request would be submitted to the State Courts Administrator for review and analysis.

Option 2: Do not approve.

1 FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum, Section 7: Positions approved for upward reclassifications are limited to those reclassifications which result in a salary increase of ten percent (10%) or less over the original classification. If a position is reclassified within these limitations, the chief judge may approve a promotional increase for the incumbent not to exceed five percent (5%) of the employee’s current salary or to the minimum of the new class, whichever is greater, provided such an increase will not place the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

of 94

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Tallahassee, Florida 32399

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Chief Judge Jonathan D. Gerber FROM: Chief Judge Bradford L. Thomas DATE: June 13, 2018 RE: Position Reclassification-Clerk’s Office _________________________________________________________________ Chief Judge Gerber,

The Clerk at the First District Court of Appeal has requested to modify her current staffing in the Clerk’s Office by deleting an Administrative Secretary I position and using the funding toward the reclassification of a Deputy Clerk I position to a Deputy Clerk III.

Position Details are: Position # Title Rate 4395 Administrative Secretary I $27,819.84 (Previously occupied at a salary of

48,912.60) 0057 Deputy Clerk I $30,764.00 (Currently vacant) =========

$58,583.84 (Total combined minimum salary rate of the two positions)

The new position classification would be: TBD Deputy Clerk III $41,628.00

As you can see, the deletion of the Administrative Secretary I position, would achieve a rate savings of $16,955.84. This does not even account for the additional $21,000+ that the current employee makes above the minimum rate for the Administrative Secretary I position. The State would see additional savings as a result of paying benefits for one FTE position, rather than for two.

The Administrative Secretary I position is from an older staffing model and the duties performed are not an essential need in the modern era Clerk’s office, where technology advances have also reduced the need for a purely administrative position.

of 94

A Deputy Clerk III position, in contrast, will be highly valuable to the Clerk’s Office. In the modern Appellate Clerk’s Office, Deputy Clerks must be able to operate two case management systems, review electronic filings for technical compliance, and use other programs such as Adobe Acrobat. It is difficult to hire such skilled professionals at a Deputy Clerk I salary. The Deputy Clerk III position may also help with retention of experienced employees who possess the technical skills and judgment needed in a high-volume, largely paperless Clerk’s Office. It generally takes a year or more of training to independently function as a Deputy Clerk of any level. Without room to advance trained, mid-career employees, the Clerk’s Office risks losing its investment in these employees. Particularly in light of several recent retirements of experienced personnel from the Clerk’s Office, retaining mid-career employees is an important consideration.

Finally, the two other District Court Clerk’s Offices that process a similar case volume—the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal—have 5 and 6 Deputy Clerk III positions, respectively. Thus, raising the First District Clerk’s Office from 5 to 6 Deputy Clerk III positions will not push the office out of alignment with the similarly-situated Clerk’s Offices.

Due this reclassification resulting in an increase above 10%, I am seeking the DCABC’s approval to reclassify the Deputy Clerk I position to a Deputy Clerk III and use the rate and salary dollars from the Administrative Secretary I to help pay for the reclassification, pending final review and approval of the reclassification by the State Courts Administrator. If approved by the DCABC, a decision would also need to be made in regards to the FTE associated with the Administrative Secretary I position. It could be held in reserve and unfilled, or eliminated completely through the legislative budget process. RKT/bb cc: Dorothy Willard

of 94

Agenda Item II.D. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days

DISTRICT COURT

COST CENTER

Cost Center NamePosition Number

Class Title FTE# of Days

Vacant

Date Position Vacant

Base Rate

1 111 Judicial Assistants 000063 Judicial Assistant - District Court 1.00 211 11/13/2017 $35,868.39

1 111 Judicial Assistants 008685 Judicial Assistant - District Court 1.00 237 10/18/2017 $35,868.39

2 115Facility Maintenance & Management

000079 Custodial Worker 0.50 557 12/02/2016 $21,682.13

* 000 Reserve 011922 Deputy Marshal-District Court 1.00 0 00/00/0000 $35,903.36












* Note: There is no funding associated with these positions.

of 94

Agenda Item II.E.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

1st 24,809 0 24,809 0.00%

2nd 14,560 1,016 13,544 6.98%

3rd 19,694 5,001 14,693 25.39%

4th 20,934 17,764 3,170 84.86%

5th 40,500 24,163 16,337 59.66%

TOTAL 120,497 47,944 72,553 39.79%

1st 1,425,124 1,404,750 20,374 98.57%

2nd 1,097,272 1,049,982 47,290 95.69%

3rd 327,087 266,102 60,985 81.36%

4th 308,786 257,571 51,215 83.41%

5th 295,402 224,357 71,045 75.95%

TOTAL 3,453,671 3,202,762 250,909 92.74%

1st 4,642 4,642 0 100.00%

2nd 65,767 20,885 44,882 31.76%

3rd 3,725 1,225 2,500 32.89%

4th 20,377 17,081 3,296 83.82%

5th 4,853 4,853 0 100.00%

TOTAL 99,364 48,686 50,678 49.00%

1st 7,700 0 7,700 0.00%

2nd 23,079 4,565 18,514 19.78%

3rd 0 0 0 0.00%

4th 0 0 0 0.00%

5th 0 0 0 0.00%

TOTAL 30,779 4,565 26,214 14.83%

Expenses

Operating Capital Outlay

Senior Judge Days

Other Personal Services

The data below represents the status of the FY 2017-18 operating budget as of May 31, 2018.



of 94

Agenda Item II.E.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

The data below represents the status of the FY 2017-18 operating budget as of May 31, 2018.

1st 83,594 25,934 57,660 31.02%

2nd 221,012 188,562 32,450 85.32%

3rd 157,950 151,027 6,923 95.62%

4th 165,247 149,195 16,052 90.29%

5th 69,771 57,486 12,285 82.39%

TOTAL 697,574 572,204 125,370 82.03%

1st 86,641 44,473 42,168 51.33%

2nd 34,977 25,358 9,619 72.50%

3rd 9,600 7,945 1,655 82.76%

4th 0 0 0 0.00%

5th 15,705 14,847 858 94.54%

TOTAL 146,923 92,623 54,300 63.04%

1st 16,895 11,810 5,085 69.90%

2nd 13,669 12,406 1,263 90.76%

3rd 6,100 3,679 2,421 60.31%

4th 4,586 4,585 1 99.98%

5th 12,446 7,371 5,075 59.22%

TOTAL 53,696 39,851 13,845 74.22%

Administrative Trust Fund

AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

94,669 56,392 38,277 59.57%

27,000 18,135 8,865 67.17%

121,669 74,527 47,142 61.25%

Contracted Services

TOTAL

DCA Law Library

Category

Expenses

Operating Capital Outlay

Lease/Lease Purchase

of 94

1 Beginning Balance July 1, 2017 69,666

2 Revenues Received 1,892,854

3 Expenditures (1,548,185)

4 Cash Balance as of May 31, 2018 414,335

FY 2017 - 18

FY 2017-18 Cash StatementAs of May 31, 2018



ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST FUND

Agenda Item II.F. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

of 94

III. FY 2018-19 Budget

of 94

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

June 18, 2018


Agenda Item III.A.: Start-Up Salary Budget

1 44,361,825

2 61,392

3 5,405

4 121,841

5 12,503

6 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019 44,562,966

7 (44,300,290)

8 262,676

9 58,797

10 321,473

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

1,053,557

1,045,328

984,412

(321,473) (321,473) (321,473)

732,084 723,855 662,939

(221,501) (221,501) (221,501)

510,583 502,354 441,438

(223,036) (223,036) (223,036)

287,547 279,318 218,402

Adjusted FY 2018-19 Spending Flexibility

minus Future DROP Liability

Adjusted Estimated FY 2018-19 Spending Flexibility

¹Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability has been adjusted to remove the 9.5 unfunded FTE.

FY 2018-19 District Courts of Appeal Salary Budget

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

Estimated Salary Appropriation

START-UP

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2019²

FY 2017-18 Estimated Lapse

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

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2019¹

Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

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

2 yr. Average Lapse

Projected Leave Payouts (Based on three year average)

FINAL - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

²Projected DROP Liability for all participants was $284,428. The DROP Liability has been reduced by ($223,036),

removing the participants reported to stay throughout the fiscal year. Please note the additional liability of $223,036

will be incurred in the fiscal year that the participants exit the Judicial Branch and may increase/decrease annually as

employer costs are adjusted by the Legislature.

3 yr. Average Lapse

minus FY 2018-19 Projected Salary Deficit

Estimated FY 2018-19 Spending Flexibility

minus .5% of Salary Budget held as Reserve

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services of 94

III.B. 2018-19 Budget and Pay Administration

Memorandum

of 94

DRAFT

Supreme Court of Florida 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

JORGE LABARGA

CHIEF JUSTICE BARBARA J. PARIENTE

R. FRED LEWIS

PEGGY A. QUINCE CHARLES T. CANADY

RICKY POLSTON

C. ALAN LAWSON JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM

JOHN A. TOMASINO

CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER DAWSON

MARSHAL

THOMAS D. HALL

CLERK OF COURT

TO: Chief Judges of the District Courts of Appeal

Marshals

FROM: Chief Justice Charles T. Canady

DATE: July XX, 2018

SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2018-19

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

current fiscal year, consistent with the recommendations of the District Court of Appeal

Budget Commission (DCABC) and also addressing other issues. Substantive changes

from the prior year’s policy are underlined.

A. Personnel Actions - Other than regulations limited by these “Personnel Actions”

policies and procedures and the sharing of sick leave donations across the district

courts, all regulations provided in the State Courts System Personnel Manual

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

remain in effect.

1. Court Staff Salaries

a. The salaries of the clerks of the district courts shall be equalized among

themselves, and the salaries of the marshals of the district courts shall be

equalized among themselves. The starting salary for the clerk is $117,483 and

of 94

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

Budget and Pay Administration

July XX, 2018

Page 2 of 14

for the marshal $114,878.64. Effective October 1, 2017, the starting salary for

the clerk is $118,483.08 and for the marshal $115,878.72. No clerk or marshal

of a district court will be eligible to receive a special pay increase, or salary rate

allocation, unless the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission recommends

an equal increase for all clerks and/or marshals of the district courts to the

Supreme Court for final approval.

b. Effective October 1, 2017, eligible1 employees with a base rate of pay is $40,000

or less on September 30, 2017, will receive an annual increase of $1,400.

Effective October 1, 2017, eligible employees with a base rate of pay greater

than $40,000 on September 30, 2017 will receive an annual increase of $1,000;

provided however, in no instance may an employee’s rate of pay be increased to

annual amount less than $41,400.

2. Judicial Salaries

Effective July 1, 2017, a district court judge’s salary is $154,140.

Effective July 1, 2018 October 1, 2017, a district court judge’s salary is $169,554.

3. Salary Budget Management

a. It does not appear to be necessary to hold positions vacant in the district 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 District Court of Appeal Budget Commission will monitor the salary budget

and impose such restrictions 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 2018-19 FY 2017-18.

1 “Eligible” employees refer to employees who are, at a minimum, meeting their required performance standards, if applicable.

Employees classified as being other personnel services (OPS) employees are not eligible for an increase. For the State Courts

System, employees who are not working under a Performance Improvement Plan are assumed to be meeting their required

performance standards.

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 3 of 14

i. A rate distribution plan shall be submitted by the DCABC to the Chief

Justice for approval prior to implementation of a rate distribution to ensure

equity between the Districts and Supreme Court positions.

ii. Distribution to the district courts will be based on the total number of eligible

FTE in each district (less judges) unless otherwise directed by the DCABC.

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 Personnel Office

for processing on the next available monthly payroll. No retroactive salary

increases are permitted.

v. When it is anticipated that allocations for a district court will not be used by

June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018, the DCABC will assess the health of the salary

budget and determine whether to re-purpose the funds or let the funds revert

for statewide budget management.

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

chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests

should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts

Administrator.

4. Other Personnel Actions

a. Initial appointment rates must be at the minimum of the class pay range. The

chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should

be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts

Administrator. If the chief judge provides documentation to the State Courts

Administrator that the affected position has been advertised no fewer than two

times and that either no applicant met the qualifications or that no qualified

applicant would accept the position at the minimum salary, appointment up to

10% above the minimum salary is summarily approved.

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 increase is less

than five percent (5%), the chief judge or his/her designee may approve a

promotional increase for an employee of up to five percent (5%) of the

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 4 of 14

employee’s salary prior to promotion, provided such an increase will not place

the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief judge

may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the

Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

c. Regarding Donation of Sick Leave, State Courts Personnel Regulations section

4.09(3)(B): In the case of the district courts of appeal, the chief judge of the

employee’s court may notify the chief judges of the other district courts of

appeal of the request for donations. Any chief judge of a district court of appeal

may notify the employees of his/her respective court of the request for

donations.

5. Law clerk appointment rates are to be made in accordance with the policies outlined

in the Appellate Law Clerk Pay Plan. Any incentive adjustments and promotional

increases made at the discretion of the employing judge and chief judge, shall be

consistent with the Appellate Court Law Clerk Pay Plan, a current copy of which is

found in Attachment I. No special pay increases are permitted. The chief judge

may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the

Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

6. Overlap of positions in accordance with the State Courts System Personnel

Regulations may be approved by the DCABC upon determination that sufficient

salary dollars are available and the overlap is necessary to avoid disruption in

efficient operation of the district. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the

DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

7. Positions approved for upward reclassifications are limited to those reclassifications

which result in a salary increase of ten percent (10%) or less over the original

classification. If a position is reclassified within these limitations, the chief judge

may approve a promotional increase for the incumbent not to exceed five percent

(5%) of the employee’s current salary or to the minimum of the new class,

whichever is greater, provided such an increase will not place the employee’s salary

above the maximum for the new range. The chief may request an exception by the

DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to

the State Courts Administrator.

8. An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position,

i.e., Marshal, Clerk, or Director of Central Staff, is eligible for a five percent (5%)

pay increase or the amount necessary to bring the employee’s pay to the minimum

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 5 of 14

of the higher class, whichever amount is lower, for the period of time the employee

is in an acting managerial capacity, provided the employee has completed two

months of service in the acting capacity.

9. Other Personal Services (OPS) funds are authorized this fiscal year to meet

temporary employment needs of the districts.

a. If it is determined that adjustments are needed to your OPS category funding via

a transfer from another operating category, please complete the budget

amendment form outlined in Section B.1. below.

b. Hourly rates above the minimum must include justification.

B. Budget Administration

1. 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, please complete the transfer

form (in hard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Dorothy Willard, Chief of

Budget Services, so that appropriate budget amendments can be processed.

Attachment II provides instructions and the form for this purpose.

C. Fixed Capital Outlay (FCO) Projects and Administration

District Court Fixed Capital Outlay Projects and Administration of In re: District

Court Fixed Capital Projects, No. AOSC11-3 (Fla. Jan 14, 2011), provides for the

oversight and monitoring of district court courthouse construction projects. See

Attachment III for policy guidelines.

D. Authorized Travel

1. Mission Critical Determination; Approval Authority and Requirements

a. Section 84, HB 5003 57, SB 2502, Chapter 2018-10 2017-71, Laws of

Florida, provides that “the funds appropriated to each state agency which

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 6 of 14

may be used for travel by state employees are limited during the 2018-2019

2017-2018 fiscal year to travel for activities that are critical to each state

agency’s mission.” Consistent with guidance memorandum No. 3, 2017-

2018 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.

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 of

the Second District Court of Appeal may prescribe in writing “blanket”

approval for ordinary travel between court facilities within the district. If the

chief judge delegates travel approval to a designee, the chief judge should

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 7 of 14

prescribe the delegation in writing and retain a copy in the court’s file. In

addition, the district 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.”

“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 district 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.

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 8 of 14

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 2018-19 2017-18 General

Appropriations Act for state employee travel, with prior approval of the chief

judge and submission of a Travel Authorization Form (TAR), expenses to

attend conferences, educational or other informative sessions of the Council

of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal may be reimbursed since this

travel is mission critical to the operations of the District Courts of

Appeal. The chief judge of each court may also authorize mission critical

travel to attend meetings, conferences, seminars, training classes, and travel

for events in addition to the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of

Appeal and other than those covered in Sections 6, 7, and 9 below, provided

that all expenses are paid with a source of funding other than state funds.

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

Association for Court Management Annual Conference and the National

Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Annual Meeting when held out of state

is determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid

with state funds.

4. Intra-District Travel

Intra-district 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.

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.

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 9 of 14

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. You are encouraged to continue to

support judicial participation in meetings of the following sections and

committees, which are provided as a guideline for the chief judges of the district

courts:

a. Annual and Midyear Meetings

Chief judges and the chair and chair-elect of the Florida Conference of

District Court of Appeal Judges will be reimbursed for reasonable travel

expenses for their attendance at the mid-year and annual meetings of The

Florida Bar. These expenses will be charged against your district court

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 district court budget.

The committees and section to which this policy applies are:

Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Civil

Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Contract & Business Cases

Commission on Professionalism

c. Selected Committees

District 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 district court budget. The committees and sections to

which this policy applies are:

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 10 of 14

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

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

Vision 2016 Commission and Workgroups

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 94


July XX, 2018

Page 11 of 14

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. No reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument

representing a section or committee will be paid.

g. 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 district, 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., District Courts of Appeal Budget

Commission, 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.

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 district

budget with prior approval of the chief judge or designee, or if such participation

is associated with membership on a Supreme Court-appointed committee,

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 12 of 14

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 district 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.

E. 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 the district

courts (e.g., travel funded through a court committee’s budget). Official written

approval from the chief justice or designee or chief judge must be 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 85, HB 5003 58, SB 2502, s. 120 of Chapter 2018-10 2017-

71, 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.”

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 13 of 14

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 district 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 district court conference), 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 district court conference 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 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 D.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.

of 94


July XX, 2018

Page 14 of 14

F. Senior Judge Compensation

Senior judge compensation is $375 for each day of service for FY 2018-19 2017-

18. Attachment IV reflects the allocation of senior judge days for each district

court. Any necessary travel expenses for senior judges to serve must be paid from

each court’s allocation.

G. Payment of Florida Bar Membership Fees/Legal Education Courses

The 2018-19 2017-18 General Appropriations Act allows for the payment of

Florida Bar membership fees for employees that require membership as a condition

of their employment by the state. (For a list of eligible position titles, please refer

to the memorandum of July XX, 2018 July 3, 2017 from Eric Maclure.)

Payment for legal education courses will be left to the discretion of each chief judge

based on the availability of expense money within each district court.

I am requesting that you disseminate the information contained in this

memorandum to all judges in your courts. The policies 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.

CC/sb

Attachments

cc: Patricia (PK) Jameson

Eric Maclure

Blan Teagle

Dorothy Willard

Beatriz Caballero

Jackie Knight

Steven Hall

of 94

IV.A. 2nd DCA New Courthouse

of 94

Second District Court of Appeal (2d DCA) – New Courthouse Building

The 2d DCA requests $20.0 million as the first year appropriation for a new

courthouse building requiring two years of appropriations.

The Florida Legislature, in Specific Appropriation 3142A of the 2016 General

Appropriations Act, directed DMS to “contract for a study of the courthouse space

and location needs of the Second District Court of Appeal.” On December 22, 2016,

DMS submitted to the Legislature the “Second District Court of Appeal Space and

Location Needs Study.” The Study’s Executive Summary includes the following

facts and recommendations:

The 2d DCA has vacated its Lakeland courthouse due to health concerns

presented by the 55-year old courthouse’s degradation (p. 8).

The 2d DCA now operates in Lakeland in separate leased space (p. 8). However,

space exists for only three judges in the Lakeland leased space (p. 8). The

Lakeland leased space also includes space for only two central staff attorneys,

various support staff, and the Clerk’s and Marshal’s offices, but does not include

a courtroom (p. 8).

The 2d DCA continues to operate in Tampa in leased space controlled by Stetson

University’s College of Law (p. 8). However, the 2d DCA currently does not

have a courtroom under its control (p. 5). All oral arguments take place in a

classroom with a bench designed to host moot court and mock trial competitions

(p. 5).

All 2d DCA judges are provided with limited space in the Tampa leased space

(p. 8). However, some of the offices are less than ideal (p. 8). By necessity,

several of the judges’ staff attorneys and the 2d DCA’s central staff attorneys

work in cubicles and shared offices (p. 8).

Consolidation into one location would significantly improve the efficiency of the

court by streamlining operations, reducing duplicative costs, and improving

productivity (pp. 4-5).

The best long-term option is to build a new state-owned courthouse (p. 6).

The parcel selection process should first explore state-owned land located in

identified submarkets in the Tampa Bay region (p. 6). Consideration should also

be given to land owned by other governmental jurisdictions (p. 6).

Should the acquisition of privately owned land be necessary, the potential

purchase price could be as low as $5 per square foot to more than $150 per square

foot (p. 7).

The estimated square foot requirement to build a new state-owned courthouse is

73,149 square feet (pp. 6, 40).

of 94

In addition to land acquisition costs, the estimated design and construction costs

are approximately $440 to $460 per square foot or $32.2 to $33.7 million (p. 6).

This range of anticipated cost includes the cost differences between developing

in a downtown submarket versus other submarkets in addition to specific site

conditions (p. 6).

The impact of secured parking – including surface versus structured parking –

will also impact overall cost (p. 6).

The estimated cost would also be impacted by the commencement date of

construction as pricing changes over time, plus or minus 5% each year (p. 6).

The estimated cost does not include furniture, fixtures, and equipment, which

also would need to be purchased (p. 6).

Based on the Study, the 2d DCA, during the 2018 session, requested $8.2 million

for only pre-construction costs, including the cost to acquire a site if not already

state-owned, for DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse on the

selected site, and for DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs to construct

that design on the selected site, so the 2d DCA could request those construction costs

in future years. The request stated that additional funds may have been needed to

complete the land acquisition. The requested funds were not included within the

2018 General Appropriations Act.

Due to the continued urgent need for a courthouse, the 2d DCA’s request for the

2019 session has increased to reflect not only pre-construction costs, but also a

portion of the construction costs. Adding up the estimates in the Study’s Executive

Summary (recited above) indicates the total project cost could exceed $40 million:

Site/building acquisition $365,000 to $11.0 million (73,149 sq ft x $5-150/sq ft)

Design/construction costs $32.2 to $33.7 million (73,149 sq ft x $440-460/sq ft)

Furniture/fixtures/equip. (amount not estimated in Study)

Therefore, the 2d DCA requests $20.0 million in FY 2019-20 (year one) for:

1) the Legislature to select a new courthouse site;

2) the cost to acquire a site or existing building if not already state-owned;

3) DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse for the selected site/bldg;

4) DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs of the courthouse design; and

5) construction, to be applied along with the FY 2020-21 (year two) appropriation.

FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request: $20.0 million (non-recurring)

of 94

IV.B. 5th DCA Hurricane Windows

of 94

Fifth District Court of Appeal – Storm Windows Upgrade

The Fifth District Court of Appeal requests $432,804 (non-recurring) to replace its

courthouse windows with new storm windows in order to mitigate future damages

from water or window breakage due to storms.

In September of 2017, Florida was impacted by Hurricane Irma, and the Fifth

District Court of Appeal courthouse sustained substantial damage to many offices

due to water intrusion around the windows. This resulted in water damage to thirteen

offices, and many workers being displaced for an extended period of time while the

offices were dried out, demoed and rebuilt. Drywall, paneling and insulation had to

be removed and steps had to be taken to eliminate current and future mold issues

associated with the moisture.

Although the offices have been rebuilt and reoccupied, the underlying problem still

remains. The same windows are in place.

This is not the first time this type of damage has occurred. In fact, after the

hurricanes of 2004, the drywall and insulation in several offices had to be replaced

as well. Additionally, many offices experience reoccurring leakage problems around

the windows even during thunder storms.

Funding of this request will allow the for the replacement of the courthouse’s

windows with new storm windows in order to mitigate future damages from water

or window breakage due to a storms.

The estimated cost of this project is $432,804.

Appended to this request are the following:

Appendix # 1 Sampling of office photos after damage

Appendix # 2 Front entry cost estimate

Appendix # 3 Storm windows cost estimate

FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request: $432,804 (non-recurring)

of 94

of 94

bosleys

Text Box

Appendix #1

Alpha Omega Glass and Mirror, LLC

151 Carswell Avenue ∙ Daytona Beach, Florida 32117

PHONE (386) 239-9521 ∙ FAX (386) 238-6066

www.alphaomegaglass.com

State Certified Glazing Contractor. License # SCC131151136 Page 1 of 3

6-8-2018

Fifth District Court of Appeal

Attn: Rick Kliment, Facilities Director

300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Subject: Proposal for Replacement Exterior Windows and Doors

Project: Front Entry

To provide and install the following product:

- Constraints on Proposal

o No Plans, Specifications, or Design Pressures Received

o HMTL and/or Wood doors, frames, windows, and vision kits to be provided and installed

By Others. Glazing ONLY to be provided as listed below.

o This quote is contingent upon acceptance of a mutually agreeable contract and schedule

o Work to be completed during normal business hours. Mon-Fri, 7:00 am to 3:30 pm.

o Alpha Omega Glass carries insurance above that required by the state of Florida.

Additional Job-Specific insurance or bonding can be provided as an ADD.

o Existing configuration includes stacked horizontals and applied break-metal. We were

informed that wiring may run through some of the stacked horizontals. The proposed

Hurricane Impact frames were not designed or rated for electrical wiring. This proposal is

based on the attached layout. Stacked horizontals have been removed and the applied

break metal has been replaced with spandrel.

o Customer responsible for moving and reinstalling any furniture, equipment or window

treatments located in close proximity to the area of work.

o Customer responsible for removing and reinstalling any interior window trim.

- Product

o Quoted products are Large Missile Hurricane Impact Rated

▪ 9/16” Laminated Glass

o 2 ½” x 5” Aluminum Storefront

o Medium Stile Aluminum Storefront Doors

▪ 10” Bottom Rails

▪ All hardware is manufacturer Standard w/ Standard Finish

• Tubular Push/Pulls, Off-Set Pivots, Surface mounted Closers

• MS Lock w/ construction cylinder & thumb turn. Final cylinder By Others.

o Job Specific Shop Drawings (Non-Stamped or Engineered)

o One (1) year parts and labor warranty.

- Quantities

o Six (6) frames in One (1) continuous opening, including Five (5) corner intersections

▪ 10’0 Frame Height

▪ One (1) @ 6-0 x 7-0 Door Pair

- Color/Finish

o Aluminum Framing: Dark Bronze Anodized

o Glass: Standard Bronze

The following items are specifically excluded from this estimate: Permits, Mock-ups, NFRC Testing, Shop

Drawings, P.E. Licensed Stamps, Structural Calculations, Engineering, Protective/Strippable Coatings, Air Barriers, Applied

Water Proofing, Special or Field Testing, Trims, Stucco/concrete/drywall/paint/wallpaper/window-treatment/trim/flooring

repairs required prior to or as a result of this scope of work, Removal/Installation of Window Treatments, Hurricane

Appendix # 2

of 94

http://www.alphaomegaglass.com/


Ph: (386) 239-9521, Fx: (386) 238-6066


protection for non-impact framing, Structural Repairs or Modifications, Insurance in excess of Florida Statutory

requirements, Final Cleaning. Anything not specifically spelled out in this proposal.

Terms and Conditions: Net 30. This quotation is valid for 30 days. Acceptance of this offer shall constitute an

order and contract for the purchase of the items described herein. Payments made after the agreed term are subject to a

Finance Charge of 1-1/2% per month or 18% Annual Percentage Rate. In the event it shall become necessary for Alpha

Omega Glass, LLC. to enforce any of the provisions of this agreement, the purchaser agrees to pay all costs and expenses

associated with such enforcement including without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and appellate costs.

Venue shall be in Volusia County, FL.

Base Proposal: $46,235.00 Sales Tax Included

ADDs TO BASE PROPOSAL

1) Glass Options

o ADD for Insulated Glass. Add: $4.460.00

o ADD for Standard Low-E Glass. Add: $4,344.00

2) ADD for Engineering:

o ADD for PE stamp on the Shop Drawings by a FL certified engineer. Add: $1,400.00

o ADD for Calculations Package / PE Stamp by a FL certified engineer. Add: $2,000.00

3) ADD for Automatic Door Operator. o Constraints on Proposal

▪ Exclusions: 120 Volts AC to operator locations,

conduit and control wiring ▪ Doors must be Non-Latched for proper operation

o Product

▪ Magic Force door operator by Stanley ▪ Single Door – 39” Visible Header ▪ Door Pair – 75” Visible Header ▪ Includes operator, control box, and door arm ▪ Activation by push plate on each side of door.

Wireless RF Push Plates included. o Quantities

▪ 1 (one) o Color/Finish

▪ Aluminum Framing: Clear Anodized

o ADD for Door Operator

▪ Add: $3,635.00 for a Single Door Operator

▪ Add: $4,955.00 for a Door Pair Operator

o ADD for Stainless Steel Bollard Post to mount the push button.

▪ Add: $375.00 per post required

o ADD for Motion Sensor Activation. Includes fully active safety sensors and guide rails.

▪ Add: $3,595.00 per location

o ADD for exterior guide rails only.

▪ Add: $1,260.00 per location

4) Alpha Omega Glass carries insurance above that required by the state of Florida. An ADD for

Additional Insurance and/or Bonding will be quoted upon request.

VALUE ENGINEERING

1) Replacement glazing for the Front Entry and for the Exterior Windows are quoted separately. If

both contracts are accepted under a single contract, with a single material order, permit, and

mobilization, the following savings will be applied to the combined contract. Although listed on

both quotes, this deduct is a single item that will only be applied once. Deduct: $3,400.00

of 94


Ph: (386) 239-9521, Fx: (386) 238-6066


BUILDING PERMIT

Option #1: Building Permit to be obtained and paid for by Owner and/or General Contractor.

- This option Accepted By: Signed: __________________, Print: __________________

Option #2: Building Permit to be obtained by Alpha Omega Glass. Required if Building Permit is not

obtained by the owner or General Contractor. Add: Direct cost of City’s permit fees, plus any

additional engineering fees required as a result of inquiries by the Building Official.


Thank you, Proposal Accepted By:

Signed: ___________________________

Matthew Conlan Print: _____________________________

Estimator / Project Manager Title: ____________ Date: ____________

Alpha Omega Glass and Mirror, LLC.

Existing Layout Proposed Layout

of 94


151 Carswell Avenue ∙ Daytona Beach, Florida 32117

PHONE (386) 239-9521 ∙ FAX (386) 238-6066

www.alphaomegaglass.com


6-8-2018

Fifth District Court of Appeal

Attn: Rick Kliment, Facilities Director

300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Subject: Proposal for Replacement Exterior Windows

Project: Exterior Windows (Other than at Front Entry)

To provide and install the following product:

- Constraints on Proposal

o No Plans, Specifications, or Design Pressures Received

o HMTL and/or Wood doors, frames, windows, and vision kits to be provided and installed

By Others. Glazing ONLY to be provided as listed below.

o This quote is contingent upon acceptance of a mutually agreeable contract and schedule

o Work to be completed during normal business hours. Mon-Fri, 7:00 am to 3:30 pm.

o Alpha Omega Glass carries insurance above that required by the state of Florida.

Additional Job-Specific insurance or bonding can be provided as an ADD.

o Customer responsible for moving and reinstalling any furniture, equipment or window

treatments located in close proximity to the area of work.

▪ System quoted as an “Inside Set” system to allow glass installation from inside the

building, reducing up-front and maintenance costs. Full access to the window

interiors is required for installation.

o Customer responsible for removing and reinstalling any interior window trim prior to this

scope of work. Trim is in the way of proper Shim and Caulk installation.

- Product

o Quoted products are Large Missile Hurricane Impact Rated

▪ 9/16” Laminated Glass

o 2 ½” x 5” Aluminum Storefront

▪ Inside Set Framing

▪ Expansion Mullions as required on wide openings

o .040 Anodized Aluminum Break-Metal at corner intersections

o Job Specific Shop Drawings (Non-Stamped or Engineered)

o One (1) year parts and labor warranty.

- Quantities

o First Floor Openings

▪ 1 @ 1-panel

▪ 19 @ 3-panel

▪ 1 @ 3-panel w/ obscure glass

▪ 1 @ 3-panel w/ transom

▪ 2 @ 4-panel

▪ 1 @ 4-panel corner w/ transom

▪ 1 @ 4-panel neo-angle corner


▪ 3 @ 6-panel


▪ 1 @ 9-panel

Appendix # 3

of 94

http://www.alphaomegaglass.com/


Ph: (386) 239-9521, Fx: (386) 238-6066


o Second Floor Openings

▪ 19 @ 3-panel



- Color/Finish

o Aluminum Framing: Dark Bronze Anodized

o Glass: Standard Bronze

o Obscure Glass: Standard Bronze Glass w/ a White Interlayer

The following items are specifically excluded from this estimate: Permits, Mock-ups, NFRC Testing, Shop

Drawings, P.E. Licensed Stamps, Structural Calculations, Engineering, Protective/Strippable Coatings, Air Barriers, Applied

Water Proofing, Special or Field Testing, Trims, Stucco/concrete/drywall/paint/wallpaper/window-treatment/trim/flooring

repairs required prior to or as a result of this scope of work, Removal/Installation of Window Treatments, Hurricane

protection for non-impact framing, Structural Repairs or Modifications, Insurance in excess of Florida Statutory

requirements, Final Cleaning. Anything not specifically spelled out in this proposal.

Terms and Conditions: Net 30. This quotation is valid for 30 days. Acceptance of this offer shall constitute an

order and contract for the purchase of the items described herein. Payments made after the agreed term are subject to a

Finance Charge of 1-1/2% per month or 18% Annual Percentage Rate. In the event it shall become necessary for Alpha

Omega Glass, LLC. to enforce any of the provisions of this agreement, the purchaser agrees to pay all costs and expenses

associated with such enforcement including without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and appellate costs.

Venue shall be in Volusia County, FL.

Base Proposal: $326,214.00 Sales Tax Included

ADDs TO BASE PROPOSAL

1) Glass Options

o ADD for Insulated Glass. Add: $42,310.00

o ADD for Standard Low-E Glass. Add: $40,795.00

2) ADD for Engineering:

o ADD for PE stamp on the Shop Drawings by a FL certified engineer. Add: $1,400.00

o ADD for Calculations Package / PE Stamp by a FL certified engineer. Add: $2,000.00

3) Alpha Omega Glass carries insurance above that required by the state of Florida. An ADD for

Additional Insurance and/or Bonding will be quoted upon request.

VALUE ENGINEERING

1) Replacement glazing for the Front Entry and for the Exterior Windows are quoted separately. If

both contracts are accepted under a single contract, with a single material order, permit, and

mobilization, the following savings will be applied to the combined contract. Although listed on

both quotes, this deduct is a single item that will only be applied once. Deduct: $3,400.00

BUILDING PERMIT

Option #1: Building Permit to be obtained and paid for by Owner and/or General Contractor.


Option #2: Building Permit to be obtained by Alpha Omega Glass. Required if Building Permit is not

obtained by the owner or General Contractor. Add: Direct cost of City’s permit fees, plus any

additional engineering fees required as a result of inquiries by the Building Official.


Thank you, Proposal Accepted By:

Signed: ___________________________

Matthew Conlan Print: _____________________________

Estimator / Project Manager Title: ____________ Date: ____________

Alpha Omega Glass and Mirror, LLC.

of 94

IV.C. Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions

of 94

District Courts of Appeal – Funding of Unfunded Deputy Marshal FTEs

The District Court of Appeal Budget Commission requests $641,018 on a recurring

basis to fund the 9.5 unfunded deputy marshal FTEs in the District Courts of Appeal

budget.

There are presently 9.5 unfunded deputy marshal FTEs remaining in reserve from

the FY 2008-09 budget reductions to the District Courts of Appeal budget. For the

past two legislative sessions, questions have arisen about the continued need for

these 9.5 unfunded deputy marshal FTEs.

Ongoing urgent security concerns necessitate that the District Courts of Appeal

seek funding for these 9.5 unfunded deputy marshal FTEs. It is estimated that

$641,018 in salary dollars would be needed annually to fund these 9.5 FTEs.

It is well documented that there is a critical need to improve security in public

buildings throughout Florida. District Courts of Appeal are part of this critical need.

The following chart shows the current complement of full-time security FTEs at each

District Court of Appeal:

1st DCA 2d DCA 3d DCA 4th DCA 5th DCA

Marshal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Chief Deputy Marshal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Deputy Marshal 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00

Court Security Officer I 1.00

TOTAL 5.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 4.00

As can be seen in the chart, a security disparity exists between each of the five

District Courts. To address this disparity, the District Court Marshals have used

contractual or other personnel services (OPS) dollars to hire temporary security to

ensure that qualified officers are present when the court is open to the public.

However, use of contractual or OPS dollars is not a long-term solution, as such

dollars are not dedicated towards security, and may be necessary for other services.

Additionally, greater security is often needed during off-hours when the building is

still occupied by judges and other court employees, to cover planned and unplanned

absences, and for special events. The availability of qualified officers is likely to

decrease in the immediate future as qualified officers are employed at public school

facilities in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

of 94

The foregoing needs are particularly urgent for the Second District Court of Appeal.

As the Legislature is aware, the Second District is the only District Court operating

out of two facilities, in Tampa and Lakeland. Both facilities are rented space. The

Tampa facility is comprised of the third floor and half of the second floor of a

downtown building owned and controlled by the Stetson University College of Law.

Sometime over the Memorial Day weekend, a gunshot was fired into the Second

District’s third floor space at the Stetson building. The 9mm bullet pierced the

window of a judge’s office, shattered the glass, and struck the wall. Because the

space was unoccupied, no one was hurt. Nonetheless, this is an unnerving event.

Stetson security noticed the damage during a routine walkthrough of the Second

District’s space, and alerted the local police department. Surprisingly, the local

police department was unaware that the Second District occupied the third floor and

half of the second floor at the Stetson building. As a result, the Second District did

not learn of this dangerous incident until after the holiday weekend.

The police surmise that the shooting was not targeted at the building or the Second

District, but was a random gunshot from a neighborhood across the Hillsborough

River. Although this was a random incident, security remains of critical concern.

The concern is heightened by the fact that the Second District is a tenant in a building

owned by Stetson. Full control of security does not rest with the Second District.

This shooting incident, coupled with the existing minimal security assets at all of the

District Courts, highlights the necessity of enhancing our security presence. The

need for adequate security cannot be understated. As for the Second District,

although that court currently is requesting funding for a new courthouse, the

construction or acquisition of a new courthouse is at least two years away.

Based on the foregoing urgent security needs, the District Court of Appeal

Budget Commission requests $641,018 in recurring funds to fund the 9.5

unfunded deputy marshal FTEs in the District Courts of Appeal budget.

FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request: $641,018 (recurring)

of 94

V. Other Business

of 94

V.A. Judicial Suite Staffing Complement Follow-Up

of 94

DCA=-... :.::BC The Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber

Chair

The Honorable L. Clayton Robetts Vice-Chair

Members

The Honorable Bradford L Thomas

The Honorable Edward C. LaRose

The Honorable Stevan T. Northcutt

The Honorable Leslie B. Rothenberg

The Honorable Barbara Lagoa

The Honorable Spencer D. Levine

The Honorable Jay P. Cohen

The Honorable Wendy W. Berger

Ex-Officio Member

The Honorable Vance Salter District Court of Appeal Performance and

Accountability Commission

Florida State Courts System

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900

www.flcourts.org

June 6, 2018

The Honorable Vance Salter, Chair DCA Performance & Accountability Commission (via e-mail)

Re: Request for Study on Reclassification of Judicial Assistant Position

Dear Judge Salter:

Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this proposal which the DCABC requests be reviewed by the DCA Performance & Accountability Commission.

As you know from our last meeting, the proposal requests the DCA Performance & Accountability Commission to request the Supreme Court for the authority to study whether to reclassify District Judges' Judicial Assistants position to a hybrid "Law Clerk/Judicial Assistant" position, to allow a DCA judge to employ either a third law clerk or a Judicial Assistant. Should the judge choose to hire a third law clerk rather than a Judicial Assistant, the proposal would authorize the position to be funded at a Law Clerk or a Senior Law Clerk salary. This practice is consistent with the federal model by which judges employ an "administrative law clerk" for this third position.

As you know, the current suite staffing model utilized in the five District Courts of Appeal consists of two law clerks and one Judicial Assistant. The law clerks can be classified as a Law Clerk, a Senior Law Clerk, or a Career Attorney, based on their years of service and experience as a law clerk, as detailed in the Law Clerk Pay Plan.

Some Judges have chosen to hire a third law clerk in the Judicial Assistant position. These judges report significant advantages, enabling the judge to devote more legal analysis to cases, especially in cases in which the judge may dissent or concur specially. Furthermore, those judges state that the employment of a third law clerk has increased judicial productivity by allowing judges to write more opinions in cases

of 94

bosleys

Text Box

bosleys

Text Box

bosleys

Text Box

The Honorable Vance Salter, Chair DCA Performance & Accountability Commission June 5, 2018 Page 2of3

where a written opinion contributes to the administration of justice and provides parties and the public with the rationale of the court's decision.

However, these judges also report that having to hire the third law clerk in the Judicial Assistant position imposes some disadvantages, most notably the new entry-level salary for Judicial Assistants. In addition, the time which an attorney spends working in the Judicial Assistant position is not included toward law clerk time for the purpose of promotional raises from Law Clerk to Senior Law Clerk and then again from Senior Law Clerk to Career Attorney.

Other Judges in the Districts still find a valid and useful need for a Judicial Assistant in their suites. Several factors influencing this position could include a preference for the Judicial Assistant to maintain the Judge's calendar, type written documents, review and proofread the written work of the law clerks in the suite, and case management. The Judicial Assistants perform valuable administrative, secretarial, and clerical duties, as well as providing organizational support and case management for the Judge and law clerks in the suite.

This proposal would request the DCA Performance & Accountability Commission to request the Supreme Court for the authority to study whether the current suite staffing model should be modified to make the third position in the suite a hybrid position, whereby a Judge could choose to hire either a Judicial Assistant to perform the more traditional clerical and case management duties, or choose to hire another Law Clerk to perform the legal research and case summary duties that require a law degree and Florida Bar membership. A thorough fiscal evaluation would be necessary to fully evaluate the financial impacts of this proposal, but an initial review of data provided at the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission videoconference on May 22, 2018, prepared by the First District, is included as Attachment "A" to this letter.

Thank you to the DCA Performance & Accountability Commission for its consideration of this proposal.

Sincerely,

DCA Budget Commission Chair

of 94

The Honorable Vance Salter, Chair DCA Performance & Accountability Commission June 5, 2018 Page 3of3

Attachment

cc: Justice Ricky Polston Patricia (PK) Jameson Eric Maclure Blan Teagle Beatriz Caballero Dorothy Willard

of 94

ATTACHMENT "A" Initial Review of Fiscal Data

In each District Court of Appeal except the Fourth District, the average rate for Law Clerks exceeded the rate for Judicial Assistants by at least $500 per year and as much as $2,700. In the Fourth District, the Judicial Assistant rate is $2,300 higher than the Law Clerk rate. However, the average salary dollars for Judicial Assistants are higher than for Law Clerks in each District Court of Appeal except the Second District. The differences range from a minimum of $1,000 in the First District to a high of $10,400 in the Fourth.

When totaling the Rate values and Salary values from each District Court of Appeal as well as the number of FTEs for each position classification, Law Clerk, Senior Law Clerk, Career Attorney, and Judicial Assistant, an additional chart was created displaying the average rate and average salary dollars throughout the five District Courts of Appeal. The average rate for Judicial Assistants is $45,436 compared to an average rate of $4 7 ,316 for Law Clerks. The average salary dollars have an inverse relationship where the Judicial Assistant average salary is $66,432 compared $64,426 for Law Clerks.

These values indicate that allowing Judges throughout all of the District Courts of Appeal to utilize the third position in their suites as either a Law Clerk or a Judicial Assistant would result in an average savings of $2,000 per year for the first two years.

In comparing the Senior Law Clerk average rate and average salaries to those of the Judicial Assistants, the Senior Law Clerk rate exceeds the Judicial Assistant rate in all five District Courts of Appeal. When comparing salaries though, the average salaries for Senior Law Clerks only exceeds the Judicial Assistants' average salaries in the First, Second, and Third Districts, while the reverse is true in the Fourth and the Fifth Districts. When combining all five District Courts of Appeal, the average rate for Senior Law Clerks is $54,388 compared to $45,436 for Judicial Assistants, a difference of almost $11,000. In contrast, the average salaries for Senior Law Clerks is $72,850 compared to $66,432 for Judicial Assistants. The difference is only $6,400.

Though the average salaries of Senior Law Clerks exceeds the average salaries of the Judicial Assistants, when evaluated in context with the salary reductions achieved in the first two years as Law Clerks, the overall fiscal impact should be minimal. Those costs should also be fairly controlled.

A comparison of Career Attorney average salaries ($92,292) to the average salaries of the Judicial Assistants ($66,432) is highly instructive to the point that a law clerk serving in the third position in lieu of a Judicial Assistant for five years or more would result in a significant fiscal impact. That impact is so significant that any further evaluation of the possibility of employing a Career Attorney in the third position is unnecessary and moot.

of 94

1st DCA ALL SUITES

AVERAGE CLASS TITLE NUMBER OF FTE TOTAL RATE TOTAL AVERAGE RATE SALARY

SALARY nrn 1 L\Rc::

JUDICIAL ASSISTANT 12.0 $537,619 $775,654 $44,802 $64,638 CAREERATIORNEY 13.0 $877,584 $1,142,139 $67,506 $87,857 SENIOR LAW CLERK 10.0 $546,915 $738,378 $54,692 $73,838 LAW CLERK 7.0 $331,221 $445,778 $47,317 $63,683

2nd DCA ALL SUITES AVERAGE

CLASS TITLE NUMBER OF FTE TOTAL RATE TOT AL SALARY AVERAGE RATE SALARY

DOLLARS DOLLARS JUDICIAL ASSISTANT 16.0 $707,521 $1,000,312 $44,220 $62,520 CAREER A TIO RN EV 19.0 $1,319,219 $1,766,133 $69,433 $92,954 SENIOR LAW CLERK 5.0 $269,929 $371,091 $53,986 $74,218 LAW CLERK 8.0 $375,538 $509,708 $46,942 $63,714

3rd DCA ALL SUITES AVERAGE

CLASS TITLE NUMBER OF FTE TOTAL RATE TOTAL SALARY AVERAGE RATE SALARY

DOLLARS DOLLAR

JUDICIAL ASSISTANT 10.0 $468,600 $699,535 $46,860 $69,954

CAREERATIORNEY 11.0 $847,042 $1,150,412 $77,004 $104,583

SENIOR LAW CLERK 4.0 $217,343 $303,494 $54,336 $75,873

LAW CLERK 5.0 $236,628 $326,517 $47,326 $65,303

4th DCA ALL SUITES AVERAGE


DOLLARS DOLLARS


CAREER ATIORNEY 10.0 $656,801 $908,868 $65,680 $90,887

SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.0 $162,757 $209,709 $54,252 $69,903

LAW CLERK 11.0 $529,990 $711,023 $48,181 $64,638

5th DCA ALL SUITES AVERAGE


DOLLARS DOLLARS


CAREER ATIORNEY 11.0 $743,504 $939,163 $67,591 $85,378

SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.0 $162,757 $198,586 $54,252 $66,195

LAW CLERK 8.0 $371,956 $519,592 $46,495 $64,949

ALL DCAs ALL SUITES AVERAGE


DOLLARS DOLLARS

JUDICIAL ASSISTANT 61.0 $2,771,574 $4,052,359 $45,436 $66,432

CAREER ATIORNEY 64.0 $4,444,150 $5,906,715 $69,440 $92,292

SENIOR LAW CLERK 25.0 $1,359,701 $1,821,258 $54,388 $72,850

LAW CLERK 39.0 $1,845,333 $2,512,618 $47,316 $64,426

of 94

JORGE LABARGA

CHIEF JUSTICE

B ARBARA J. PARIENTE

R . F RED L EWIS

P EGGY A . QUINCE

CHARLES T. CANADY

RICKY POLSTON

C. A L AN LAWSON

J USTICES

~upreme ~ourt of jfloriba 500 South Duval Street


March 14, 2018

The Honorable Jonathan Gerber Chair, District Court of Appeal Budget Commission 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399

Dear Judge Gerber:

JOHN A. TOMASINO

CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER D AWSON

MARSHAL

I am writing to advise you that the Supreme Court has considered the Second District Court of Appeal's statement of a need to create a new proposed job classification titled Deputy Marshal Supervisor-District Court.

After consideration of this request, the Court has decided to defer this matter.

The Court appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the district courts to ensure that appellate court staffing needs are considered and met.

Sincerely,.

JL/bc

of 94

V.B. 2nd DCA Security Incident and Deputy Marshal Supervisor Position Request

Follow-Up

of 94

Judge Jonathan Gerber, Chief

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Judge Edward LaRose, Chief Judge Thursday, June 7, 2018 9:08 AM PK Jameson Justice Jorge Labarga; Justice Charles T. Canady; Judge Jonathan Gerber, Chief Shooting at Tampa Law Center; Pending deputy marshal request Sup Ct 12-08-17 ltr re 2d DCA deputy marshal supervisor.pdf; 10-3-17 Lr to Chair of DCABC.PDF

PK - - as you and the Chief Justice are aware, someone shot into our third floor space at the Stetson Tampa Law Center sometime during the long Memorial Day weekend. The 9 mm bullet pierced the window of Judge Sleet's office, shattered a lot of glass, and struck a wall in his office. Because our space was not occupied at the time, no one was hurt. We are thankful for that. Nonetheless, this is an unnerving event.

Stetson security noticed the damage during a routine walkthrough of our leased space and alerted the Tampa Police Department. Unfortunately, we did not learn of this emergency until Tuesday, after the holiday weekend. Marshal Haynes promptly reached out to our landlord and has implemented protocols to ensure our immediate notification of such situations by Stetson.

Also disturbing, we had difficulty speaking with a TPD detective until late Tuesday or Wednesday. Surprisingly, TPD was unaware that constitutional officers occupied the third floor and half of the second floor at the Stetson Tampa Law Center.

A TPD detective was assigned to the case and met with us yesterday. The good news is that the shooting was not targeted at the building or its occupants. The detective surmises that a random celebratory shot came from a housing project across the Hillsborough River. Although the shot came through a window, the detective does not believe it had much velocity, thus suggesting a shot from some distance away. The fact that this was a random act gives us some small comfort. The detective has updated our location and occupant information into the TPD database; this should allow for prompt LEO response to any reported incident at the Tampa Law Center.

Marshal Haynes has already reached out to Captain Mills of the TPD to conduct a threat assessment for our rented space. That may lead to more discussions with our landlord.

Under these circumstances, you can understand why security remains of critical importance to our court. The concern is heightened by the fact that we are a tenant in a building owned by Stetson. Full control of security does not rest with us.

You may recall that in October 2017, the court asked the DCABC to approve the creation of a Deputy Marshal Supervisor, a position to be funded from two currently vacant spots. The DCABC approved our request. To my recollection, the request went to OSCA, which in turn submitted it to the FSC. The FSC referred the matter back to OSCA for further study and recommendation. Although we are unaware of OSCA's review and recommendations, I understand that our request is back before the FSC.

I understand and appreciate how busy the FSC is. In addition to its normal case load, its members must grapple with innumerable administrative matters concerning the branch and bar. Nevertheless, the recent shooting incident coupled with our existing bare-bones security assets highlights the necessity of enhancing our security presence in both Tampa and Lakeland. Our request for the creation of a Deputy Marshal Supervisor listed the various duties and responsibilities that could be assigned to that person. Among those, we would expect the person in this position to reinforce and continue our efforts to establish relationships with local law enforcement agencies and first responders.

of 94

Respectfully, I hope that the FSC will act favorably on our request at its earliest convenience. The need for adequate security cannot be understated.

of 94

EDWARD C. LAROSE

CHIEF JUDGE

STEVAN T. NORTHCUTT

DARRYL C. CASANUEVA MORRIS SILBERMAN

PATRICIA J. KELLY

CRAIG C. VILLANTI

DOUGLAS A.WALLACE

NELLY N. KHOUZAM

MARVA L. CRENSHAW

ROBERT MORRIS

ANTHONY K. BLACK

DANIEL H. SLEET

MATTHEW C. LUCAS SAMUEL J. SALA RIO, JR.

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

SUSAN H. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKJM JUDGES

The Honorable Jonathan Gerber Chair, DCABC

SECOND DISTRICT 811 E. MAIN STREET

LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801-2019

October 3, 2017

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399

Dear Chief Judge Gerber:

MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL

CLERK JACINDA (JO) HA YNES

MARSHAL

PLEASE REPLY TO:

0 811 E. MAIN ST.

LAKELAND, FL 33801-2019 (863) 499-2290

0 1700 N. TAMPA ST. #300 TAMPA, FL 33602-2653

(813) 272-3430

I request that the DCABC consider the Second DCA' s need for a security FTE and special pay increases as described below. We can fund these proposed actions within FTE and salary resources currently allocated to the Second DCA.

A. Security. Based on the approved funding formula, the Second DCA has a minimum presumed need for 2 additional officers. We propose to address our security needs by creating a deputy marshal supervisor position by utilizing the rate from the following vacant positions:

• Administrative Assistant I (#008063), $32,093 • Custodial worker, Y2 (#000079), $10,841

The classification and pay should be consistent with Deputy Marshal Supervisor utilized by the Florida Supreme Court. We believe that the supervisor classification is necessary to reflect the duties required for our security operations. The deputy marshal will supervise the security operations in two locations, including the scheduling and management of 19 contract deputy sheriff officers. A more detailed description for purposes of classification is attached.

B. Special Pay Increases. The Chief Deputy Marshal's salary at the time of her retirement on December 31, 2017, is $64,317. Filling the position at minimum will net $6,497 in release rate. If the requests below are approved, we request an effective date of November l, 2017.

I f

I I

I I

I f

of 94

System Administrator (#009366). Our system administrator's length of service, number of users, and mission critical responsibilities for two network systems and physical locations justify a salary increase. Special Pay Increase: $4500.

Administrative Assistant III (#009357). The reorganization of the workload in the marshal's office necessary to absorb the loss of an administrative position to fund the security request has resulted in additional duties and responsibilities that justify a special salary increase for this employee. Special Pay Increase: $2000.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me, Judge Northcutt, or our Marshal if you or the DC ABC members have any questions. :-1

ECL/jh Attachment Cc: Office of the State Courts Administrator

of 94

Deputy Marshal Supervisor

The essential function of the position within the organization is to assist the Marshal with all security operations. The essential functions of the position within the organization include a variety of tasks related to providing for the safety and security of judges, court employees, guests. and court building(s) and grounds where the court is sitting. The Deputy Marshal Supervisor is a law enforcement officer and must comply withs. 943.13, F.S. The position performs supervisory work involving policy and guidelines and is also responsible for protection of court property, training deputy marshals and contract security officers in the operation of security equipment and general performance of their duties. The position works under the general supervision of the Marshal.

The Deputy Marshal Supervisor is an "assistant" to the Marshal, as referenced in Section 35.26(4), F.S. The Deputy Marshal Supervisor opens and closes court during sessions of oral argument and keeps the peace, pursues and apprehends violators of the law while on duty for the Second DCA.

Examples of Work Performed Assists the Marshal with planning and implementation of the security budget, maintaining security contracts. reviewing security-related invoices for payment, and planning and coordinating special events. Conducts background checks and investigations. Maintains working relationships with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, Programs, configures and/or manages the access control, fire safety, CCTV, and other security and life safety systems. Trains deputy marshals and contract security officers in the operations of the access control system, CCTV monitoring, metal detection equipment, and fire safety systems. Provides orientation to deputy marshals and contract security officers and employees on the card key access system. Responsible for coordinating and scheduling events with building occupants to insure that security guidelines are understood and enforced. Provide for the pursuit, apprehension. and arrest of violators and suspected violators of the law while performing official court duties. Provide dignitary protection for judges and assigned court employees. Conduct home security assessments for judges and assist judges with restricting disclosure of protected personal information. Scheduling shifts and assignments, administering security operations procedures, and conducting feedback sessions, and reporting security incidents immediately after they occur. Liaison's with the contract security officers' law enforcement agency supervisor for purposes of general training, establishing screening protocols, and scheduling. Serves as the Emergency Preparedness Evacuation Coordinator, as a first responder, and is responsible for evacuating the building in an emergency. Screens visitors to the building and monitors activity in the courthouse and on the grounds to safeguard against unauthorized entry, exit, vandalism, sabotage or terrorism. Assists the Marshal with development and implementation of the Court's Continuation of Operations Plan (COOP).

Competencies, education and experience should follow the Deputy Marshal Supervisor -Supreme Court class ...

of 94

JORGE LABARGA CHIEF JUSTICE

BARBARA J. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWIS

PEGGY A. QUINCE

CHARLES T. CANADY

RICKY POLSTON C. ALAN LAWSON

JUSTICES

~upreme C!Court of jfloriba 500 South Duval Street


December 8, 2017


Dear Judge Gerber:

JOHN A. TOMASINO CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER DAWSON MARSHAL

I am writing to advise you that the Supreme Court has reviewed the request from the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission to consider the Second District Court of Appeal's statement of a need to create a new proposed job classification titled Deputy Marshal Supervisor-District Court.

After consideration of this request, the Court has referred this matter to the Office of State Courts Administrator, Human Resources Office, to perform the normal analysis for a new job classification, which includes a review and analysis of the duties being proposed for this new position.

The Court appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the district courts in ensuring that appellate court staffing needs are considered and met.

JL/bc

of 94

JORGE LABARGA

CHIEF JUSTICE

B ARBARA J. PARIENTE

R . F RED L EWIS

P EGGY A . QUINCE

CHARLES T. CANADY

RICKY POLSTON

C. A L AN LAWSON

J USTICES

~upreme ~ourt of jfloriba 500 South Duval Street


March 14, 2018


Dear Judge Gerber:

JOHN A. TOMASINO

CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER D AWSON

MARSHAL

I am writing to advise you that the Supreme Court has considered the Second District Court of Appeal's statement of a need to create a new proposed job classification titled Deputy Marshal Supervisor-District Court.

After consideration of this request, the Court has decided to defer this matter.

The Court appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the district courts to ensure that appellate court staffing needs are considered and met.

Sincerely,.

JL/bc

of 94

V.C. DCAP&A Clerk Staffing Methodology Recommendations and Financial Implications

of 94

VI. Adjournment

of 94

monday, june 18, 2018 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. video ......2018/06/18 · miami dade’s locality...

Documents