Meeting Minutes - Florida Courts€¦ · The Honorable Robert Hilliard The Honorable Margaret...

MEETING AGENDA -- AMENDED

8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Saturday, July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Note: By Thursday afternoon, July 20, materials will be available at:

http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-funding-

budget/trial-court-budget-commission/

Welcome and Roll Call

I. Opening Remarks by Chair

II. Approval of June 27, 2017, Meeting Minutes

III. FY 2016-17 Budget Status

A. Salary Budgets

B. Positions Vacant More than 180 Days

C. Operating Budgets

D. Trust Fund Cash Balances

E. Year-End Spending Plan

IV. FY 2017-18 Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Reallocation

V. FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

A. LBR Timeline

B. Issues for Consideration

1. Employee Pay Issue

2. Trial Court Technology

3. Court Interpreting

4. Case Management

1 of 122

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

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

TCBC Agenda

July 22, 2017

Page 2

5. Staff Attorneys

6. General Magistrates

7. Other

C. Priority Ranking of LBR Issues

Break

VI. Other Legislative Developments

A. 2018 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda

B. Interim Meeting Schedule

C. Statewide Uniform Case Management Database System Development Plan

D. Quarterly Travel Reports

VII. Implementation of Recommendations from 2016 Florida Judicial Workload

Assessment Final Report

VIII. Report from Chief Justice Designee to Florida Clerks of Court Operations

Corporation Executive Council

IX. Other Business

Adjourn

2 of 122

Agenda Item I. Opening Remarks by

Chair

3 of 122

Supreme Court of Florida

No. AOSC17-34 IN RE: TRIAL COURT BUDGET COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

The purpose of the Trial Court Budget Commission is to oversee the

preparation and implementation of the trial court component of the judicial branch

budget. The commission is directly responsible for recommending budgeting and

funding policies and procedures for the trial court budget, in order to support a trial

court system that will effectively carry out the administration of justice.

When the commission was originally appointed, a system of staggered terms

was instituted to avoid majority turnover in any year. Additionally, pursuant to rule

2.230, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the membership must include 14

trial court judges and 7 trial court administrators.

A vacancy will exist on the commission due to the retirement of The

Honorable Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Circuit Court Judge in the Eighth Judicial

Circuit. The Court acknowledges and appreciates Judge Roundtree’s service and

leadership on the commission. The following person is appointed effective July 1,

4 of 122

- 2 -

2017, to fill the remainder of Judge Roundtree’s term, which will expire on

November 30, 2018:

The Honorable Monica J. Brasington Circuit Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit

Further, The Honorable Margaret O. Steinbeck, Circuit Court Judge in the

Twentieth Judicial Circuit and a commission member, is appointed effective July 1,

2017, to fill the remainder of Judge Roundtree’s term as commission chair, which

expires on June 30, 2018.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 27, 2017.

___________________________ Chief Justice Jorge Labarga

ATTEST: ______________________________ John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court

5 of 122

Agenda Item II. Approval of Prior

Meeting Minutes

6 of 122

DRAFT

Trial Court Budget Commission Meeting Minutes

June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida

Attendance – Members Present The Honorable Robert Roundtree, Chair The Honorable Debra Nelson The Honorable Mark Mahon, Vice Chair The Honorable Gregory Parker The Honorable Scott Bernstein The Honorable Anthony Rondolino The Honorable Catherine Brunson Mr. Grant Slayden Ms. Holly Elomina The Honorable Elijah Smiley The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta Mr. Walt Smith Mr. Tom Genung The Honorable Bertila Soto The Honorable Robert Hilliard The Honorable Margaret Steinbeck The Honorable Frederick Lauten The Honorable Patricia Thomas Ms. Sandra Lonergan Mr. Mark Weinberg The Honorable Diana Moreland

Attendance – Members Absent Ms. Kathy Pugh The Honorable John Stargel

The Honorable Joseph Williams

Special Note: It is recommended that these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting materials. Chair Roundtree noted that Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) meetings will be recorded for administrative accuracy, starting at today’s meeting. There were no objections. Chair Roundtree called the TCBC meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The roll was taken with a quorum present. He invited the members of the audience to introduce themselves.

Agenda Item I: Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes Judge Roundtree presented the draft meeting minutes from the January 20, 2017, February 14, 2017, and May 12, 2017, TCBC meetings and asked if there were any changes necessary before approval. Judge Lauten moved to approve the minutes as drafted. Judge Mahon seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

7 of 122

Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Page 2 of 16

Agenda Item II: FY 2016-17 Budget Status A. Salary Budgets

Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the trial court salary budgets for FY 2016-17 as of May 31, 2017. The salary liability for the trial courts General Revenue/State Court Revenue Trust Fund was approximately $2.3 million under the salary appropriation. The Administrative Trust Fund’s salary liability was under the appropriation by $36,165, and the Federal Grants Trust Fund’s liability was under the appropriation by $135,017. Ms. Willard also reported that as of June 21, 2017, the remaining balance of the Chief Judge Discretionary Funds for retention/recruitment was $20,521.

B. Personnel Actions

Beatriz Caballero provided an overview of the status of reclassifications and other personnel actions as of June 27, 2017.

C. Positions Vacant More Than 180 Days

Beatriz Caballero provided an overview of the positions vacant for more than 180 days as of June 14, 2017.

D. Operating Budgets Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the operating budgets for FY 2016-17 as of May 31, 2017. She noted that as of June 23, 2017, the remaining balances have decreased and reversions are on track to be less than last fiscal year.

E. Trust Fund Cash Balances

Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the trust fund cash balances through May 31, 2017. F. Year-End Spending Plan

Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the year-end spending plan and noted that as of June 14, 2017, approximately $101,000 remains to be spent.

Agenda Item III: FY 2017-18 Allocations A. Updates/Outcomes from 2017 Regular and Special Legislative Sessions

Eric Maclure provide an overview of the Conference Report on the General Appropriations Act and provided information regarding the special session, which did not impact the Judicial Branch. Mr. Maclure then provided information regarding vetoes from the Conference Report, noting none of the vetoed issues were requested by the Judicial Branch in its Legislative Budget Request.

8 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 3 of 16

B. Allocation Policies and Procedures Dorothy Willard provided a historical overview of the circuit court allocation policies, and noted the current Allocation Policies and Procedures were adopted by the TCBC on June 27, 2016. Ms. Willard stated the TCBC will need to determine if the existing budget management policies and procedures shall continue through FY 2017-18, or if revised budget management policies and procedures should be adopted, and then noted that the effective of the budget management policies that were implemented for FY 2016-17 cannot be fully evaluated until the certified forward process is completed on September 30, 2017. The Executive Committee recommended Option 2, to continue with the FY 2016-17 budget management policies and procedures as is for FY 2017-18, through the certified forward period (September 20, 2017), and defer to the Budget Management Committee (BMC) for budget management policies and procedures recommendations for the remaining quarters of FY 2017-18. The Executive Committee recommended an amendment to Option 2, to delay the first quarter sweeps until the BMC completes analysis of FY 2016-17 data. Judge Smiley moved to approve Option 2 with the amended language. Grant Slayden seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

C. Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers (CSEHO) and General Magistrates (GM)

1. Process for Reallocation of Available Resources Lindsay Hafford reported that in previous years, both FTE and resource allocations have been approved by the TCBC’s Executive Committee. Ms. Hafford then noted that the FMC reviewed the reallocations procedures for FY 2016-17 and proposed modifications to make the procedures more consistent with rule 2.230, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and Trial Court Budget Commission Operational Procedures, and require that determinations of reallocations be made by the full TCBC. Mark Weinberg moved to approve Option 1, the proposed procedures for FY 2017-18 as presented. Judge Parker seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

2. Direction to the Circuits Lindsay Hafford reported that at the beginning of each fiscal year, the policies and procedures for reallocation of vacant CSEHO and GM positions are sent to circuits via email. The policies and procedures have thus far not been included in the annual Trial Court Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum due to the timing between the approval of allocations by the TCBC and the final approval and release of the budget and pay memo. The FMC considered including these policies and procedures in the budget and pay memorandum in addition to emailing them to the circuits. The FMC recommended Option 2, do not include the policies and procedures in the budget and pay memo; OSCA staff shall continue to distribute the policies and procedures to the circuits via email; and make them available on the Florida State Courts System Intranet site. Judge

9 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 4 of 16

Ficarrotta moved to approve Option 2. Judge Lauten seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

3. FY 2017-18 Allocations for Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers

Lindsay Hafford reported that FY 2017-18 allocations need to be approved for Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer and administrative support FTE’s. Each circuit’s need is based on the maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for child support, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and paternity cases.

Ms. Hafford noted there is a vacant 0.5 administrative support FTE position in the 9th Judicial Circuit. As noted in the approved reallocation policies for administrative support positions and the proposed net need based on the 1:1 ratio and workload, this position is eligible for re-allocation to another circuit. According to the disparity in the 1:1 ratio between hearing officers and support staff, and the unrounded total workload need, the 13th Judicial Circuit would be eligible to receive the additional resource should reallocation be recommended. The 13th Circuit has been contacted by OSCA staff and has indicated an interest in the vacant position.

a) FY 2017-18 Allocations

The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve proposed Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer allocations for FY 2017-18 as presented, and direct staff to monitor vacancies in this element and recommend reallocation of available Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer and administrative support FTEs according to the maximum need and pursuant to approved reallocation policies. Tom Genung moved to approve Option 1. Judge Brunson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

b) Reallocation of Available Position The FMC recommended Option 1, to reallocate the vacant 0.5 administrative support FTE from the 9th Judicial Circuit to the 13th Judicial Circuit. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1. Judge Ficarrotta seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

4. FY 2017-18 Allocations for General Magistrates

Lindsay Hafford reported that FY 2017-18 allocations need to be approved for General Magistrates and administrative support FTE’s. The total need is based on the maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for non-capital murder, sexual offense, felony drug court, professional malpractice, product liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, termination of parental rights, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social case types. Ms. Hafford noted there are no new resources or resources in reserve for the general magistrate element that are available for allocation to the circuits.

10 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 5 of 16

The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the proposed General Magistrate and administrative support personnel allocations for FY 2017-18 as presented, and direct staff to monitor vacancies in this element and recommend reallocation of available General Magistrate and administrative support FTEs according to the maximum need and pursuant to approved reallocation policies. Judge Smiley moved to approve Option 1. Tom Genung seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Chair Roundtree presented a letter from the Fifteenth Circuit requesting reclassification of all Magistrate Assistants and Hearing Officer Assistants (DOR) to Administrative Assistant II’s. The Executive Committee considered this request and confirmed the classifications of duties are correct and the pay class for these positions may be low. The Executive Committee recommended this issue be referred to the Personnel Committee for analysis and presentation to the TCBC at a later date, if warranted. Judge Rondolino moved to approve referral to the Personnel Committee for further review and bring recommendations back to the TCBC. Judge Brunson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

D. Full-Time Equivalent and Base Operating Budgets Lindsay Hafford reported that each year the FMC and the TCBC review elements to determine allocations, and noted for FY 2016-17, the Legislature did not appropriate any new FTE’s to the trial courts, nor were there any base budget reductions. The proposed allocations for FY 2017-18 are based on the FY 2016-17 beginning allocations and adjusted for legislative budget reductions, permanent budget amendments, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring items, and approved personnel actions. The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the proposed FY 2017-18 FTE and operating category allocations based on maintaining the FY 2016-17 beginning allocations adjusted for legislative budget reductions, permanent budget amendments, actions approved by the TCBC, non-recurring items, and approved personnel actions. Judge Brunson moved to approve Option 1. Judge Nelson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

E. Non-Due Process Contractual Allocations: Senior Judge Days, Civil Traffic Infraction

Hearing Officers, Additional Compensation to County Judges, and Mediation 1. Senior Judge Days

Kris Slayden reported that each year the FMC and the TCBC review contractual allocations for possible reallocation due to changes in expenditure trends and variability caused by other factors, and noted proposed allocations for FY 2017-18 need to be approved by the TCBC. Currently, the allocation methodology is based on a rate of $355.08 per day, holding 50 days in reserve, and using a proportional distribution based on circuit judicial need, as calculated during the most recent certification process (using the new judicial case weights) and actual

11 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 6 of 16

county judges. Note: Estimated FY 2016-17 re-appropriated days are not included in the total days distributed. Staff recommend reallocating any unexpended FY 2016-17 senior judge days in October after the certified forward process.

Walt Smith asked how many days would be lost if the increase is realized, and Ms. Slayden reported 719 days. Ms. Smith stated he is not comfortable losing Senior Judge days, and Tom Genung shared that concern.

The FMC recommended Option 2A, to approve proposed FY 2017-18 circuit allocations using the current methodology and a rate of $380.44 ($375 per day plus $5.44 FICA), holding 50 days in reserve. Judge Smiley moved to approve Option 2A. Judge Lauten seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

2. Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers (CTIHO)

Lindsay Hafford reported the proposed FY 2017-18 allocation for this element is $2,042,854, based on the three-year average of expenditures for each circuit.

The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the proposed circuit allocations based on applying the percent of total average contractual expenditures to the total appropriation ($2,042,854) and using the three-year average expenditures for each circuit. Judge Brunson moved to approve Option 1. Judge Smiley seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

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

The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the proposed FY 2017-18 circuit allocations using the current methodology. Judge Brunson moved to approve Option 1. Judge Smiley seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

4. Mediation

Lindsay Hafford reported the proposed contractual allocation is based on three-year average expenditures as long as the circuit’s total budget does not exceed the funding ceiling.

The FMC recommended Option 2, to approve contractual allocations based on three-year average expenditures as long as the circuit’s total budget does not exceed the funding ceiling; apply a 5% cushion to each circuit as long as it did not cause the circuit to exceed their funding

12 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 7 of 16

ceiling; place remaining funds in the statewide reserve; and hold FTE’s harmless for all circuits. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 2. Judge Parker seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

F. Due Process Contractual Allotments: Court Interpreting, Expert Witnesses, Court Reporting, and Cost Recovery

Kris Slayden reported the appropriation for due process elements in FY 2017-18 is $19,955,792, and provided an overview of how the appropriation was distributed in FY 2016-17. Ms. Slayden then presented the due process multi-circuit initiatives for TCBC consideration. Due Process Multi-Circuit Initiatives 1. OpenCourt Funding Request

Ms. Slayden reported that in FY 2016-17, OpenCourt operated in nine circuits, encompassing 36 counties and 350 courtrooms. Staff that support this system are based in the Eighth Judicial Circuit; 1 Contract Developer and 1 Contract Support/Tester, and is currently supported with a $190,000 recurring allocation. For FY 2017-18, the Eighth Judicial Circuit has requested additional funding of $90,000 to support expansion of OpenCourt to 10 circuits and 44 counties, for a total funding request of $280,000. The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve an additional $90,000 from the lump sum due process appropriation to fund an additional Support/Tester. The FMC also recommended the funds be approved as a non-recurring allocation. Additionally, the FMC recommended having OSCA staff conduct a cost/benefit analysis of OpenCourt, including the cost avoidance of vendor maintenance agreements, in advance of the FY 2018-19 budget allocation cycle. Walt Smith requested clarification of the two TCBC approved positions that were given to the OSCA in FY 2016-17 in support of this system. Roosevelt Sawyer reported the two positions were established in the cross-jurisdictional unit at the OSCA, in FY 2016-17. In addition, an advisory board has been created that consists of eight Court Technology Officers (CTO’s) to help establish the operational support for CAPS and expansion into OpenCourt as well. The interview team has completed interviews, but decided to re-advertise. Therefore, the hiring efforts are still moving forward. Once these positions are filled, the build-out of support models for the CAPS System and OpenCourt can begin. Walt Smith asked if the funds set aside to support these positions were lost due to the vacancies, and Dorothy Willard replied that the vacant positions helped generate lapse that assisted with the current year salary deficit, and the funds will not be returned because they are in the trust fund. Judge Roundtree noted the Executive Committee recommended approval of Option 1, as modified by the FMC. Walt Smith moved to approve Option 1, as modified. Judge Smiley seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

13 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 8 of 16

2. Remote Interpreting Roosevelt Sawyer reported that in FY 2016-17, $27,840 in recurring funds were allocated to support the continuation of the regional pilot on remote interpreting. In addition to the recurring funds, the TCBC approved the FY 2016-17 end-of-year spending plan, which included remote interpreting equipment requests from 10 circuits. In addition, the Shared Remote Interpreting Governance Committee (Governance Committee) conducted a survey to determine circuits’ business needs. Several circuits indicated they may benefit from a “bridge” solution. The Governance Committee invited Cisco Systems, Inc., to demonstrate capability of the multi-point connectivity and compatibility with non-Cisco based technologies, such as Polycom. Based on these actions, the Governance Committee recommended purchase of the “bridge.”

To add a “bridge” service to the current model, the OSCA has reviewed two options: 1) purchase a new server (CMS 1000) hosted as an on-premises solution at the OSCA, or 2) subscribe annually to a cloud supported solution hosted through a vendor, Telespace, Inc. Tom Genung asked if cloud testing has been done to ensure connections are available statewide. Mr. Sawyer replied that testing is in process but is not yet complete.

The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the use of FY 2017-18 funds in the amount of $5,831 (non-recurring) and $80,260 (recurring) to allow the OSCA to purchase the “bridge” as a cloud-supported solution. The FMC also recommended that if the TCBC approves Option 1, the funds should be taken out of the statewide due process reserve, without impacting the circuits’ allocations. Judge Roundtree proposed amending Option 1 to state that no funds will be expended until statewide connectivity can be verified.

Tom Genung moved to approve Option 1, with the amended language. Judge Nelson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Circuit Allocations Kris Slayden stated that due process contractual allocations need to be determined for each circuit, and stated that the amount spent in FY 2016-17 is more than the funds available for FY 2017-18 allocation; therefore a deficit may be realized in FY 2017-18. The FMC and Executive Committee recommended Option 2, to place 2.5% of the Due Process appropriation ($498,895) into the due process reserve; allocate the remaining funds among the three due process categories based on each element’s proportion of estimated FY 2017-18 expenditures. (Note: The 2.5% reserve amount was adjusted down to $412,804 after TCBC approval the subscription service solution for the remote interpreting statewide call manager. Judge Brunson moved to approve Option 2. Judge Steinbeck seconded, and the motion passed without objection.)

14 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 9 of 16

Due Process Cost Recovery Dorothy Willard stated the due process cost recovery allocations represent budget authority only, as this is a trust fund. Actual spending is allowed based on the availability of cash carried forward from the prior fiscal year and revenue collected in the current fiscal year, up to the amount of the budget authority allocated. There is approximately $1.1 million in authority in this trust fund. The FMC recommended Option 2, to allocate the due process cost recovery based on each circuit’s prorated share of FY 2017-18 cumulative projected revenue (includes cash carried forward). Ms. Willard noted a correction to what was previously presented to the FMC for consideration. The committee asked how allocations have been determined historically, and they were informed based on cumulative. However, the allocations have historically been determined based on current year revenue projections, which is Option 1. Judge Smiley, Chair of the FMC, asked the FMC members if there were any objections to revising the committee’s recommendation to Option 1. There were no objections. Judge Smiley moved to approve Option 1, to allocate the due process cost recovery based on each circuit’s prorated share of FY 2017-18 projected revenue. Judge Steinbeck seconded and the motion passed without objection.

G. Statewide Allocations

ICMS: Kris Slayden stated the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) expanded coverage in FY 2016-17, and is currently in production in six circuits and 23 counties. The TCBC allocated a total of $230,000 (non-recurring) for ICMS to the Eighth Circuit for the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Eighteenth Judicial Circuits ($38,333 per circuit, or $10,000 per county) for FY 2016-17 for ongoing programming and support of ICMS.

Ms. Slayden stated that in FY 2017-18, the Fourth Judicial Circuit will expand coverage to Duval and Clay counties, Polk County will move into production, and the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit is planning to migrate to ICMS. This will bring the total ICMS coverage to seven circuits and 30 counties.

The Eighth Judicial Circuit, on behalf of the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Eighteenth Judicial Circuits, has requested continuation funding for ICMS maintenance and support, in the form of recurring funding.

The Executive Committee recommended Option 2, to approve as a non-recurring allocation, the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Eighteenth Judicial Circuits’ continuation request of $230,000 for the Eighth Judicial Circuit to support the development and maintenance of the ICMS program through FY 2017-18 using trial court expense reserves. This would require a budget amendment to convert the funds to contracted services. Judge Ficarrotta moved to approve Option 2. Judge Smiley seconded and the motion passed without objection.

15 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 10 of 16

Statewide Allocations: Dorothy Willard then provided an overview of FY 2017-18 proposed statewide allocations, noting the revisions that will be made to the allotments based on the TCBC decisions that have been made today.

Judge Nelson moved to approve the FY 2017-18 proposed allocations, with inclusion of the TCBC funding decisions made at this meeting. Judge Parker seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

H. Allocations for Special Appropriations Dorothy Willard provided an information only overview legislative project funding and noted the judicial branch did not solicit these requests. She also noted that funds associated with these appropriations cannot be utilized for any other purpose than what is stated in the proviso language. 1. Domestic Violence Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Technology

The Legislature appropriated recurring funding totaling $316,000 for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit to continue its program to protect victims of domestic violence with Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology.

2. Post-Adjudicatory Expansion Drug Courts Dorothy Willard noted that allocations are based on current year expenditures as well as the projected number of people to be served, and any funding not allocated has been placed at the statewide level. The allocation for Seminole County is pending as the county is currently determining their needs. The funding requested will impact the amount allocated in the statewide reserve, but it was noted that Seminole County has stated that is will be less than the amount that is currently available in reserve ($209,788), therefore, no of the other counties allocations should be impacted. An email vote will be requested for approval of Seminole County’s post-adjudicatory drug court allocation, once the proposed amount is known. Judge Nelson moved Option 1, to approve the proposed FY 2017-18 allocations as requested and place the remaining allocation at the statewide level. Tom Genung seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

3. Other Drug Courts Dorothy Willard stated the Legislature appropriated funding totaling $175,000 in nonrecurring funds in the Contracted Services category for the Grove Counseling Center to provide treatment services for the Seminole County Juvenile Drug Court.

4. Veterans Courts Dorothy Willard stated the Legislature appropriated $1,426,846 recurring funding and $802,649 nonrecurring funding for felony and/or misdemeanor pretrial or post-adjudicatory veterans’ treatment intervention programs.

16 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 11 of 16

5. Vivitrol/Naltrexone to Treat Alcohol- or Opioid-Addicted Offenders Dorothy Willard stated the Legislature appropriated $5,000,000 recurring funding and $2,500,000 nonrecurring funding for Vivitrol/Naltrexone to treat alcohol- or opioid-addicted offenders. Judge Roundtree asked Ms. Willard how much of this special appropriation remains unspent. Ms. Willard stated that for FY 2016-17, an appropriation of $6.4 million was received and as of June 26, 2017, approximately $2 million remains.

Agenda Item IV: Salary Projections and Discussion of Salary Management Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the start-up trial court salary budgets for FY 2017-18. With the legislative cut of $2 million to the salary budget, the projected payroll liability is estimated to be $8.2 million over appropriation. The projected payroll liability at the beginning of FY 2016-17 was $4.2 million. Historically, each fiscal year begins with a salary deficit and is made up through the year through lapse associated with employee turnover, but Ms. Willard noted the liability shortfall projected for FY 2017-18 is the largest the Judicial Branch has ever faced. Ms. Willard then provided an overview of how salary deficits have been managed in previous years to generate lapse dollars, primarily through vacancies and hiring freezes. The average salary lapse over the last two years was $6.5 million, which is insufficient to cover the projected deficit for FY 2017-18. Ms. Willard noted an exercise that may be conducted to reduce the projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2018 ($2,006,798) is to survey the Trial Court Administrator’s (TCA’s) to gather a DROP participants list for clarification of judges that plan to stay on the bench after they reach their DROP date. Ms. Willard added that the liability is a real obligation that will impact at some point, but if clarification of judges’ retirement plans can be determined, the entire impact may not be realized this fiscal year and the liability for FY 2017-18 will be reduced. Chair Roundtree recommended OSCA staff reach out to the TCA’s, to request liaison with their chief judge, to conduct a survey of the judges that are in DROP and their plans for their retirement. Ms. Willard reported that the Executive Committee recommended implementation of policies similar to the salary management plan that was implemented in FY 2008-09, and refer the issue to the Budget Management Committee (BMC) for review. After review of the proposed policies, the BMC would present an implementation plan for moving forward to the TCBC for final consideration. Because of the unknowns at this time (additional salary appropriation for retirement and health and the DROP liability), the Executive Committee recommended a hiring freeze until further notice, with the following exceptions:

Judicial Assistant positions may be filled after being vacant for 30 calendar days;

Exceptions for due process positions will be considered on a case-by-case basis, after they have been vacant for 60 calendar days;

Does not apply if interviews have been conducted;

17 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 12 of 16

Administrative and Federal Trust Fund positions are exempt from the freeze; and

Trial Court Administrator positions may be filled immediately. All other positions will remain frozen until the supplemental appropriations are received and the DROP liability can be re-evaluated, and the BMC’s subsequent analysis of the gains realized from the salary management plan being implemented today. Any requests for exceptions require approval by the chief justice. These actions do not affect the judicial assistant and trial court law clerk incentive plans. Judge Steinbeck addressed the commission regarding positions currently eligible for reclassification. She noted there are not enough funds to support those reclasses in this fiscal year, and added that every time a reclass is approved, that action creates a recurring impact on future fiscal years. Judge Steinbeck then proposed a modification to the Executive Committee’s recommendation given yesterday, to request that all reclasses be considered as part of the hard freeze, and any reclasses in process could be given priority once the salary management plan restrictions are lifted. Chair Roundtree reminded the members that these actions are designed to avoid furloughs and layoffs. Judge Nelson moved to approve the proposed salary management plan as discussed. Grant Slayden seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Ms. Willard then provided an overview of the trust funds projected liabilities for FY 2017-18. The Administrative Trust Fund is estimated to be $25,000 under appropriation, and the Federal Grants Trust Fund projected liability is estimated to be $19,821 over appropriation, which is expected to be covered with lapse generated.

Agenda Item V: FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the amended Budget and Pay Memorandum for FY 2017-18, and noted most of the proposed changes are technical. Ms. Willard noted the TCBC approvals made today will be incorporated into the proposed memorandum. Eric Maclure then provided an overview of supplemental draft language relating to personnel actions for TCBC consideration, for inclusion in the FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Memorandum. After much discussion, Chair Roundtree recommended the following language: Each circuit shall submit a Personnel Action Request (PAR) at least five (5) days before the action is to occur. Grant Slayden moved to approve the language as proposed by Chair Roundtree. Mark Weinberg seconded, and the motion passed. Judge Nelson moved to approve the budget and pay memo, with the personnel action language and other changes necessary based on TCBC actions. Judge Steinbeck offered an amendment directing OSCA staff to make edits and present the revised budget and pay memo to the TCBC for final approval. Judge Lauten seconded. The motion with amended language passed without objection.

18 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 13 of 16

Agenda Item VI: Personnel Committee Report – Law Clerk Incentive Plan Recommendations and Senior-Level Positions Status Report Law Clerk Incentive Plan Walt Smith presented the recommendations of the Personnel Committee that would differentiate Senior Trial Court Law Clerk positions with managerial and supervisory duties from Senior Trial Law Clerk positions resulting from five years of experience under the Law Clerk Incentive Plan. The Executive Committee recommended Option 1, to approve the Committee’s report and recommendations in full and submit any items requiring approval by the Chief Justice or Supreme Court, as appropriate, without including the appellate courts. Law Clerks in the appellate court are not equivalent to law clerks in the circuit court, and Chair Roundtree noted the District Court of Appeals Budget Commission is the proper oversight for those decisions. Judge Ficarrotta moved to approve Option 1, without appellate court impact. Judge Rondolino seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Eric Maclure clarified that there is a cost to one portion of the above action. The new class for Supervising Senior Trial Law Clerk would include a 5% increase, from $55,202.40 to $57,962.52. This would result in a salary increase for five of the twenty-three Senior Trial Court Law Clerks presently working in a supervising capacity, at a total cost of $9,690.86. Judge Steinbeck and Chair Roundtree agreed that these increases would be considered reclasses, and would be on hold until the BMC can analyze the salary management plan impact and report its findings to the TCBC. Tom Genung noted as a separate issue, that there is a still a disparity between the Law Clerk Incentive Plan (eligible for promotion to the senior trial court law clerk class after 5 years), and the Senior Law Clerk classification (3 years of experience in the practice of law or as a law clerk). Chair Roundtree asked the Personnel Committee to address this issue and report back to the commission with their recommendations. Senior-Level Positions/Reclassifications to Circuit Senior Leadership Positions Walt Smith reported on the Personnel Committee’s work on the issue of reclassification requests that do not currently exist within that particular circuit. A survey has been distributed and the responses are being analyzed. Mr. Smith hopes to have a final report to present to the TCBC at its next meeting, but is unsure if it will be completed by that time.

Agenda Item VII: Due Process Workgroup – Expert Witness Implementation Status Report Lindsay Hafford provided an overview of the status of recent changes regarding expert witness and court interpreting policies and procedures. The workgroup hopes to meet again in the fall.

19 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 14 of 16

Agenda Item VIII: Employee/Contractor Tax Issue Eric Maclure provided a status report on the desk audit that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is conducting with the State of Florida. In 2016, working with the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), the IRS began a desk audit across the state, identifying state employees that received a W-2 and a 1099 during calendar year 2016. Thirty-nine (39) individuals were identified as having worked for the court system and other state agencies. One conference call has been conducted with the auditors and another conference call with a consultant that DFS has hired. Information analyses have been provided to the IRS, and we are awaiting final feedback. Once the IRS issues a settlement letter to the State of Florida, there will be thirty (30) days to pay. The TCBC has set aside funds for the State Court System’s liability, which is estimated to be approximately $102,000 to $104,000, subject to adjustment by the IRS based on the final analysis. These funds will be certified forward in the hopes that a settlement letter will be received prior to September 30, 2017. Mr. Maclure reminded the commission from a TCBC standpoint, there may be implications for those positions and services that are currently performed under contract, and those may have to be considered for employment through the OPS process. For those positions that can continue to be contracted, there may be a need for revisions to the contract to reduce potential audit risks.

Agenda Item IX: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request A. Timeline

Dorothy Willard reported an overview of the timeline, and noted that the LBR instructions will be sent out to the Chief Judges and Trial Court Administrators on Thursday, June 29, 2017.

B. Funding Methodology Committee Report / Identification of Issues Kris Slayden reported that the LBR request is a two-step process, and the TCBC will vote today on the issues and OSCA staff will cost-out for presentation at the July 22, 2017, TCBC meeting. At that meeting, the findings will be analyzed and prioritized for consideration of inclusion in the State Court System’s LBR submission for FY 2018-19.

The FMC recommended the same issues filed in the FY 2017-18 LBR be brought back to the TCBC in July for estimation and consideration. The Executive Committee concurred.

Ms. Slayden noted the Eleventh Judicial Circuit requested Title IV-D federal funding for support due to their limited staff interpreter resources. Eric Maclure noted that in order to secure this funding, the Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Judicial Branch will need to submit dual budget requests. This ensures DOR may provide grant funding to the Judicial Branch, and the Judicial Branch would have authority to expend the funds. DOR is currently considering the proposal. If it is not acted upon, the Judicial Branch could push forward with the issue as a LBR issue. Chair Roundtree requested this issue be included in the recommendations today, should DOR not agree to move forward with the request.

Judge Nelson asked if a request for new General Magistrates (FTE) could be considered. Judge Smiley, as chair of the FMC, recommended the FMC include this issue be included in the FY 2017-18 Trial Court LBR issues for cost-out.

20 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 15 of 16

Judge Smiley made a motion that the General Magistrates and the Eleventh Circuit Court Interpreter issues be included for analysis with the FY 2017-18 Trial Court LBR Issues as follows: Employee Pay Issues for Equity, Retention, and Recruitment; Trial Court Technology; Court Interpreting; Case Management; and Staff Attorneys. Judge Nelson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Agenda Item X. Report from Chief Justice Designee to Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Executive Council Judge Ficarrotta reported the Clerk of Court Operations Corporation (CCOC) met on June 12, 2017, and elected new leadership for the upcoming year. Ken Burke of Pinellas County has been elected Chair of the Corporation, and Stacy Butterfield has been elected Vice-Chair. Judge Ficarrotta then reported on the upcoming budget year, and noted a potential shortfall. The corporation is focusing on collection efforts and looks forward to the opportunity to collaborate with the Judicial Branch on these efforts. For FY 2017-18, the clerks have submitted their budget requests to CCOC leadership, which will be considered at the meeting to be held in August, 2017.

Agenda Item XI. Other Business

Florida Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Eric Maclure provided an overview of the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy Report and Recommendations for Mediation Fees for Services in Florida’s Trial Courts and Civil Indigent Status. It was proposed that instead of two fees, there be a requirement of one fee for mediation services. Chief Justice Labarga requested the ADR Rules and Policy Committee provide additional analysis, which includes obtaining TCBC feedback, regarding the proposed fee change.

Mr. Maclure noted with TCBC approval, staff will work with the TCBC Chair to obtain feedback and present to the TCBC before the ADR Rules and Policy Committee present their findings to the Supreme Court.

Judge Smiley moved to direct staff to develop feedback for presentation to the TCBC at a future meeting. Tom Genung seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Judicial Administration Committee and the Court Interpreter Certification Board Eric Maclure reported that on June 16, 2017, the committee and board jointly filed a proposed rule with the Supreme Court. Among other things, the rule recommends that in certain criminal and juvenile cases with a non-registered interpreter or an interpreter registered less than 2 years, there would need to be a recording made and retained as an electronic record for both the English and non-English portions of the proceeding. In working on that rule, the board and rules committee were cognizant of the potential fiscal impact for courtrooms and the need to have necessary recording equipment in place. A survey was conducted of TCA’s, and an initial estimate of $1.1 million to equip 437 courtrooms was projected.

21 of 122


Orlando, Florida

Page 16 of 16

In its rule submission, the committees recommended that due to these preliminary results and prior to the supreme court promulgating a rule, additional analysis is needed by the TCBC to provide additional information to the Supreme Court as it considers the rule, and its potential to impact LBR requests. Judge Smiley moved to direct staff to provide feedback on court interpreter rule change fiscal impact and impact to LBR requests. Tom Genung seconded, and the motion passed without objection. Task Force of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues in the Courts Eric Maclure reported that the task force received a charge via administrative order (AO) to develop adult drug court standards. The proposed Florida Adult Drug Court Best Practices are ready for submission to the Supreme Court. An LBR is not recommended at this point as the concept is more voluntary for circuits to meet the proposed standards. The AO that outlined the charges for the task force indicated the need to apprise the TCBC before the standards were finalized, in the event the standards require additional resources for the circuits to meet those standards. Submission of Travel Vouchers for FY 2016-17 Eric Maclure asked that due to the upcoming fiscal year-end, travel reimbursements be submitted as quickly as possible for processing. Recognition of Service Judge Mahon, Judge Steinbeck, PK Jameson, and Eric Maclure acknowledged Chair Roundtree for his service as chair of the TCBC for the past year.

Adjournment With no other business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

22 of 122

Agenda Item III.A. FY 2016-17 Budget

Status – Salary Budgets

23 of 122

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 275,155,818

2 Law Clerk Payroll Liability FY 17-18 through FY 19-20 239,372

3 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 275,395,190

4 Salary Appropriation (273,461,920)

5 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 1,933,270

6 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (4,579,641)

7 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (2,646,371)



10 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (91,033)

11 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (701,946)

12 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (792,979)


14 Law Clerk Payroll Liability FY 16-17 through FY 20-21 239,372

15 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 360,344,911


17 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 1,842,237

18 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (5,281,587)

19 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (3,439,350)

General Revenue (12,030)State Courts Revenue Trust Fund (3,427,320)

(3,439,350)

CIR

CU

ITC

OU

NTY

Tria

l Co

urt

Su

mm

ary

Trial Court Budget Commission

July 22, 2017

Orlando, FloridaItem III.A.: Salary Budgets

June 2017

FY 2016-17 Trial Courts Salary BudgetGeneral Revenue and State Courts Revenue Trust Fund

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

24 of 122

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 241,566

2 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2017 0

3 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 241,566

3 Salary Appropriation (272,344)

4 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (30,778)

5 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (6,523)

6 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (37,301)

7 Estimated Leave Payouts 0

8 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (37,301)

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2017 6,015,3012 Salary Appropriation (6,112,552)3 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (97,251)4 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (62,759)5 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (160,010)6 Estimated Leave Payouts 07 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (160,010)

FY 2016-17 Trial Courts Salary BudgetFederal Grants Trust Fund

June 2017

Trial Court Budget CommissionJuly 22, 2017

Orlando, FloridaAgenda Item III.A.: Salary Budgets

FY 2016-17 Trial Courts Salary Budget

June 2017Administrative Trust Fund

25 of 122

Agenda Item III.B. FY 2016-17 Budget

Status – Positions Vacant More Than 180

Days

26 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

CircuitCost

CenterCost Center Name

Position

#Class Title FTE

# of

Days

Vacant

Date Position

VacantBase Rate

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010347 COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED1 1.00 377 07/01/2016 $43,331.16

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010354 COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED2 1.00 208 12/17/2016 $43,331.16

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010369 COURT INTERPRETER31.00 346 08/01/2016 $37,756.20

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010382 COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED41.00 444 04/25/2016 $43,331.16



11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010355 COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED7

1.00 286 09/30/2016 $43,331.16

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010374 COURT INTERPRETER8

1.00 621 10/31/2015 $37,756.20

11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 011836 COURT INTERPRETER9

0.50 620 11/01/2015 $18,878.10



11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010342 COURT INTERPRETER12 1.00 590 12/1/2015 $37,756.20



Agenda Item III.B.: Vacancies over 180 days as of 07/19/17

Page 1 of 2 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources27 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

CircuitCost

CenterCost Center Name

Position

#Class Title FTE

# of

Days

Vacant

Date Position

VacantBase Rate

Agenda Item III.B.: Vacancies over 180 days as of 07/19/17

11th Circuit 730 Court Interpreting Cost Sharing 11th 010349 COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED15

1.00 573 12/18/2015 $43,331.16

11th Circuit 210 Cir Cts - 11th Circ - Ct. Admin. 008851 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I161.00 407 06/01/2016 $33,361.56

14th Circuit 257 14th Circ Law Clerk Post Conviction 011419 TRIAL COURT LAW CLERK17

1.00 198 12/27/2017 $45,817.20

15th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services 010584 COURT INTERPRETER - CERTIFIED181.00 440 04/29/2016 $43,331.16


16th Circuit 430 Mediation Services 16th Circuit 011450 MEDIATOR - CIRCUIT/FAMILY20

1.00 489 03/11/2016 $45,303.72


20The 16th Circuit is considering a possible reassignment/reclassification of this position due to the local hiring factors.

21The 20th Circuit has difficulties finding certified applicants for these positions. This position has been continuously advertised and remain open until filled. As of

July 2017, 80 applications received; however, none have the proper certifications. This position is posted on their website and on Florida Courts website.

17The 14th Circuit has extended a job offer with an anticipated start date of August 1, 2017.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15The 11th Circuit continues to encounter difficulties in hiring Court Interpreters even after using different recruitment approaches in order to

find qualified candidates. These positions continue to be a challenge to fill.

18,19The 15th Circuit continues to advertise on local websites, the Florida Courts website and with the local colleges and universities that offer the interpreting

training programs. These positions continue to be a challenge to fill.

16The 11th Circuit has identified this class as being in recruitment status.

Page 2 of 2 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources28 of 122

Agenda Item III.C. FY 2016-17 Budget

Status – Operating Budgets

29 of 122

CategoryBudget

EntityAppropriation

Expended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

Circuit 546,305 448,582 97,722 82.11%

County 6,110 5,398 712 88.35%

Total 552,415 453,981 98,434 82.18%

Circuit 5,226,926 4,678,036 548,890 89.50%

County 2,432,461 2,335,580 96,881 96.02%

Total 7,659,387 7,013,616 645,771 91.57%

Circuit 977,367 929,412 47,955 95.09%

County 579,811 556,069 23,742 95.91%

Total 1,557,178 1,485,481 71,697 95.40%

Circuit 816,080 705,570 110,510 86.46%

County 359,417 343,048 16,369 95.45%

Total 1,175,497 1,048,618 126,879 89.21%

Circuit 47,437 38,700 8,737 81.58%

County 28,905 24,001 4,904 83.03%

Total 76,342 62,701 13,641 82.13%

Other Data

Processing ServicesCircuit 97,902 97,902 0 100.00%


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

The data below represents the status of the FY 2016-17 operating budgets as of June 30, 2017

Other Personal

Services

Expenses

Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets

Operating Capital

Outlay

Contracted

Services

Lease/Lease

Purchase

30 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida



AppropriationExpended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

75,000 65,819 9,181 87.76%

2,039,454 1,752,661 286,793 85.94%

3,047,487 2,960,105 87,382 97.13%

7,425,057 7,171,773 253,284 96.59%

7,907,404 6,987,398 920,006 88.37%

3,407,702 3,281,790 125,912 96.31%

18,740,163 17,440,960 1,299,203 93.07%Total Due Process

Additional Compensation to

County Judges

Due Process - Expert Witness

Due Process - Court Reporting

Due Process - Court Interpreting

Mediation Services

Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing

Officers

Category

31 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida



Legislative Projects Circuit AppropriationExpended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

01 300,000 234,815 65,185 78.27%

02 125,000 104,829 20,171 83.86%

04 462,688 309,791 152,897 66.95%

06 600,000 406,620 193,380 67.77%

08 150,000 86,284 63,716 57.52%

09 200,421 150,410 50,011 75.05%

12 300,000 156,746 143,254 52.25%

13 150,000 87,561 62,439 58.37%

18 150,000 31,860 118,140 21.24%

20 105,000 47,789 57,211 45.51%

Total 2,543,109 1,616,707 926,402 63.57%

02 200,000 128,607 71,393 64.30%

11 250,000 250,000 0 100.00%

Total 450,000 378,607 71,393 84.13%

Mental Health

Diversion Program

Veterans Court

32 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida



Legislative Projects Circuit AppropriationExpended/

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance

% Expended/

Encumbered

00 194,467 0 194,467 0.00%

01 726,000 542,948 183,052 74.79%

05 167,877 141,062 26,815 84.03%

06 659,524 386,983 272,541 58.68%

07 318,200 272,426 45,774 85.61%

09 820,730 235,132 585,598 28.65%

10 492,713 158,774 333,939 32.22%

13 795,500 737,680 57,821 92.73%

17 1,224,989 827,721 397,268 67.57%

Total 5,400,000 3,302,726 2,097,274 61.16%

Naltrexone - Drug

Treatment00 6,427,547 4,481,058 1,946,489 69.72%

GPS Monitoring 18 316,000 280,033 35,967 88.62%

Juvenile Drug Court 18 260,000 0 260,000 0.00%

Friends of the

Children's Advocacy

Brevard

00 1,500,000 836,630 663,370 55.78%

Post Adjudicatory

Drug Court

33 of 122

Circuit Allotted

Days

Days

Transferred

Days

Served

Remaining

Allotted Days

Percent

Remaining

1st 249 (72) 132 45 18.07%

2nd 153 12 147 18 11.76%

3rd 97 10 37 70 72.16%

4th 358 0 358 0 0.00%

5th 308 3 260 51 16.56%

6th 425 (5) 337 83 19.53%

7th 297 15 223 89 29.97%

8th 151 6 122 35 23.18%

9th 460 0 332 128 27.83%

10th 268 0 243 25 9.33%

11th 824 0 789 35 4.25%

12th 207 45 230 22 10.63%

13th 422 30 399 53 12.56%

14th 140 0 75 65 46.43%

15th 356 (35) 243 78 21.91%

16th 45 (5) 24 16 35.56%

17th 633 (28) 488 117 18.48%

18th 297 20 289 28 9.43%

19th 173 0 96 77 44.51%

20th 359 4 302 61 16.99%

Reserve 20 0 0 20 100.00%

TOTAL 6,242 0 5,126 1,116 17.88%


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida


Note: The Days Served reflects data as input by the circuits during the compensation

process.

The data below represents the status of the FY 2016-17 operating budgets as of July 5,

2017

Senior Judge Activity Summary

Regular Senior Judge Allocation

June 2017

34 of 122

Agenda Item III.D. FY 2016-17 Budget

Status – Trust Fund Cash Balances

35 of 122

Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - SCRTF

1 Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2017 12,115,659

9 Beginning Balance July 1, 2017 12,115,659

10 Add: FY 2017-18 Projected Revenues1 $72,771,460

11 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

12 Less: Estimated Expenditures2 (78,736,099)

13 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,855,093)

14 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2018 3,991,274

15 Beginning Balance July 1, 2018 3,991,274





20 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2019 (4,999,094)

21 Beginning Balance July 1, 2019 (4,999,094)







July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22

STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND

FY 2017 - 18

FY 2018 -19

FY 2019 -20

Estimated Cash Balances

Prepared by Office of Budget Services36 of 122

FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22

STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND

Estimated Cash Balances













1 Official Article V Revenue Estimating Conference Estimates, February 16, 2017.

3 Based on FY 17-18 estimated appropriation and historical average of supplemental retirement and health

adjustments. Estimates do not include any future pay issues.

FY 2020 -21

2 Based on FY 17-18 appropriation plus estimated supplemental appropriations for retirement and pay package

adjustments.

FY 2021 -22

Prepared by Office of Budget Services37 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - SCRTF

Article V Revenue Estimating Conference Projections

1 December 21, 2015 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 6,238,332 74,859,980

2 July 20, 2016 6,562,408 6,521,515 6,215,322 6,082,143 6,324,649 5,417,346 6,086,924 5,758,551 6,435,019 6,754,378 6,384,971 6,185,842 74,729,068

3 November 16, 2016 6,431,593 6,051,936 6,668,750 5,919,533 6,300,000 5,400,000 6,100,000 5,700,000 6,400,000 6,700,000 6,300,000 6,328,188 74,300,000

4 February 16, 2017 6,431,593 6,051,936 6,668,750 5,919,533 5,530,928 5,712,263 5,709,020 5,600,000 6,300,000 6,600,000 6,200,000 6,375,978 73,100,000

5 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund July August September October November December January February March April May JuneYear-To-Date

Summary*

6 Beginning Balance 7,164,092 7,162,700 7,786,608 8,868,146 8,466,694 8,603,268 8,503,719 7,990,863 8,146,432 8,615,093 9,218,260 8,378,804 7,164,092

7 Fee and Fine Revenue Received* 6,489,289 6,081,669 6,711,479 5,965,173 5,647,427 5,681,556 5,792,383 5,876,665 6,163,390 7,091,409 6,085,122 6,854,722 74,440,283

8Cost Sharing (JAC transfers/$3,695,347 due

annually)736,167 187,671 817,082 106,747 842,917 80,925 771,282 80,050 86,816 3,709,655

9 Refunds/Miscellaneous 5,042 5,948 6,356 18 49 694 18,107

10 Total Revenue Received 7,230,497 6,275,288 6,711,479 6,782,254 5,760,530 5,681,556 6,635,300 5,876,665 6,244,333 7,862,691 6,165,221 6,942,233 78,168,045

11 Available Cash Balance 14,394,590 13,437,989 14,498,087 15,650,400 14,227,224 14,284,824 15,139,018 13,867,528 14,390,765 16,477,784 15,383,482 15,321,037 85,332,137

12 Staff Salary Expenditures (5,637,677) (5,650,743) (5,629,631) (5,640,634) (5,622,866) (5,780,485) (5,762,794) (5,720,946) (5,775,281) (5,831,169) (5,777,667) (5,797,817) (68,627,710)

13 Prior Year Certified Forwards - Staff Salary (3,739) (3,739)

14 Staff Salary Expenditures - SCRTF and GR Shift (1,226,380) 2,593,283 1,366,903

15 Refunds (1,239) (638) (310) (905) (1,090) (620) (1,875) (150) (390) (2,006) (631) (844) (10,698)

16 Total SCRTF Operating Expenditures (5,642,655) (5,651,381) (5,629,941) (5,641,539) (5,623,956) (5,781,105) (5,764,669) (5,721,096) (5,775,671) (5,833,175) (7,004,678) (3,205,378) (67,275,243)

17 8% General Revenue Service Charge (1,589,234) (1,542,166) (1,383,486) (1,426,349) (5,941,235)

18 Ending Cash Balance 7,162,700 7,786,608 8,868,146 8,466,694 8,603,268 8,503,719 7,990,863 8,146,432 8,615,093 9,218,260 8,378,804 12,115,659 12,115,659

* Note: Actual revenues received reported by REC and OSCA differ due to the timing of reporting by the Department of Revenue and FLAIR posting to the SCRTF. Estimated 8% GRSC for July 2017 (1,602,500)

State Courts Revenue Trust Fund - Monthly Cash Analysis

Fiscal Year Reporting 2016-2017 (Official Estimates)

State Courts System Based on Actual Revenues and Expenditures for July - June

Prepared by OSCA Office of Budget Services

38 of 122

Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - ATF

22300100-Circuit CourtsBeginning

Balance

Revenue

ReceivedExpenditures Refunds

Ending

Balance

Cost Recovery-Circuit Level 1,523,212.65 806,245.26 (692,740.67) 0.00 1,636,717.24 Cost Recovery-Reserve Level 610,910.20 0.00 403,691.21 0.00 1,014,601.41 Service Charge 0.00 0.00 (63,286.66) 0.00 (63,286.66) Refunds 220020 0.00 0.00 (2,071.20) (3,153.31) (5,224.51) Circuit Courts Ending Cash Balance 2,134,122.85 806,245.26 (354,407.32) (3,153.31) 2,582,807.48

*NOTE - Administrative Trust Fund Spending Authority for FY 2016-17 is $1,992,112.

State Courts System

FY 2016-17 Cash Statement

Administrative Trust Fund

As of June 30, 2017


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

OSCA Office of FA Services S:\Cash Statements

39 of 122

Agenda Item III.E. FY 2016-17 Budget

Status – Year-End Spending Plan

40 of 122

Circuit CategoryBudgetEntity


EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended/Encumbered

Circuit 15,896 15,896 0 100.00%

County 4,023 2,259 1,764 56.16%

Operating Capital Outlay County 7,026 7,025 1 99.99%

Circuit 14,248 14,248 0 100.00%

County 107,417 107,417 0 100.00%

148,610 146,845 1,765 98.81%

Operating Capital Outlay 17,320 17,136 184 98.94%

Contracted Services 14,987 12,600 2,387 84.07%

32,307 29,736 2,571 92.04%

Expenses 2,945 2,945 0 100.00%


Contracted Services 1,526 1,526 1 99.97%

24,432 24,326 106 99.57%

Expenses 16,200 15,016 1,184 92.69%



Mediation Services 35,586 35,399 188 99.47%

131,008 129,079 1,929 98.53%

Expenses 3,677 3,495 182 95.04%


19,250 19,067 182 99.05%

Expenses 19,705 18,187 1,518 92.29%

Operating Capital Outlay 78,600 77,588 1,012 98.71%

Contracted Services 83,480 65,766 17,714 78.78%

181,785 161,540 20,245 88.86%

Expenses 8,002 7,884 118 98.52%


51,942 49,714 2,228 95.71%8th Circuit Total

Circuit

Circuit

5th Circuit Total

The data below represents the status of the FY 2016-17 year-end spending plan as of June 30, 2017.

4

2nd Circuit Total

Circuit

4th Circuit Total

Expenses

2


Orlando, Florida

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

5

6

7

6th Circuit Total

7th Circuit Total

Contracted Services

Circuit

3rd Circuit Total

3

8

Circuit

Circuit

41 of 122



EncumberedRemaining




Orlando, Florida


Expenses 15,818 15,818 0 100.00%



66,000 64,671 1,329 97.99%

Expenses Circuit 299 297 2 99.33%


139,299 139,292 7 99.99%

11 Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 68,866 68,807 59 99.91%

Expenses 5,647 4,911 736 86.96%


43,851 38,661 5,190 88.16%

Expenses 15,626 15,231 395 97.47%



Mediation Services 12,500 12,389 111 99.11%

46,265 45,258 1,007 97.82%

Expenses 8,756 8,755 1 99.99%



80,100 77,147 2,953 96.31%



12,500 11,639 861 93.11%

Expenses 100,000 99,744 256 99.74%


90,185 90,185 0 100.00%

County 49,815 49,815 0 100.00%

311,994 311,738 256 99.92%

15Circuit

15th Circuit Total

14

13

14th Circuit Total

Circuit

Circuit

13th Circuit Total

Circuit

9th Circuit Total

9

10

10th Circuit Total

16

Contracted Services

16th Circuit Total

17th Circuit Total

Circuit

17

Circuit

42 of 122



EncumberedRemaining




Orlando, Florida


Circuit 10,928 10,928 0 100.00%

County 77,859 77,855 4 100.00%

88,787 88,783 4 100.00%

Expenses 23,445 20,110 3,335 85.78%


224,138 220,803 3,335 98.51%

Contracted Services Circuit 40,800 40,800 0 100.00%


164,588 164,302 286 99.83%

Circuit 1,102,656 1,063,737 38,919 96.47%

County 733,066 727,671 5,395 99.26%

1,835,722 1,791,408 44,314 97.59%

County

18th Circuit Total

19th Circuit Total

* The 1st & 12th Circuits did not request year-end spending funds as part of this exercise.

GRAND TOTAL

SUB-TOTALS

20th Circuit Total

20

18Operating Capital Outlay

19

43 of 122

Agenda Item IV. FY 2017-18 Child

Support Enforcement Hearing Officer

Reallocation

44 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item IV.: FY 2017-18 Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer

Reallocation

Background

Each fiscal year, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) approves FTE allocations for the

Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer (CSEHO) and General Magistrate (GM) elements.

Staff of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) are directed to monitor vacancies

in both elements throughout the fiscal year and, when vacancies occur, staff are to evaluate and

recommend reallocating hearing officers, magistrates, and administrative support FTEs based on

the following criteria: 1) maximum net need based on workload, 2) a one-to-one ratio of hearing

officer or magistrate to administrative support personnel, 3) Department of Revenue (DOR)

information where appropriate, 4) circuit information, and 5) a minimum threshold of 0.5 FTE

negative (excess) net need must be met before reallocation will be considered. For reallocation

of general magistrate positions, the combined net need in both the GM and CSEHO categories

are considered.

Current Issue

At their June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC approved the FY 2017-18 allocations for General

Magistrates, Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers, and the administrative support staff

associated with each element. Also approved was the reallocation of a 0.50 CSEHO

administrative support staff from the Ninth Judicial Circuit to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.

Since the June meeting, the Ninth Judicial Circuit has received the resignation of a 1.0 FTE

Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer and, pursuant to approved procedures, that position

was evaluated for possible reallocation. The Commission is now being asked to consider the

reallocation of this resource and, if it approves the reallocation, to approve the new CSEHO net

need charts that will be used for the remainder of FY 2017-18.

FY 2017-18 circuit allocations for this element were developed based on the maximum number

of forecasted filings over fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for child support, Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and paternity cases. The total need was calculated in

two steps. The first step estimated CSEHO workload by multiplying the number of filings by the

appropriate case weight. In the second step, CSEHO total need was calculated by dividing the

estimated workload by the total time available for case-related work.

Based on this methodology, the Ninth Judicial Circuit displays a negative net need of 0.50 FTE

for Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers. Applying the criteria, 0.50 FTE of the 1.0

vacant Hearing Officer position is eligible for reallocation to the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Decisions Needed

45 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Reallocation of Available Position

Option 1: Reallocate the vacant 0.50 FTE CSEHO from the Ninth Judicial Circuit to the Fourth

Judicial Circuit (see Attachment A).

Option 2: Do not reallocate the position and consider an alternative.

Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation – Approve Option 1.

FY 2017-18 Allocation and Net Need Charts

If Option 1, above, is adopted, the charts reflecting final FY 2017-18 allocations and net need in

the General Magistrate, Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer, and administrative support

areas need to be approved and disseminated to the trial courts. The allocations reflected in these

charts will form the basis for assessing the potential reallocation of resources should a vacancy

occur in one of these categories during FY 2017-18.

Option 1: Approve proposed allocations for FY 2017-18. Direct staff to monitor vacancies in

these elements and recommend reallocation of available positions according to the maximum

need reflected in the charts in Attachments A and B and pursuant to approved reallocation

policies.

Option 2: Do not approve and consider an alternative.


46 of 122

Agenda Item IV. Attachment A

A B C D E F

Circuit

Child Support

Enforcement

Hearing Officer

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support

FTE Allocation Total Need1

Child Support

Enforcement

Hearing Officer

Maximum

Total Need (Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support

Maximum

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 2.25 2.25 1.6 2.0 2.0

2 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

3 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.0

4 3.0 2.5 4.7 5.0 5.0

5 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0

6 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0

7 1.5 0.5 2.1 2.0 2.0

8 2.0 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.0

9 3.5 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0

10 2.0 1.75 2.8 3.0 3.0

11 4.0 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.0

12 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.0

13 3.0 2.5 3.7 4.0 4.0

14 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0

15 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0

16 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

17 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

18 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0

19 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

20 1.25 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.0

Total 41.5 35.5 41.8 43.0 43.0


July 22, 2017 Meeting

Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers

Background Statistics

1 Total need reflects the maximum Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer (CSEHO) FTE total need over a three year period. The

total need is based on the maximum number of filings over fiscal year 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for child support, UIFSA, and

paternity cases. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimates CSEHO workload by multiplying filings by the

appropriate case weight. In the second step, CSEHO total need was calculated by dividing the estimated CSEHO workload by the total

time available for case related work.2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to CSEHO.

FY 2017-18 Allocations

Approved by TCBC June 27,

2017 Total Need

47 of 122

Agenda Item IV. Attachment A

A B C D E

Circuit

Child Support

Enforcement

Hearing Officer

Net Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

Child Support

Enforcement

Hearing Officer

FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 -0.25 -0.25 2.25 2.25

2 -0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0

3 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.5

4 2.0 2.5 3.5 2.5

5 -0.5 0.0 2.5 2.0

6 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0

7 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5

8 -1.0 -1.0 2.0 2.0

9 -0.5 0.0 3.0 3.0

10 1.0 1.25 2.0 1.75

11 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

12 -0.5 -0.5 2.5 2.5

13 1.0 1.5 3.0 2.5

14 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.0

15 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

18 -1.0 -1.0 2.0 2.0

19 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

20 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.0

Total 1.5 7.5 41.5 35.5

2 FY 2017-18 FTE proposed allocations, using current methodology, is based on beginning FY 2016-17 FTE

allocations and adjusted for any reallocation actions during the year.



Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer

FY 2017-18 Proposed Circuit Allocations

Net Need1

FMC Recommendation Option 1:

Reallocation of .50 FTE Child Support

Enforcement Hearing Officer2

1 Net need is the difference between maximum total need and FY 2017-18 FTE allocation.

48 of 122

Agenda Item IV. Attachment B

A B C D E F

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support


General

Magistrate

Maximum


nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support

Maximum

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 3.5 3.0 4.4 4.0 4.0

2 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0

3 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

4 7.0 6.0 7.1 7.0 7.0

5 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.0 6.0

6 7.25 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.0

7 3

3.5 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.0

8 2.0 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.0

9 6.0 4.0 8.9 9.0 9.0

10 4.0 3.0 4.6 5.0 5.0

11 11.0 11.0 16.3 16.0 16.0

12 4.0 3.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

13 7.0 7.0 8.9 9.0 9.0

14 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

15 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.0 6.0

16 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0

17 9.0 8.5 10.8 11.0 11.0

18 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

19 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0

20 5.0 5.0 6.6 7.0 7.0

Total 93.25 82.5 114.3 113.0 113.0

2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.

3 Circuit 7 FY 2016-17 allocation has 0.5 FTE more Administrative Support FTE than General Magistrate FTE but is not

considered in excess of the 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrates due to their total need.



General Magistrates

Background Statistics

Total Need

1 Total need reflects the maximum General Magistrate FTE total need over a three year period. The total need is based on the

maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal year 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for non-capital murder, sexual offense,

felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract &

indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child

support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate,

guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first

step estimated General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General

Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case

related work.

FY 2016-17 Allocation

49 of 122

Agenda Item IV. Attachment B

A B C D E

Circuit

General

Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

General

Magistrate FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 0.5 1.0 3.5 3.0

2 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

3 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

4 0.0 1.0 7.0 6.0

5 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0

6 -0.25 0.0 7.25 7.0

7 1.5 1.0 3.5 4.0

8 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

9 3.0 5.0 6.0 4.0

10 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0

11 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0

12 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

13 2.0 2.0 7.0 7.0

14 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

15 -1.0 0.0 7.0 6.0

16 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 2.0 2.5 9.0 8.5

18 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0

19 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0

20 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0

Total 18.75 29.5 93.25 82.5

3 Circuit 16 does not have general magistrate FTEs.

2 FY 2017-18 FTE allocations, using current methodology, are based on beginning FY 2016-17 FTE

allocations.

1 Net Need is the difference between total need and FY 2017-18 FTE allocation.

FY 2017-18 Allocations

Approved by TCBC on June 27, 20172



General Magistrates

FY 2017-18 FTE Allocations

Net Need1

50 of 122

Agenda Item V.A. FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget Request (LBR) –

LBR Timeline

51 of 122

FY 2018-2019 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Timeline

Trial Courts

Monday, June 12 Preliminary LBR plan discussion; TCBC Funding Methodology

Committee meeting Telephone Conference

Tuesday, June 27 Approval of LBR plan for new issues; Trial Court Budget Commission

meeting Orlando, Florida

Friday, June 30 Notice of LBR plan, LBR timeline, and LBR instructions (if applicable)

distributed to Chief Judges and Trial Court Administrators

Wednesday, July 19 Approval of preliminary LBR recommendations; TCBC Funding

Methodology Committee meeting Telephone Conference

Saturday, July 22 Approval of final LBR recommendations; Trial Court Budget Commission

meeting Orlando, Florida

Tuesday, July 25 Notice of TCBC Final LBR decisions distributed to circuits

Friday, August 4 Budget issue appeals, if any, due to TCBC (10 days following Notice of

TCBC Final LBR decisions)

Wednesday, August 9 Joint meeting of leadership materials sent out via email

Tuesday, August 15 Joint meeting of leadership with the Chief Justice, District Court of Appeal

Budget Commission, Trial Court Budget Commission, JQC, Judicial

Conference Chairs, and OSCA to review the LBR recommendations 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. – Telephone Conference (Executive Conference Center has been

reserved for Tallahassee participants)

Wednesday, August 23 Final LBR recommendations distributed to the Supreme Court for Court

Conference

Wednesday, August 30 Approval of LBR recommendations by the Supreme Court

Thursday, September 14 Public Hearing Tallahassee, Florida

Friday, September 15 Submission of the Legislative Budget Request to the Legislature

Agenda Item V.A. LBR Timeline

52 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.1. FY 2018-19


Issues for Consideration – Employee Pay

Issue

53 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.1.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Employee

Pay Issue

Background

In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request (LBR), in order to retain highly skilled employees

and to experience more equity with other government salaries, the judicial branch requested

$18,828,193 in recurring salary appropriation. However, recognizing the considerable size of such a

request, the judicial branch proposed a two-year implementation period. In 2014 the Legislature

provided $8,132,614 for first-year implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in

making significant headway in addressing retention and salary equity between the branch and other

governmental entities for similar positions and duties.

As a top priority of its Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 LBRs, the judicial branch

requested second-year funding of $5,902,588 in recurring salary dollars branch wide, to finish

addressing a wide range of salary issues. In its Fiscal Year 2017-18 request, the branch sought

$6,388,909.

Following is a portion of the narrative submitted for the Fiscal Year 2017-18 LBR:

EQUITY, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION PAY ISSUE FOR STATE COURTS

SYSTEM:

1. The judicial branch requests second-year funding of $6,388,909 in recurring salary

dollars branch wide, effective July 1, 2017, to continue addressing a wide range of salary

issues affecting non-judge employees of the State Courts System.

In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request, in order to recruit and retain highly

skilled employees and to experience more equity with other government salaries, the

judicial branch requested $18,828,193 in recurring salary appropriation. However,

recognizing the considerable size of such a request, the branch proposed a two-year

implementation period. In 2014 the Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year

implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in making significant progress

in addressing recruitment, retention, and salary equity between the branch and other

governmental entities for similar positions and duties.

With the first-year funding, the court system was able to increase pay minimums of more

than 100 classes and create 10 new classes within its pay plan. Following implementation

of the first-year funding, the courts system has continued to review classes that were not

adjusted in the first phase for initial analysis of pay equity, retention, or recruitment issues

54 of 122

Employee Pay Issue (Agenda Item V.B.1.)

Page 2

and to review classes that were adjusted in order to identify ongoing equity, retention, or

recruitment issues.

The courts system also has monitored for salary compression among newer and longer-

term employees within the same class. Based on that continued review and analysis, the

courts system has determined that the second-year funding need is $6,388,909 in recurring

salary dollars.

The salary appropriation for the State Courts System continues to present challenges in

providing the necessary flexibility for the branch to respond to dynamic, shifting

employment market factors. One-half of the branch’s salary appropriation is a fixed cost

needed for judicial salary obligations and the courts have no flexibility to hold those

positions open or to alter the salary level to generate lapse dollars. Given these factors,

addressing salary problems as they arise continues to present a challenge.

Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding, the judicial branch must

continue its progress in reaching its Long Range Strategic Plan goal of attracting, hiring,

and retaining a qualified, ethical, and diverse workforce. Success in this regard depends on

the branch’s ability to attract, hire and retain highly qualified and competent employees.

As Florida’s economy continues to improve, the employment environment is sure to

become increasingly competitive. The State Courts System needs to be able to retain and

recruit top talent in all of its elements to ensure that justice is served in the most efficient

and effective manner to the people of Florida.

The Human Resources Office of the Office of the State Courts Administrator is currently reviewing the

staff pay issue to recommend any revisions to the budget request. An updated analysis has been

completed for the court interpreting classes. To address persistent recruitment and retention

challenges, that analysis proposes to increase the current minimum for certified court interpreters to

$60,000, with corresponding adjustments for assistant supervising and supervising court interpreters,

for a total cost of $2,472,979.1

Decision Needed

1. Recommend a Fiscal Year 2018-19 LBR for second-year funding for court staff salary equity,

recruitment, and retention issues. The specific amount would be based on the updated review and

would be reported to the TCBC prior to submission of the issue to the Supreme Court for the Court’s

consideration. The request would include the proposed increases in the minimum salaries for the court

interpreter classes.

2. Recommend not filing an LBR for court staff salary equity, recruitment, and retention issues.

Prepared by the OSCA Deputy State Courts Administrator’s Office, July 19, 2017.

1 The FY 2017-18 LBR request of $6.4 million for the court staff pay issue included approximately $1 million to increase the

minimum for certified interpreters to $50,000.

55 of 122



Issues for Consideration – Trial Court

Technology

56 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.2.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) –

Comprehensive Trial Court Technology

Background

In FY 2015-16, the Supreme Court submitted a supplemental legislative budget request (LBR) for

$25,606,097 in non-recurring general revenue and 65 FTE to fund the first year of a multi-year

comprehensive strategy for addressing the statewide technology needs of the trial courts. The issue was

also filed for FY 2016-17, with minor modifications to some components of the request, resulting in an

LBR of $25,299,973 and 65 FTE. For FY 2017-18, each element of the comprehensive request was

updated and support for the cross-jurisdictional support unit within the Office of the State Courts

Administrator (OSCA) was added, resulting in a request of $21,846,048. These requests have not been

funded.

Current

At their meeting on June 27, 2017, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed staff of the

OSCA to develop a proposal for a comprehensive trial court technology LBR for FY 2018-19. Using

last year’s LBR of $21,846,048 as a base, OSCA staff worked with the trial courts to update cost

estimates for the Court Application Processing Systems (CAPS), digital court reporting and remote court

interpreting equipment, and a minimum level of technology to support court functions and accomplish

the business capabilities of the Florida Trial Court Technology Strategic Plan 2015-2019. Revisions to

the request were necessitated by factors such as deployment of technology since the LBR was originally

developed (e.g., through end-of-year spending plans), changes in circuit readiness to deploy technology,

and new or changed circuit needs. In addition, circuits were given the discretion to request funds to

implement intra-circuit remote interpreting systems.

The comprehensive LBR will support trial court technology and will ensure that the trial courts have:

Hardware and Software to Receive and Manage Documents Electronically;

Functional Digital Court Reporting Staff to Support Court Technology;

Remote Interpreting Equipment and Sufficient Bandwidth;

A Minimum Level of Technology Services in Communities Across the State.

As in the previous years’ LBRs, this request would not be designed to supplant county funding of court

technology. It addresses funding gaps and provides a minimum level of technology services in each

county. Based on the comprehensive trial court technology strategic plan, the FY 2018-19 LBR groups

critical technology needs into three funding solutions:

Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS)

This solution includes the Court Application Processing System (CAPS), which provides judges and

court staff electronic case file information needed to perform their adjudicatory function. Judges and

court staff face challenges using multiple systems to access electronic case files in real-time in order to

address the specific case processing and resource management needs of the trial courts. Servers in use

57 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

are well past recommended usable lifespan. Foreclosure funding, which expired June 30, 2015,

purchased the initial hardware and software for CAPS in civil divisions, but ongoing maintenance and

refresh are needed to protect the initial investment. Further, not all judges and staff have CAPS.

Benefits of Proposed Solution

o Provides consistent access to and availability of data across counties and circuits.

o Provides complete, accurate, real-time information from multiple sources to judges, allowing for

improved efficiency in judicial decision-making and reducing file movement between the clerk

and court.

o Ensures judges have technology necessary to securely transmit court orders to the clerks of court.

o Builds upon current $9 million investment in CAPS, funded with resources from the National

Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement.

o Provides infrastructure needed to effectively manage court business processes and provides the

court system with monitoring tools that allow courts to tailor performance measures and improve

case management.

Digital Court Reporting

Court reporting updates include technological systems comprising audio/video hardware and software to

support service delivery of critical due process court functions. Courts utilize outdated hardware and

software to create the official court record, presenting the risk of system failure. Many circuits report

that equipment and parts are no longer available and that manufacturers have ended technical support for

these models. This mission-critical equipment is in use 365 days a year, sometimes for over 8 hours per

day.


o Provides continued ability to create the official court record.

o Improves access to court reporting services and allows for more timely access to transcripts and

official records.

Support for Minimum Level of Technology Services

Support for a minimum level of technology services includes core-function technology services, and

staff to support a minimum level of technology in all counties and judicial circuits. Technology services

vary across counties and circuits based on the county’s ability to provide funding for needed services;

multi-county circuits have difficulty sharing resources across county boundaries; and many technology

initiatives require dedicated staff support. Circuits must often pay costly outside vendors to support

audio equipment. Citizens in different counties may not have comparable access to minimum standard

core services.


o Ensures citizens receive access to a consistent level of minimum court technology services,

regardless of geography.

o Includes state-level technical expertise, upon request, to bridge knowledge gaps in counties of

critical need.

58 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

o Provides court with dedicated staff to maintain state-owned hardware and software, resulting in

cost savings.

o Allows court staff to maintain a skill set that keeps pace with evolving technology and ensures

technology investment is fully supported throughout full life cycle.

Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth

Remote court interpreting includes costs associated with the technological systems comprising

audio/video hardware and software to support delivery of spoken and sign language services via remote

connection. This funding would allow for expansion of the pilot project, begun in 2014 between six

circuits, to all circuits interested in participating in shared or intra-circuit remote interpreting. The

request includes support for the statewide call manager and funding for additional licenses to facilitate

multi-point connections for and expanded number of interpreting events. In addition, increased

bandwidth is needed to accommodate the demaind associated with virtual remote interpreting.


o Provides access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area, using

audio/video technology.

o Allows for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.

o Creates potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness testimony.

o Includes support for the statewide call manager and cloud-supported solution for additional

licenses.

o Provides additional bandwidth to accommodate increased demand related to virtual remote

interpreting events.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $26,008,762 (see Attachment A), including the

technology components related to remote court interpreting and bandwidth. Authorize OSCA staff to

make necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for

presentation to the Supreme Court.

Option 2: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $21,439,987 (see Attachment A), that does not

include the technology components related to remote court interpreting and bandwidth. These

components could be addressed as a separate comprehensive court interpreting LBR. Authorize OSCA

staff to make necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for

presentation to the Supreme Court.

Option 3: Consider an alternative option.

Option 4: Do not recommend as an LBR for FY 2018-19.


59 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.2. Attachment A

General

Revenue

Recurring

General

Revenue Non-

Recurring

Total

General

Revenue

Recurring

General

Revenue Non-

Recurring

Total

1 Applications Development and Licensing1

$250,000 $3,284,931 $3,534,931 $0 $0 $0

2 Support Services - Refresh and Maintenance2

$2,331,589 $0 $2,331,589 $0 $0 $0

3 Support Services - Statewide Cross-Jurisdictional CAPS (Includes 2.5 FTE)3

$497,791 $9,500 $507,291 $0 $0 $0

$3,079,380 $3,294,431 $6,373,811 $0 $0 $0

4 Expansion $0 $1,368,155 $1,368,155 $0 $0 $0

5 Support Services - Refresh and Maintenance $2,991,337 $299,261 $3,290,598 $0 $0 $0

6 Support Services - Statewide Cross-Jurisdictional DCR (Includes 2.5 FTE)4

$547,791 $9,500 $557,291 $0 $0 $0

$3,539,128 $1,676,916 $5,216,044 $0 $0 $0

7 Core Function Capabilities $3,821,790 $0 $3,821,790 $0 $0 $0

8 Information Resource Management Consultant (20 FTE, 1 per Circuit) $2,151,182 $47,980 $2,199,162 $0 $0 $0

9 Information Systems Analysts (45 FTE) $3,324,476 $107,955 $3,432,431 $0 $0 $0

10 Training and Education $396,750 $0 $396,750 $0 $0 $0

$9,694,198 $155,935 $9,850,133 $0 $0 $0

11 Remote Interpreting Implementation5

$0 $2,841,610 $2,841,610 $0 $2,951,549 $2,951,549

12 Support Services - Refresh/Maintenance for Remote Interpreting Equipment5

$84,428 $0 $84,428 $445,293 $0 $445,293

13 Support Services - Statewide Call Manager for Remote Interpreting6

$171,371 $0 $171,371 $93,619 $0 $93,619

14 Bandwidth $1,471,366 $0 $1,471,366 $0 $0 $0

$1,727,165 $2,841,610 $4,568,775 $538,912 $2,951,549 $3,490,461

$18,039,870 $7,968,892 $26,008,762 $538,912 $2,951,549 $3,490,461

Group II Subtotal

Technology Projects to Support Business Capabilities

FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Remote Interpreting and Bandwidth Subtotal

5 Non-recurring costs for remote interpreting implementation are based on an average cost of $14,153 per courtroom. Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) will occur over a three-

year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the equipment lagging 1 year behind purchase date. This will allow for continued implementation of interpreter endpoints with the goal of coverage in 1/3 of non-

civil courtrooms in large circuits; 1/2 of non-civil courtrooms in medium circuits; and 3/4 of non-civil courtrooms in small circuits. It is anticipated that for FY 2020-21, $2,646,611 in non-recurring funds would be

requested for the third year of expansion and $486,920 in recurring funds would be requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year. For FY 2021-22, $567,416 in recurring funds would be

requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year and $1,483,531 in recurring funds would be requested for refreshing equipment in the out years.

6 FY 2018-19 includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for a cloud-supported bridge to facilitate multi-point connectivity with 10 licenses. FY 2019-20 includes $93,619 to purchase an additional 17

licenses.

Solution II: Digital Court Reporting (DCR)

Solution III: Support for Minimum Level of Technology

Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth

1 Includes funding for proposed order submission enhancement.

2 Includes funding for hardware and server refresh and maintenance on existing hardware and software.

3 Includes $230,000 in recurring contractual funds and $277,291 for FTE costs.

4 Includes $190,000 in recurring contractual funds, $90,000 in non-recurring contractual funds, and $277,291 for FTE costs.

Group III Subtotal

TOTAL

Group I Subtotal




Trial Court Technology Comprehensive Plan

Solution I: Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS Viewers)

60 of 122



Issues for Consideration – Court

Interpreting

61 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.3.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request – Court

Interpreting

Background

Due to the high concentration of limited-English-proficient (LEP) population in our state, Florida

is one of the largest stakeholders in the nation with respect to spoken language access demands.

Thus, in order to afford Floridians the ability to fully participate in the court process, it is critical

the courts adopt strategies designed to remove linguistic barriers and increase both the

availability and effectiveness of qualified spoken language court interpreters.

Florida’s court system has focused most of its resources on providing court interpreting services

in cases in which constitutional rights are at stake and other proceedings involving fundamental

rights. Even in proceedings where not required by state or federal law, the judicial branch has

recognized the ultimate benefit of providing language services to any LEP participant in a court

proceeding. Providing such services helps ensure the court system operates efficiently, which is

a benefit for all stakeholders. This Fiscal Year 2018-19 request supports immediate and critical

needs for the availability of court interpreters both in person and remotely through the use of

technology. It also lays the foundation for a multi-year funding strategy to facilitate a long-term

goal of expanding court interpreting services to all case types and all court-managed activities.

Through its Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021, the State

Courts System (SCS) has established several goals intended to advance the mission and vision of

the judicial branch in coming years. Such goals include: 1) deliver justice effectively, efficiently,

and fairly; 2) enhance access to justice and court services by reducing communication and

language barriers to facilitate participation in court proceedings; and 3) modernize administration

of justice and operation of court facilities. The State Courts System has made significant strides

in the provision of court interpreting services consistent with the SCS’s long-range goals. The

SCS strives to provide consistent and equitable assistance to persons with disabilities and to LEP

individuals. To strengthen the state’s court interpreting program and better equip the courts to

provide effective interpreting services, persons who are appointed by the courts to provide these

services must comply with rules governing registration and designations, professional conduct,

and discipline.

As part of the SCS’s FY 2015-16 budget request, a request in the amount of $1,367,126

($1,233,292 in contractual funds; $133,834 in salary dollars) was filed for this issue. The

Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring contractual dollars, partially funding the FY

2015-16 request. Additionally, as part of the Comprehensive Trial Court Technology legislative

budget request in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, the SCS requested $3,031,560 and $2,412,750,

respectively, to expand remote interpreting systems. In FY 2017-18, the SCS requested

$6,288,545 as part of a comprehensive court interpreting resources issue. State funding was not

received for technology in any of the last three years for the other issues included in the

comprehensive court interpreting resources issue last year.

62 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

There are four components related to court interpreting for consideration this year: 1) additional

resources to address market-driven factors leading to increased contractual costs; 2) funding for

recruitment and retention of qualified court interpreting staff; 3) funding for implementation of

technology solutions through the use of digital remote interpreting to maximize current

resources; and 4) funding for Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit.

a) Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources

Since the passage of Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution, when the responsibility

of providing interpreting services shifted from the county to the state, the trial courts have

received limited additional funding for court interpreting services. In FY 2006-07, the courts

received 4.0 FTE and $1,049,387 in contractual funds; however, in FY 2008-09, the budget was

reduced by 2.0 FTE and $184,739. In FY 2013-14, the Legislature provided $100,000 in non-

recurring funds for the courts to conduct a remote interpreting pilot project to assess the viability

of virtual remote interpreting as a service delivery model.

On March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in SC13-304 amending the rules for

certification and regulation of court interpreters. In response to concerns expressed during the

FY 2014-15 allocation process regarding additional funding needed to comply with the

requirements of the opinion, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed OSCA staff

to examine options for requesting additional funding through a legislative budget request (LBR)

and to also consider additional workload needs. Based on circuit requests from the FY 2014-15

allocation process and extrapolating to a statewide need, the TCBC approved an LBR of

$1,367,126 ($1,233,292 contractual funds; $133,834 salary dollars) in recurring funds for FY

2015-16. The Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring contractual dollars, partially

funding this request for FY 2015-16. In FY 2016-17, the judicial branch filed an LBR for the

remaining unfunded portion of the initial request in the amount of $483,292, which was not

funded. Also, in FY 2017-18, the judicial branch filed a comprehensive court interpreting

resource issue for $6,288,545, of which $1,608,230 was identified for additional court reporting

resources. This issue was not funded.

The trial courts continue to experience the effect of market-driven factors leading to difficulties

in recruiting and retaining qualified court interpreters and increasing contractual costs. The

courts have experienced vacancies in court interpreting positions as a result of retirements and

resignations. These positions often remain vacant for long periods due to the inability to find

qualified applicants and compete with higher paying salaries for similar positions and skill sets.

Due to these staff shortages, many circuits have had to rely on contract interpreting services, in

which rates can be significantly higher than typical FTE costs. At their June 27, 2017, meeting,

the TCBC directed the FMC to provide recommendations for determining court interpreting

needs for consideration in the FY 2018-19 LBR. OSCA staff developed four options for

consideration.

LBR

Option 1 – Percent Increase in Population Growth $1,044,139

Option 2 – Percent Increase in Statewide Expenditures $1,058,969

Option 3 – Percent Increase in Circuit Expenditures $1,487,818

Option 4 – Percent Increase in Expenditures for Select Circuits $2,925,306

63 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Option 1 (see Attachment A) utilizes the current funding methodology in which FY 2018-19

need is projected using FY 2016-17 estimated costs and applying a 6.5% statewide growth rate to

each circuit. The estimated growth rate is based on the statistics of “People who speak English at

home less than very well” in Florida, which was taken from the 2000 and 2010 Census. The

growth rate is derived by first estimating the annual statewide population growth from 2000 to

2010, then multiplying by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide growth from 2016 to 2018.

Option 2 (see Attachment B) projects the FY 2018-19 need by applying the average statewide

growth rate in contractual expenditures over the last three years to estimated FY 2016-17

expenditures. The average growth rate is multiplied by 2 in order to obtain an estimated

statewide growth rate from 2016 to 2018.

Option 3 (see Attachment C) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent

change in expenditures for each circuit from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17. Circuits with a

negative percent change in expenditures were set at FY 2016-17 estimated expenditures.

Option 4 (see Attachment D) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent

change in expenditures for the circuits that have experienced the largest increase in expenditures

(5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits) from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17.

Please note, under all four options, the amount of funding requested is not yet specified as either

contractual or salary dollars. If the TCBC recommends filing an LBR for this issue, the specific

type of funding would be determined from circuit input prior to filing the LBR. It should also be

noted that the pending Internal Revenue Service desk audit of the state of Florida regarding

whether certain contractors should have been classified as employees could have implications for

the use of contract interpreters. It is possible that contract dollars may need to be converted

Other Personal Services (OPS) dollars.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR based on the current methodology for a total request of

$1,044,139 (see Attachment A) and direct OSCA staff to work with the circuits to determine the

specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 2: Recommend filing an LBR based on a statewide historical growth rate methodology

for a total request of $1,058,969 (see Attachment B) and direct OSCA staff to work with the

circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 3: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit historical growth rate methodology for a

total request of $1,487,818 (see Attachment C) and direct OSCA staff to work with the circuits

to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 4: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit-specific historical growth rate

methodology for a total request of $2,925,306 (see Attachment D) and direct OSCA staff to

work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 5: Do not file an LBR for funding to support additional court interpreting resources.

64 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida


b) Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit

The 11th Judicial Circuit has the highest language access demand in the state. Some of this

demand is met through staff interpreters; however, as a result of limited staff resources, the

circuit must also rely on contracted interpreters to provide interpreting services. Oftentimes,

contracted interpreters are assigned to provide services in Title IV-D proceedings. In FY 2015-

16, the circuit held 6,665 hearings for Title IV-D Child Support enforcement, modification, and

establishment proceedings. At their June 27, 2017 meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission

directed OSCA staff to present this issue to the Funding Methodology Committee and back to

the Commission for consideration as a possible LBR for FY 2018-19. Based on the reported

contractual rates from the full service firm in the Miami-Dade area, an additional $75,000 would

provide funding for 18.75 hours per week of interpreting services, which would provide the

minimum level of coverage for Title IV-D cases. For FY 2015-16, the total budget for court

interpreting resources in the 11th circuit was $3,149,959. This request represents 2.4% of the

total current budget.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $75,000 for court interpreting resources in

Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit. If approved by the Court for inclusion in the 2018

judicial branch legislative agenda, a companion request would ideally be filed by the Florida

Department of Revenue in order to obtain both funding and budget authority.

Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.


c) Court Interpreting Base Salary Increase

In its FY 2014-15 legislative budget request, in order to retain highly skilled employees and to

foster equity with other government salaries, the SCS requested $18,828,193 in recurring salary

appropriation. Recognizing the considerable size of such a request, the SCS proposed a two-year

implementation period. The 2014 Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year

implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in making significant progress in

addressing retention and salary equity between the branch and other governmental entities for

similar positions and duties. As noted previously, the court interpreting class still experiences

ongoing equity, retention, and recruitment issues not sufficiently addressed with the funding

received in 2014. Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding, without

additional funding for FY 2017-18, the trial courts’ ability to obtain highly skilled spoken

language court interpreters, to maximize the use of current resources through technology, and to

promote efficient operations will continue to be limited.

As referenced above, an LBR was filed in FY 2017-18 to comprehensively address issues related

to providing court interpreting services throughout the state. A portion, $1,052,624, of this

request was associated with providing an increase to the base salary and an adjustment for salary

65 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

compression. This year, staff of OSCA’s Human Resources office reviewed the issue and

updated the figure to $2,472,979 for FY 2018-19, increasing the base salary for certified court

interpreters from $43,331 to $60,000, with corresponding adjustments to supervising interpreters.

This LBR does not include an adjustment for salary compression, as no current employees are

above the proposed new minimums.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR for $2,472,979 to address base salary issues in the court

interpreter classes.

Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.

Note: It is anticipated that the interpreter classes will be addressed in the statewide pay plan

LBR. This decision would be to recommend filing a request for a base salary increase as a

separate issue, in the event that the statewide pay plan is not included in the FY 2018-19 judicial

branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded.


d) Funding for the Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting

In addition to seeking funds for certified court interpreters, the trial courts continue to seek ways

to maximize resources through the use of available technology. While areas that are population

centers are home to more interpreters, rural areas of the state lack the same resources. In order to

provide higher quality services in areas where resources are scarce, the trial courts requested

additional funding as part of the FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 budget requests.

This funding was intended to expand the use of remote interpreting technology currently being

implemented as a pilot project in a few circuits to test the viability of the system. Remote

technology would allow access to qualified interpreters over a broader geographical area, which

allows for the pooling of limited resources for certified interpreters and provides a more

consistent level of interpreting services across the state at a lower per-event cost. These requests

have not been funded.

Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) would occur

over a three-year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the equipment lagging

one year behind the purchase date. The implementation plan contemplates full life cycle funding

and recurring maintenance costs to support future fiscal years, with expansion to more circuits in

the second year of funding and ultimately expanding to the full state in the third year. It is

anticipated that requests would be made for FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 for the remaining

expansion and maintenance/refresh of equipment purchased in previous years.

These requests will continually support, maintain, and refresh the remote interpreting equipment

necessary to ensure trial courts statewide are able to meet the needs of judges, court staff, and the

public they serve in future years. Among other benefits, the requests:

66 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Provide access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area, using

audio/video technology, which allows pooling of limited resources for certified

interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across the state.

Allow circuits to maximize existing resources across a single county with multiple

courthouses, using localized remote interpreting.

Allow for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.

Create potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness

testimony.

Technology Components Associated with Remote Interpreting

Remote Interpreting Implementation $2,841,610

Support Services – Remote Interpreting Refresh and Maintenance $84,428

Support Services – Statewide Call Manager1 $171,371

Support Services – Bandwidth $1,471,366

Total for All Components $4,568,775 1 Includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for cloud-supported connectivity for up

to 17 concurrent events.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated

with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting. Authorize OSCA staff to make necessary

revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for presentation to

the Supreme Court.

Option 2: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated

with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting as a component of the Comprehensive Trial

Court Technology issue. (see Agenda Item V.B.2.)

Option 3: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue in FY 2018-19.


67 of 122


A B C D E F G

Circuit FTE

Salaries,

Benefits, &

Expenses

Beginning

Contractual

Allotment

Total

Budget

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Contractual

Expenditures2

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Total Need

Based on 6.5%

Growth Rate3

1 0 $0 $47,630 $47,630 $51,630 $54,986

2 0 $0 $30,094 $30,094 $26,549 $28,275

3 0 $0 $34,190 $34,190 $28,282 $30,120

4 0 $0 $276,793 $276,793 $278,909 $297,038

5 5 $319,582 $145,386 $464,968 $190,266 $542,988

6 2 $138,155 $268,624 $406,779 $256,869 $420,700

7 3 $190,830 $72,686 $263,516 $65,887 $273,403

8 1 $67,554 $41,079 $108,633 $40,275 $114,838

9 10 $600,784 $187,108 $787,892 $216,222 $870,112

10 6 $413,499 $74,332 $487,831 $70,328 $515,276

11 52 $3,282,412 $561,370 $3,843,782 $557,147 $4,274,930

12 2 $122,916 $312,997 $435,913 $274,439 $423,183

13 10 $618,910 $152,332 $771,242 $151,250 $820,221

14 0 $0 $39,498 $39,498 $44,133 $47,002

15 13 $823,429 $172,141 $995,570 $206,947 $1,097,351

16 2 $133,467 $18,445 $151,912 $18,238 $161,565

17 16 $970,515 $150,919 $1,121,434 $152,740 $1,196,266

18 1 $60,793 $44,456 $105,249 $51,362 $119,446

19 2 $135,356 $472,670 $608,026 $494,025 $670,290

20 7 $437,355 $430,190 $867,545 $440,245 $934,644

Total 131.5 $8,315,555 $3,532,940 $11,848,495 $3,615,743 $12,892,634

Option 1: FY 2018-19 LBR4

$1,044,139

1 FY 2017-18 Allocation includes CC 131 (Court Interpreting), CC 267 (Cost Recovery), and CC 730 (Cost Sharing).

3 FY 2018-19 Estimated Total Need applies an estimated 6.5% statewide growth rate to the sum of each circuit's FY 2017-18

Allocation - Salaries, Benefits, and Expenses and FY 2016-17 Estimated Contractual Expenditures. The estimated growth rate

is based on the statistic "People who speak English at home less than very well" in Florida provided in the 2000 and 2010

Census. The growth rate was derived by first estimating the annual statewide growth from 2000 to 2010 and then multiplying

by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide growth from 2016 to 2018.

4 Option 1 FY 2018-19 LBR is the difference between FY 2018-19 Estimated Total Need and FY 2017-18 Total Budget.



Court Interpreting

FY 2017-18 Allocation1

(CC 131, CC 267, and CC 730)

FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request - Option 1

2 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual

expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

68 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment B

A B C D E

Circuit

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Expenditures2

1 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $61,683

2 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $31,718

3 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $33,789

4 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $333,216

5 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $227,313

6 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $306,884

7 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $78,716

8 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $48,117

9 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $258,323

10 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $84,022

11 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $937,771

12 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $327,875

13 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $180,700

14 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $52,726

15 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $247,242

16 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $21,789

17 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $182,480

18 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $61,363

19 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $590,217

20 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $525,966

Total $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $4,591,909

16.7% 1.9%

$1,058,969Option 2: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on the average statewide percent change in

expenditures from 2014-15 to estimated 2016-17.



Court Interpreting


Percent Change

Average Increase 9.3%

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is

based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June

through Certified Forward.

69 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment C

A B C D E F

Circuit

FY 2013-14

Expenditures

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Expenditures2

1 $33,691 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $69,957

2 $36,770 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $26,549

3 $44,832 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $28,282

4 $252,370 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $298,462

5 $102,346 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $299,231

6 $187,843 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $319,796

7 $73,713 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $65,887

8 $33,878 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $45,345

9 $98,531 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $388,401

10 $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $73,877

11 $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $1,092,731

12 $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $274,439

13 $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $166,327

14 $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $53,680

15 $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $412,610

16 $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $19,261

17 $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $180,907

18 $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $85,686

19 $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $580,408

20 $329,474 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $538,920

Total $2,602,050 $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $5,020,758

$1,487,818Option 3: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on each Circuit's average percent change in expenditures from 2013-14 to

estimated 2016-17. Circuits with a negative percent changes in expenditures were set at FY 2016-17 estimated expenditures.



Court Interpreting


1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual

expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

FMC Recommendation

70 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment D

A B C D E F

Circuit

FY 2013-14

Expenditures

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

Estimated

FY 2018-19

Expenditures2

1 $33,691 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $94,535

2 $36,770 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $48,611

3 $44,832 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $51,784

4 $252,370 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $510,682

5 $102,346 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $348,377

6 $187,843 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $470,327

7 $73,713 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $120,639

8 $33,878 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $73,744

9 $98,531 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $395,902

10 $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $128,771

11 $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $857,957

12 $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $502,498

13 $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $276,939

14 $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $80,808

15 $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $378,920

16 $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $33,394

17 $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $279,667

18 $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $94,044

19 $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $904,560

20 $329,474 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $806,089

Total $2,602,050 $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $6,458,246

16.8% 16.7% 1.9%

$2,925,306Option 4: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on the average percent change in expenditures from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17 for the

5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits, where increases in interpreting demand has been greatest.



Court Interpreting


Percent Change

Average Increase 5th, 9th, 11th and 15th 83.1%

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure

data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

71 of 122



Issues for Consideration – Case

Management

72 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.4.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request – Case Management

Background

Case managers provide early and continuous intervention through the life of a case that leads to timely

disposition. Specifically, case managers perform intake, screening, evaluation, monitoring, tracking,

coordinating, scheduling, and referral activities. In FY 2015-16, a legislative budget request (LBR) was

filed for 92 FTE case managers, which was partially funded during the 2015 Special Session when the

Legislature appropriated $2.0 million to the trial courts for this issue, resulting in 38 new FTE.

Additionally, as part of the State Courts System’s FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 LBRs, 52.5 FTE and

50.0 FTE case managers, respectively, were requested but not funded. Based on feedback from circuits,

there still exists a need for additional case managers in order to provide an adequate level of services

throughout the state.

In December 2015, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA)

released a report that discusses staffing formulas used for case managers and staff attorneys and

recommends refining the approach to staffing need projections in these areas. The report stated the

current methodology of requesting 1 case manager for every 5,500 filings “was not a meaningful

number for evaluating the need for case managers.” Further, the report noted, “case managers were

usually assigned to divisions, such as a family court, where they help litigants unrepresented by

attorneys, or to specialty courts where they monitor the participants’ compliance with obligations like

drug testing and family counseling between court appearances. The need for case managers appears to

be more dependent upon how they are used in each circuit.”

As a remedy, the report stated “in some circuits, adding additional case managers may be useful for

improving the efficient disposition of cases, and could lead to more timely case closure. In circuits with

drug treatment courts, veterans’ courts, and mental health courts, case managers may have more of an

effect on participant outcomes than on case timeliness, as they guide participants through treatment steps

and frequent court appearances.” Last year, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) considered

multiple options for determining the need for case managers in the trial courts, including a new option

using a revised case manager staffing formula based on division of court workload. Ultimately, the

TCBC selected the more refined approach of considering the specific types of cases and types of courts

where the case managers could be used in a divisional case management analysis.

Current Issue

At the June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed staff to examine the need and cost for additional case

managers in the trial courts as part of the FY 2018-19 LBR. OSCA staff have prepared three options for

consideration.

FTE LBR

Option 1 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio (3 Year Maximum) 39.0 $2,612,746

Option 2 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio (3 Year Average) 15.0 $1,007,585

Option 3 – Proposed Ratio by Court Division 50.0 $3,344,085

73 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Option 1 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio Using Three-Year Maximum Filings

The official needs assessment funding methodology for the case management element is based on a ratio

of 1.0 FTE case manager for every 5,500 projected filings, with a floor of 8.0 FTE. Option 1 applies the

same formula but uses maximum filings from FY 2013-14 through FY 2015-16, with the exception of

civil traffic infraction filings and excluding any negative net need. This option uses existing FTE in the

Case Management (CC 122) and Drug Court (CC 217) cost centers, based on FY 2017-18 allocations

(see Attachment B). Based on this methodology, an additional 39.0 FTE are needed. The positions

would be funded at the Court Program Specialist II level, totaling $2,612,746. (See Attachment A.)

Option 2 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio Using Three-Year Average Filings

Option 2 applies the same formula as in the official needs assessment funding methodology but uses an

average of filings from FY 2013-14 through FY 2015-16, with the exception of civil traffic infraction

filings and excluding any negative net need. This option uses existing FTE in the Case Management

(CC 122) and Drug Court (CC 217) cost centers, based on FY 2017-18 allocations (see Attachment B).

Based on this methodology, an additional 15.0 FTE are needed. The positions would be funded at the

Court Program Specialist II level, totaling $1,007,585. (See Attachment A.)

Option 3 – FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Court Division

Option 3 applies a ratio of case management FTE per judge by division of court in order to provide more

directed support in the divisions where case managers may be needed. This option uses the number of

judges by division, which were self-reported on the Judicial Needs Application by judicial FTE as of

July 1, 2016. Due to the short timeframe to develop the legislative budget requests for the 2018

legislative session, the number of existing case management FTE by division is based on information

reported by the circuits as of July 2016 (see Attachment C), with a few minor adjustments based on

additional funding of problem-solving courts for specific counties. Based on this methodology, an

additional 50.0 FTE are needed. The positions would be funded at the Court Program Specialist II level,

for a total cost of $3,344,085. (See Attachment D.)

Please note, if additional resources are appropriated, circuit allocations will be determined during the FY

2018-19 allocation process. Allocations may be determined using a methodology different than that

used in developing the LBR. Divisional assignment of resources is at the discretion of the chief judge in

each circuit.

Decision Needed

Option 1: File an LBR for $2,612,746 for an additional 39.0 FTE case managers.



Option 4: Do not file an LBR for additional case managers.


74 of 122


A B C D E F G H

Three-Year

Maximum

Filings3

Total Need

(Rounded to whole

FTE)

Net Need

FTE5

Three-Year

Average

Filings4

Total Need

(Rounded to whole

FTE)

Net Need

FTE5

1 13.0 70,315 13.0 0.0 66,635 12.0 0.0

2 6.0 38,999 8.0 2.0 36,175 8.0 2.0

3 7.0 19,156 8.0 1.0 17,323 8.0 1.0

4 21.0 119,113 22.0 1.0 111,257 20.0 0.0

5 13.0 84,484 15.0 2.0 76,041 14.0 1.0

6 23.0 141,146 26.0 3.0 132,815 24.0 1.0

7 17.5 90,926 17.0 0.0 85,105 15.0 0.0

8 7.0 37,632 8.0 1.0 34,498 8.0 1.0

9 21.0 157,365 29.0 8.0 145,580 26.0 5.0

10 12.5 75,798 14.0 1.5 70,352 13.0 0.5

11 50.0 287,018 52.0 2.0 263,550 48.0 0.0

12 11.0 67,461 12.0 1.0 61,963 11.0 0.0

13 23.0 157,739 29.0 6.0 143,104 26.0 3.0

14 8.0 35,515 8.0 0.0 33,458 8.0 0.0

15 21.0 134,811 25.0 4.0 117,967 21.0 0.0

16 8.0 10,551 8.0 0.0 9,117 8.0 0.0

17 34.0 204,773 37.0 3.0 185,480 34.0 0.0

18 14.5 86,839 16.0 1.5 80,475 15.0 0.5

19 9.0 54,947 10.0 1.0 51,437 9.0 0.0

20 18.0 106,700 19.0 1.0 97,871 18.0 0.0

Total 337.5 1,981,288 376.0 39.0 1,820,203 346.0 15.0

4 Three-year average filings based on fiscal years 2013-14 through 2015-16 and does not include civil traffic infraction filings.

5 Net need does not include circuits with a negative need.

1 Includes case management FTE in cost centers 122 (Case Management) and 217 (Drug Court).

2 Based on current funding methodology of a 1:5,500 filings ratio and a floor of 8.0 FTE.

3 Three-year maximum filings based on fiscal years 2013-14 through 2015-16 and does not include civil traffic infraction filings.


July 22, 2017 MeetingFY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Case Management

Option 2: Average Filings

Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio2

FY 2017-18

FTE1

Circuit

Option 1: Maximum Filings

Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio2

75 of 122


Drug Court - CC217Post-Adjudicatory

Drug Court - CC 753Juvenile Drug Court

FTE

OPS

030000

Contracted

Services

100777 FTE FTE

Recurring

Veterans

Court

103770

Nonrecurring

Veterans

Court

103770

Contracted Services

(Non-Recurring)

1 12.0 1.0 1.0 $300,000

2 6.0 $125,000 $50,000

3 6.0 1.0

4 20.0 $924 1.0 $350,000 $150,000

5 12.0 $27,819 1.0 1.0 $250,000

6 23.0 $14,600 2.0 $300,000

7 15.5 2.0 1.0

8 7.0 $150,000

9 19.0 2.0 2.0 $200,000

10 12.5 2.0

11 48.0 2.0 $150,500

12 9.0 2.0

13 22.0 $86,400 1.0 3.0

14 7.0 1.0

15 20.0 1.0

16 6.0 2.0

17 33.0 $2,400 1.0 2.0

18 12.5 2.0 1.0 $116,149 $175,000

19 7.0 2.0

20 18.0 $86,000

Total 315.5 $42,419 $89,724 22.0 15.0 $1,425,000 $802,649 $175,000

Note: Not all funding received for problem solving courts is used for case management positions.

Veterans Court - CC 377

Trial Court Budget Allocations

FY 2017-18

Circuit

Case Management - CC 122


July 22, 2017, Meeting

76 of 122


A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Q

Pro Se DV/ DR UFC

Other/

Unsp.

Total

Family

1 5.50 3.50 2.00 11.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 18.00

2 3.50 3.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 7.00

3 2.00 3.25 1.00 0.25 4.50 0.50 7.00

4 1.00 3.00 14.00 17.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 23.00

5 1.00 3.50 7.50 1.00 8.50 0.75 0.25 2.00 16.00

6 4.00 5.00 12.00 17.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 32.00

7 2.00 1.50 9.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 18.50

8 2.00 5.00 5.00 0.30 7.30

9 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 25.00

10 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.50 4.00 1.00 9.50 1.00 2.00 14.50

11 7.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 13.00 22.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 51.00

12 3.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 11.00

13 9.00 2.00 11.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 26.00

14 1.75 0.75 4.25 4.25 0.25 1.00 8.00

15 1.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 21.00

16 1.50 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.50 2.00 8.00

17 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 8.00 17.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 36.00

18 1.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 3.00 1.00 16.50

19 0.75 0.50 4.00 4.50 1.75 1.00 2.00 10.00

20 5.00 13.00 13.00 1.00 19.00

Total: 18.75 38.00 1.00 1.00 25.25 38.50 19.50 107.50 190.75 31.75 23.00 15.25 39.00 16.30 374.80

Percent: 5.0% 10.1% 0.3% 0.3% 6.7% 10.3% 5.2% 28.7% 50.9% 8.5% 6.1% 4.1% 10.4% 4.3% 100.0%

1 As reported by circuits in July 2016, with adjustments for 2017 new appropriations. Includes FTE in all court divisions as well as OPS and contractual case management services.

2 Includes Post-Adjudicatory Drug Court.

FY 2017-18 Case Management Resources by Court Division1

Note: Case management resources include FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs.


July 22, 2017 MeetingFY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Circuit Total

Family Court

Circuit

Criminal

Circuit

Civil

County

Criminal

County

Civil Juvenile

Probate

/ Guar.

Other /

General

Drug

Court2

Veterans

Court

77 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.4. Attachment D

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

FMC

Rec.

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources2

Total

Need

Net

Need

FTE

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources3

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources4

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources5

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources6

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE

1 9.7 6.0 3.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.3 1.0 4.8 11.0 3.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.0

2 5.9 1.5 2.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.4 1.0 3.2 3.5 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0

3 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

4 10.7 3.0 3.6 1.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 7.9 17.0 3.7 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.0

5 9.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 3.5 2.7 0.0 8.6 8.5 3.4 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.0

6 13.0 8.0 4.3 0.0 11.5 4.0 3.8 0.0 13.5 17.0 3.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 3.0

7 8.5 5.0 2.8 0.0 6.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0

8 4.0 2.3 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.9 1.0 3.8 5.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0

9 16.0 7.0 5.3 0.0 10.0 1.0 3.3 2.0 8.5 14.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 4.0

10 9.2 3.0 3.1 0.0 6.8 1.0 2.3 1.0 6.5 9.5 3.7 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 3.0

11 25.1 10.0 8.4 0.0 24.1 4.0 8.0 4.0 13.4 22.0 9.8 6.0 4.9 0.0 3.8 6.0 1.3 0.0 4.0

12 6.7 2.0 2.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.7 2.0 5.3 6.0 2.1 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 2.0 0.4 0.0 3.0

13 12.3 4.0 4.1 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.5 4.0 8.9 11.0 7.7 7.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 4.0

14 3.1 2.8 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.9 0.0 2.1 4.3 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0

15 8.5 1.0 2.8 2.0 11.7 3.0 3.9 1.0 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.0 2.6 0.0 3.1 3.0 1.0 0.0 3.0

16 1.1 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.0 1.2 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 19.0 5.0 6.3 1.0 15.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 10.0 17.0 10.0 8.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

18 9.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 5.8 5.0 1.9 0.0 6.7 3.0 3.6 1.0 1.8 1.0 0.8 2.5 0.3 0.0 1.0

19 6.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.8 1.7 1.0 4.4 4.5 2.3 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.8 0.4 0.0 2.0

20 8.8 1.0 2.9 2.0 8.1 5.0 2.7 0.0 8.0 13.0 3.5 0.0 1.8 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.0 5.0

Total 188.1 74.1 62.7 6.0 156.2 38.0 52.1 22.0 129.8 190.8 78.2 31.8 39.1 19.0 31.2 23.0 10.4 3.0 50.0

Percent 31% 20% 26% 10% 22% 51% 13% 8% 5% 6%

3 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Civil division including Foreclosure case managers.

4 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Family division including Domestic Violence, Domestic Relations, Unified Family Court, Pro Se litigant support, and Other or Unspecified Family case managers.

5 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Juvenile, Dependency, Delinquency, and Juvenile Specialty or Drug courts.

6 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in for Probate, Guardianship, Baker Act and Substance Abuse Act cases.

Probate/Guardianship 1:3 Ratio Grand

Total

Net

Need

Note: Case management resources are calculated by adding FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs, for purposes of applying the methodology.1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, 2016. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

2 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Circuit Criminal, Drug Court (CC 217 and CC 753), and Veterans Court (CC 377).

Family Court

Circuit

Circuit Criminal 1:3 Ratio Circuit Civil 1:3 Ratio Domestic Relations Juvenile 1:2 Ratio

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE




Case Management

Option 3: FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division

78 of 122



Issues for Consideration – Staff

Attorneys

79 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.5.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request – Trial Court

Staff Attorneys

Background

Historically, the State Courts System (SCS) has requested additional trial court staff attorney

resources using a methodology based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two existing

judges (staff attorneys for new judges are considered during the certification process1).

However, starting in FY 2014-15, the TCBC began a more targeted approach in developing their

staff attorney legislative budget requests (LBR) – anticipated increases in workload associated

with the often complex and legally significant matters related to a sentence of death.

Additionally, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability

(OPPAGA), in their December 2015 report, suggested “the circuit courts may have a need for

additional staff attorneys, but the magnitude of that need is not clearly defined with data. The

numbers of death penalty cases, complex civil cases, and post-conviction motions are more

relevant measures of need than the ratio of attorneys to judges. A ratio of one staff attorney for

two judges may not be sufficient for criminal court judges but for other divisions, a lower ratio

may be sufficient.”

In response to the OPPAGA report, the TCBC directed staff of the Office of the State Courts

Administrator (OSCA) to develop alternative LBR funding formulas for staff attorneys for

consideration. For the 2017-18 LBR cycle, the OSCA developed a new methodology based on

divisional workload.

Current Issue

At their June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed the Funding Methodology Committee

(FMC) to provide recommendations for determining staff attorney needs for consideration in the

FY 2018-19 LBR. OSCA staff developed three options for consideration. The first option uses

the historical methodology, with the need based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two

judges. The second option is based on 10 years of cumulative capital murder conviction data, the

official judicial Delphi case weight for Capital Murder cases, and a ratio of staff attorney

workload associated with these cases to the FTE equivalent of judicial workload. This option

uses the judicial case weights approved in the 2015 Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final

Report, developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The third option assumes

workload is driven by the type of divisions and number of judges assigned to each division. It

sets a statewide reasonable support ratio based on the level of research support needed in the

division.

1 The methodology for calculating staff attorney need associated with the certification of new judges is based on a

ratio of three judges (existing and new) to every one staff attorney for those circuits certified to receive additional

judges. The need is then compared to the current number of staff attorneys to develop the total request for new staff

attorneys.

80 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

FTE LBR

Option 1 – Ratio of 1 Staff Attorney for every 2 Judges 102 $8,079,964

Option 2 – Targeted for Death Penalty Workload 43 $3,432,413

Option 3 – Targeted Ratio by Court Division 37 $2,930,967

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR based on the current methodology using a ratio of 1 staff

attorney for every 2 existing judges for a request of 102 FTE staff attorney positions totaling

$8,079,964. (See Attachment A)

Option 2: Recommend filing an LBR based on a targeted approach for death penalty staff

attorneys for a request of 43 FTE staff attorney positions totaling $3,432,413. (See Attachment

B)

Option 3: Recommend filing an LBR based on proposed ratios of staff attorney support per

judge by division of court for a request of 37 FTE staff attorney positions totaling $2,930,967.

(See Attachment C)

Option 4: Do not file an LBR for Staff Attorney FTE.


81 of 122


A B C D E

Circuit

Number of

Circuit

Court Judges

FY 2017-18

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

FTE Allocation1

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

Net Need3

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 24 9 12 3

2 4

16 8 9 1

3 7 3 4 1

4 35 13.5 18 5

5 31 10 16 6

6 45 16 23 7

7 27 8.5 14 6

8 13 6 7 1

9 43 14 22 8

10 28 10 14 4

11 80 25 40 15

12 4

21 7 12 5

13 45 17 23 6

14 11 6 6 0

15 35 11.5 18 7

16 4 1 2 1

17 58 18 29 11

18 26 9 13 4

19 19 5 10 5

20 31 10 16 6

Total 599 207.5 308 102

Note: Resources associated with new judges are addressed in the certification process.

2 Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need is based on the current funding methodology ratio of 1 Staff

Attorney to every 2 circuit court judges, rounded to the nearest whole FTE.3

Trial Court Staff Attorney Net Need is the difference between Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need

and FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation.4

The 2nd Circuit includes 1.0 FTE prison petition Staff Attorney in their FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff

Attorney FTE Allocation and Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need. The 12th Circuit includes 1.0

FTE Jimmy Ryce Staff Attorney in their FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation and

Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need.



Trial Court Staff Attorneys

Option 1: Ratio of 1 Staff Attorney for Every 2 Judges

1 FY 2016-17 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation includes positions in CC 258 and CC 257.

(post conviction).


82 of 122


A B C D E F

3,273

Circuit

10 Year

Cumulative

Capital

Murder

Convictions 1

Weighted Judicial

Workload (in Minutes)

Associated with Capital

Murder Convictions

Based on 10 Years of

Cumulative Convictions

Available Minutes

Per Judge

Estimated

Number of

Capital Murder

Judges

(Unrounded)

FTE Need

based on 1:2

Ratio

(Rounded to

the Nearest

0.5 FTE)

1 109 356,757 77,400 4.6 2.5

2 62 202,926 77,400 2.6 1.5

3 29 94,917 77,400 1.2 1.0

4 178 582,594 77,400 7.5 4.0

5 69 225,837 77,400 2.9 1.5

6 170 556,410 77,400 7.2 3.5

7 81 265,113 77,400 3.4 2.0

8 25 81,825 77,400 1.1 0.5

9 214 700,422 77,400 9.0 4.5

10 76 248,748 77,400 3.2 1.5

11 156 510,588 77,400 6.6 3.5

12 64 209,472 77,400 2.7 1.5

13 106 346,938 77,400 4.5 2.0

14 30 98,190 77,400 1.3 0.5

15 180 589,140 77,400 7.6 4.0

16 4 13,092 77,400 0.2 0.0

17 170 556,410 77,400 7.2 3.5

18 138 451,674 77,400 5.8 3.0

19 65 212,745 77,400 2.7 1.5

20 40 130,920 77,400 1.7 1.0

Total 1,966 6,434,718 83.1 43.0

1 The 10 Year Cumulative Capital Murder Convictions include Summary Reporting System data from FY 2006-07 through FY 2015-

16. The Summary Reporting System statistics provided above were extracted from a dynamic data base and may be amended by the

Clerk of Court.





Option 2: Death Penalty Staff Attorneys (Based on 10 Years of Cumulative Convictions)

Capital Murder Delphi Case Weight (in Minutes) FMC

Recommendation

83 of 122


A B C D E F G H I J K L

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

1 9.7 4.9 3.8 1.5 8.6 2.9 1.6 0.6 9.9 9.0 1.0

2 5.9 3.0 4.2 1.7 4.8 1.6 0.7 0.3 6.5 8.0 0.0

3 2.5 1.3 1.8 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 2.8 3.0 0.0

4 10.7 5.4 9.0 3.6 11.6 3.9 1.4 0.6 13.4 13.5 0.0

5 9.0 4.5 8.0 3.2 12.0 4.0 2.0 0.8 12.5 10.0 3.0

6 13.0 6.5 11.5 4.6 17.3 5.8 2.5 1.0 17.9 15.0 3.0

7 8.5 4.3 6.0 2.4 10.0 3.3 2.4 1.0 10.9 8.5 2.0

8 4.0 2.0 2.7 1.1 5.0 1.7 0.8 0.3 5.1 6.0 0.0

9 16.0 8.0 10.0 4.0 14.5 4.8 1.5 0.6 17.4 14.0 3.0

10 9.2 4.6 6.8 2.7 10.2 3.4 1.3 0.5 11.2 10.0 1.0

11 25.1 12.6 24.1 9.6 23.2 7.7 3.8 1.5 31.4 25.0 6.0

12 6.7 3.4 5.2 2.1 7.4 2.5 1.2 0.5 8.4 7.0 1.0

13 12.3 6.2 13.4 5.4 16.6 5.5 1.0 0.4 17.4 16.0 1.0

14 3.1 1.6 2.8 1.1 4.1 1.4 0.5 0.2 4.2 6.0 0.0

15 8.5 4.3 11.7 4.7 10.7 3.6 3.1 1.2 13.7 11.5 2.0

16 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.0 1.0

17 19.0 9.5 15.0 6.0 20.0 6.7 3.0 1.2 23.4 17.0 6.0

18 9.0 4.5 5.8 2.3 10.3 3.4 0.8 0.3 10.6 9.0 2.0

19 6.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 6.6 2.2 1.1 0.4 7.6 5.0 3.0

20 8.8 4.4 8.1 3.2 11.5 3.8 2.1 0.8 12.3 10.0 2.0

Total 188.1 94.1 156.2 62.5 208.0 69.4 31.2 12.5 238.4 204.5 37.0

Percent 31.4% 26.1% 34.7% 5.2%

Circuit Criminal

2:1 Ratio

Circuit Civil

2.5:1 Ratio

Family

3:1 Ratio

2 Rounded to the 1.0 FTE level and does include negative net need values.

FY 2017-18

Trial Court

Staff

Attorney

Allocation

1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, 2016. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

Probate/Guardianship

2.5:1 Ratio Total Trial

Court Staff

Attorney

FTE Need

Trial Court

Staff

Attorney

FTE Net

Need2

Circuit


Option 3: FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division




84 of 122



Issues for Consideration – General

Magistrates

85 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.6.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) –

General Magistrates

Background

The State Courts System has relied on funding formulas to define what is reasonable and

necessary to fund the elements of the court system in order to ensure adequate and equitable

funding for all circuits. The funding methodology approved for the General Magistrates element

is based on a case weighted methodology for general magistrates and a ratio of one

administrative support position per magistrate. If the funding methodology indicated a need for

0.5 FTE, the number was rounded up. Current FTE numbers were subtracted from the whole

numbers identified by the funding methodology to obtain additional FTE need. This

methodology does not expand on the use of these resources within the judicial system to

divisions where general magistrates are not used statewide.

In November 2014, the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) entered into a contract

with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to evaluate judicial workload in

Florida. Funding for the workload study was provided by the TCBC. In June 2015, the Supreme

Court decided to include quasi-judicial officers such as senior judges, general magistrates, child

support enforcement hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers as part of the

workload study. In June 2016, the Supreme Court approved the updated case weights from the

NCSC report.

The new workload study documents the important contribution made by general magistrates in

the efficient and effective resolution of cases. However, the study recognizes the variations

across counties and circuits in the availability and current use of general magistrates based on the

time study results. The new weights developed in the 2016 workload study did not account for

additional need in order to expand resources to other divisions. The case weights represent

workload that incorporates sufficient time for efficient and effective case processing of the cases

that are handled by the existing resources available in the trial courts.

The trial courts have not received additional general magistrate resources since the initial

funding in FY 2004-05, during Revision 7 to Article V. Additionally, general magistrates and

their support staff were reduced by 23.75 FTE in 2008. The last request submitted by the Court

for general magistrate resources was for the FY 2012-13 LBR. This request was identified by

the trial courts as an attempt to improve efficiencies in the management of the trial courts’

workload in absence of additional judicial resources, but was not funded. The trial courts have

not received additional judicial resources since FY 2007-08.

86 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Current Issue

At the June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed staff to examine the need and cost for

additional general magistrates in the trial courts as part of the FY 2018-19 LBR. Additionally,

the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit sent a letter to the chair of the TCBC (see Attachment A),

requesting the TCBC to consider including general magistrate resources in its recommendation

for the State Courts System LBR.

OSCA staff prepared four options for the FMC’s and TCBC’s consideration:

FTE LBR

Option 1 – Need based on average actual filings over 3 years 33.5 $2,850,653

Option 2 – Need based on average projected filings over 3 years 40.5 $3,535,727

Option 3 – Divisional need based on average actual filings over 3 years 56.0 $4,888,725

Option 4 – Divisional need based on average projected filings over 3 years 55.0 $4,755,502

Total and net need for general magistrates and administrative support are reflected in the

following eight attachments. In Option 1 (Attachments B and C), the total need is based on the

average number of actual filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 for non-capital

murder, sexual offense, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto

negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage

foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support,

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), other domestic relations, domestic violence,

repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act,

Substance Abuse Act, and other social cases. The total need is calculated in two steps. The first

step estimates general magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight.

In the second step, general magistrate total need is calculated by dividing the estimated general

magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work. Additionally,

administrative support need is calculated to achieve the 1:1 ratio of general magistrates to

support staff.

In Option 2 (Attachments D and E), the total need is calculated similarly to Attachments A and

B, but is based on the average number of projected filings over fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17,

and 2017-18, for the same case types.

In Option 3 (Attachments F and G), the total need is calculated similarly to Option 1, but is

divided across the divisions of circuit court in comparing total need to current general magistrate

assignment. As noted above in the Background section, this option does not represent an

expansion in the use of general magistrates to new divisions.

In Option 4 (Attachments H and I), the total need is calculated similarly to Option 2, but is

divided across the divisions of circuit court in comparing total need to current general magistrate

assignment. As noted above in the Background section, this option does not represent an

expansion in the use of general magistrates to new divisions.

87 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Decision Needed

Option 1: File an LBR for the General Magistrate element (12.0 Magistrate FTEs; 21.5

Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $2,850,653) based on the official methodology, using

the average actual filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $3,535,727) based on the official methodology, using

the average projected filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $4,888,725) based on divisional need, using the

average actual filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $4,755,502) based on divisional need, using the

average projected filings over three fiscal years.

Option 5: Do not file an LBR for the General Magistrate element.


88 of 122


89 of 122


90 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment B

A B C D E F

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support


General

Magistrate

Average


nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support Average

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 3.5 3.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.0

4 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.0 6.0

5 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.0

6 7.25 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.0

7 3

3.5 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.0

8 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

9 6.0 4.0 8.1 8.0 8.0

10 4.0 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.0

11 11.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

12 4.0 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

13 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.0 8.0

14 2.0 1.0 1.9 2.0 2.0

15 7.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0

16 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0

17 9.0 8.5 10.4 10.0 10.0

18 4.0 3.0 4.8 5.0 5.0

19 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.0

20 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.0 6.0

Total 93.25 82.5 105.7 105.0 105.0

2 Administrative Support average total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.





General Magistrates

Background Statistics - Option 1

FY 2017-18 Allocation Total Need

1 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the

average number of actual filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 for serious felony offenses, felony drug

court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness,

real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support,

UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship,

trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate

total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related

work.

91 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment C

A B C D E

Circuit

General

Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

General

Magistrate

FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 -0.25 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0

8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

9 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

14 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

15 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

16 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5

18 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Total 10.75 21.5 12.0 21.5

2 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.



General Magistrates


Net Need1

FMC Recommendation

Option 1

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget Request


92 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment D

A B C D E F

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support


General

Magistrate

Maximum


nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support

Maximum

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 3.5 3.0 5.9 6.0 6.0

2 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.0 3.0

3 1.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 2.0

4 7.0 6.0 6.3 6.0 6.0

5 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.0

6 7.25 7.0 5.7 6.0 6.0

7 3

3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

8 2.0 1.0 3.4 3.0 3.0

9 6.0 4.0 7.3 7.0 7.0

10 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

11 11.0 11.0 12.1 12.0 12.0

12 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0

13 7.0 7.0 8.3 8.0 8.0

14 2.0 1.0 2.6 3.0 3.0

15 7.0 6.0 8.8 9.0 9.0

16 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

17 9.0 8.5 9.7 10.0 10.0

18 4.0 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

19 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

20 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.0

Total 93.25 82.5 106.0 106.0 106.0

2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.





General Magistrates


FY 2017-18 Allocation Total Need

1 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the

average projected filings for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court,

professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real

property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA,

other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust,

Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate

total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related

work.

93 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment E

A B C D E

Circuit

General

Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

General

Magistrate

FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0

2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 -1.25 -1.0 0.0 0.0

7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

8 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

9 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0

10 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

12 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

14 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

15 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

16 2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

17 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5

18 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

19 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 12.75 23.5 16.0 24.5





General Magistrates


Net Need1

Option 2

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget Request

94 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment F

A B C D E F G H I J K

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

1 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.12 1.90 3.59 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.55

2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.11 2.00 1.49 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.37

3 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.33 1.02 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.11

4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.22 6.80 5.48 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.66

5 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.26 4.60 4.33 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.67

6 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.30 5.25 5.51 0.00 0.06 2.25 0.88

7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 3.40 3.94 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.60

8 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.05 1.30 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.33

9 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.36 4.25 6.88 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.81

10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 2.90 3.51 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.58

11 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.74 10.00 12.58 0.00 0.06 1.00 1.59

12 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.13 2.90 3.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.70

13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.27 5.50 6.78 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.97

14 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.06 1.50 1.68 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.19

15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.35 5.80 5.38 0.00 0.06 1.20 0.70

16 3

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.20 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

17 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.57 6.00 8.58 2.00 0.05 0.50 1.10

18 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.17 4.74 3.96 0.00 0.04 0.58 0.59

19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.15 2.25 2.67 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.35

20 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.25 3.80 5.22 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.73

Total 0.50 0.30 5.73 4.51 75.42 87.72 2.27 0.72 10.51 12.49

2 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average number of filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15,

and 2015-16 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real

property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence,

delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General

Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.





1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.

Circuit Civil Family Court Probate

Mental Health and

GuardianshipCircuit Criminal

95 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment G

A B C D E F G H

Circuit Civil Family Court

Mental Health and

Guardianship

Circuit

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

FY 2017-18

Administrative

Support FTE

FY 2018-19

Administrative

Support FTE

Need2

1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.4 2.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0

7 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.4 1.0

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

9 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 5.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0

11 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 11.0 16.0 5.0

12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

163 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

17 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 8.5 14.0 6.0

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.6 0.0

20 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.4 0.0

Total 1.0 16.0 5.00 22.0 82.5 116.4 34.0

Option 3

FY 2018-19

Legislative

Budget Request

Administrative

Support2

Option 3

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget

Request

General Magistrate

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1




General Magistrates


1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.

2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need

minus FY 2017-18 Administrative Support FTE.

96 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment H

A B C D E F G H I J K

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

1 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.12 1.90 5.19 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.51

2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.12 2.00 2.38 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.37

3 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.33 1.56 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.11

4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.23 6.80 5.37 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.61

5 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.23 4.60 4.25 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.70

6 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.28 5.25 4.35 0.00 0.06 2.25 0.90

7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 3.40 3.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.58

8 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.05 1.30 3.00 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.29

9 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.32 4.25 6.17 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.76

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 2.90 4.34 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.56

11 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.90 10.00 9.46 0.00 0.07 1.00 1.57

12 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.11 2.90 2.59 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.70

13 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.32 5.50 6.97 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.94

14 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.05 1.50 2.34 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.17

15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 5.80 7.74 0.00 0.06 1.20 0.69

16 3

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.20 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

17 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.58 6.00 8.00 2.00 0.05 0.50 0.96

18 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 4.74 3.11 0.00 0.04 0.58 0.56

19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 2.25 3.50 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.32

20 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.26 3.80 3.57 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.72

Total 0.50 0.34 5.73 4.57 75.42 88.32 2.27 0.71 10.51 12.04

1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.

2 Total need reflects the average projected General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average projected filings for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-

18 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure,

eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate,

guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the

appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.





Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil Family Court Probate

Mental Health and

Guardianship

97 of 122

Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment I

A B C D E F G H

Circuit Civil Family Court

Mental Health and

Guardianship

Circuit

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

FY 2017-18

Administrative

Support FTE

FY 2018-19

Administrative

Support FTE

Need2

1 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 6.4 3.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0

7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.4 0.0

8 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

9 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 4.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0

11 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 13.0 2.0

12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0

14 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

15 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 9.0 3.0

163 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

17 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 8.5 12.0 4.0

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0

19 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.6 1.0

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.4 0.0

Total 1.0 17.0 4.00 21.0 82.5 115.4 34.0

2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need

minus FY 2017-18 Administrative Support FTE.3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.



General Magistrates


Option 4

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget

Request

General Magistrate

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Option 4

FY 2018-19

Legislative

Budget Request

Administrative

Support2

1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.

98 of 122



Issues for Consideration – Other Issues

99 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item V.B.7.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Issues for

Consideration – Other Issues

There are no materials for this agenda item.

100 of 122

Agenda Item V.C. FY 2018-19


Priority Ranking of LBR Issues

101 of 122

Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.C.: Priority Ranking of LBR Issues Chapter 216, Florida Statutes, requires the judicial branch (and all state entities) to list the request for operational expenditures in excess of the base operating budget, by order of priority. Schedule VIIIA of the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) is the means by which this prioritization is provided. The chart below reflects the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 LBR issues presented to the Trial Court Budget Commission for approval. For those issues approved, please rank the priority order.

ISSUE PRIORITY #

Employee Pay Issue

Trial Court Technology

Court Interpreting

Case Management

Staff Attorneys

General Magistrates

Other

102 of 122

Agenda Item VI.A. Other Legislative

Developments – 2018 Judicial Branch

Statutory Agenda

103 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.A.: Other Legislative Developments – 2018 Judicial Branch

Statutory Agenda


104 of 122

Agenda Item VI.B. Other Legislative

Developments – Interim Meeting

Schedule

105 of 122

INTERIM COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE

September 2017 – Week of the 11th

October 2017 - Week of the 9th

October 2017 - Week of the 23rd

November 2017 - Week of the 6th

November 2017 - Week of the 13th

December 2017 - Week of the 4th

Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Agenda Item VI.B.: Other Legislative Developments -- Interim Meeting Schedule

106 of 122

Agenda Item VI.C. & D. Other

Legislative Developments – Statewide

Uniform Case Management Database

System Development Plan; Quarterly

Travel Reports

107 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VI.C. & D.: Other Legislative Developments – Statewide Uniform

Case Management Database System Development Plan; Quarterly Travel Reports

Statewide Uniform Case Management Database System

Proviso language in the new state budget directs the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA)

to submit a plan to develop a statewide uniform case management database system. Among other

requirements:

The system is to be developed within existing appropriations.

The purpose of the system is for caseload data collection and reporting. The system must be

searchable and have information about the workload of each judge in the circuit, as well as be

capable of aggregating data.

The system is to be accessible by trial and appellate court judges, as well as the Supreme Court

and authorized court staff.

OSCA is to work with the clerks’ association and the clerks’ budget corporation on common

definitions for all clerks and courts to use to ensure uniformity in reporting.

The plan for the system is due to the Legislature by December 1, 2017.

Following is the specific proviso language from the General Appropriations Act (GAA), Chapter 2017-

70, Laws of Florida:

From the funds in Specific Appropriation 3145 through 3212, the Office of the State

Courts Administrator shall submit a plan to develop, within existing appropriations, a

statewide uniform case management database system for the purpose of caseload data

collection and reporting. The Office of the State Courts Administrator shall work with the

Florida Clerks of Court Corporation and the Florida Association of Clerks of Court to

develop common definitions for all clerks and courts to use to ensure uniformity in

reporting. The case management system must be searchable, have information about the

workload of each judge in the circuit and have the ability to be aggregated by division,

circuit, and statewide for reporting purposes. The plan shall examine recurring

appropriations in the State Courts System to identify appropriation categories and budget

entities with funds which may be reallocated to fund all costs associated with a unified

state-wide judicial case management system. The plan must provide an itemized estimate

of all projected costs associated with the development, implementation and recurring

maintenance of the system. The plan must also account for the costs of making the system

accessible by all trial court judges, appellate court judges, Supreme Court justices and

other authorized staff of the courts. The Office of the State Courts Administrator shall

submit the plan to the chair of the House Appropriations Committee and the chair of the

Senate Appropriations Committee by December 1, 2017.

108 of 122

Quarterly Travel Reports

As part of the new state budget, the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) must submit to

the Legislature and the Governor quarterly travel reports. Specifically, proviso language in the

General Appropriations Act (GAA), Chapter 2017-70, Laws of Florida, states:

From the funds provided in Specific Appropriations 3145 through 3212, the Office of the

State Court Administrator shall submit quarterly reports on all travel related to training,

seminars, workshops, conferences, or similarly purposed travel that was completed by

judges, court administrators, senior management employees, and division or program

directors. Each quarterly report shall include the following information: (a) employee

name, (b) position title, (c) purpose of travel, (d) dates and location of travel, (e)

confirmation of agency head authorization if required by SB 2502, and (f) total travel cost.

The report shall be submitted to the chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the

chair of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, and the Executive Office

of the Governor. The first report shall be submitted on July 15, 2017, for the period of

April 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017, and quarterly thereafter.

The GAA also requires other state agencies and entities to submit these quarterly reports. OSCA

submitted the first report on July 14, 2017, compiling the information from travel reimbursement

invoices and travel payments processed through the Finance and Accounting Unit.

Decision Needed

These items are presented for informational purposes only.

109 of 122

Agenda Item VII. Implementation of

Recommendations from 2016 Florida

Judicial Workload Assessment Final

Report

110 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VII.: Implementation of Recommendations from 2016 Florida

Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report

Background

On May 16, 2016, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) completed its final report of the

weighted caseload model used to determine the need for judges in Florida’s circuit and county

courts. (See Attachment A.) The report offered six recommendations:

1) The Florida Legislature should consider creating new judgeships in the circuit and county

courts where the revised weighted caseload model shows a need for additional judicial

resources – as the revised model clearly shows the changing character of workload and

provides an accurate means to determine the number of judges needed.

2) During each five-year review, a time study should be incorporated to capture empirically

any changes in the amount of judicial work associated with cases of various types, as well

as a Delphi quality adjustment process to ensure sufficient time for quality performance.

When a major change in the law, technology, or policy, such as the United States

Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida requiring changes to Florida’s capital

sentencing scheme, occurs between regular updates, a Delphi panel may be convened to

consider interim adjustments to the affected case weight(s).

3) The OSCA should conduct a secondary analysis of the impact of the factors enumerated

in Rule 2.240(b)(1)(B) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration on judicial

workload whenever the weighted caseload model suggests a change to the number of

judges allocated to a particular court. Furthermore, OSCA should consider incorporating

the additional factors identified by the JNAC in assessing variation in judicial workload,

such as the amount of judicial work associated with election canvassing boards.

4) As Florida continues to expand its use of problem-solving courts beyond drug courts

(e.g., veterans’ courts and mental health courts), such programs will have an increasing

impact on judicial workloads. To permit the creation of a separate case weight for other

problem-solving courts, NCSC recommends that OSCA begin collecting and auditing

data on the number of entrants to other problem-solving court programs on an annual

basis for each court.

5) The availability of support personnel, especially law clerks and staff attorneys, has a

profound impact on judges’ ability to perform their work efficiently and effectively. To

assist funding authorities in allocating these resources, NCSC recommends that OSCA

conduct workload assessments for trial court law clerks and staff attorneys.

6) The current workload assessment documents the important contribution made by quasi-

judicial officers to the efficient and effective resolution of cases in circuit and county

courts. NCSC recommends that OSCA conduct a comprehensive investigation into the

various roles and uses of quasi-judicial officers (e.g., Magistrates, Child Support

Enforcement Hearing Officers, and Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers) across the

111 of 122

http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/558/urlt/Final-Florida-Judicial-Workload-Assessment-Final-report.pdf

state of Florida. A targeted study would allow for a deeper understanding of the current

availability of quasi-judicial resources, the specific functions that quasi-judicial officers

perform, and the impact that their work has on the need for county and circuit court

judges. The study would also assist in identifying variations among counties and circuits

in the availability and use of quasi-judicial officers. The study should produce a uniform

set of standards for allocating quasi-judicial officers on the basis of workload, making it

possible to eliminate existing disparities among courts and ensure equity in the

distribution of resources.

The Supreme Court adopted recommendations 1 through 3 and requested implementation

proposals for recommendations 4, 5, and 6, with the inclusion of case managers. The NCSC has

submitted a proposal for conducting the workload assessments identified in recommendations 5

and 6. The proposal will assess the workload of supplemental resources based on a two-year

study with the use of at least two advisory committees, coordinated concurrently by OSCA, for

$378,042 ($338,042 in consultant fees and $40,000 for committee travel). The NCSC has

offered to assist the court system with the implementation of recommendation 4 at no additional

charge.

Previously, the 2016 Florida Judicial Workload Assessment, initiated with the assistance of the

NCSC, was conducted from September 2014 through December 2016 and cost approximately

$449,000 ($34,945 for FY 2014-15 and $413,847 for FY 2015-16). The project was funded by

the TCBC through existing funds.

On September 9, 2016, the TCBC, via a letter from Judge Robert Roundtree, then-Chair of the

TCBC (see Attachment B), suggested an assessment on the role and use of general magistrates in

all case types, but particularly in probate.

The Supreme Court recently approved proceeding with the NCSC’s proposal and directed OSCA

to determine a funding source in conjunction with the Chief Justice and the TCBC.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Approve the use of funds from the trial court expense reserves in FY 2017-18 and FY

2018-19 (specifically, an allocation each year of $169,021 in contract funds and $20,000 in

expense funds) to enable OSCA to consult with the NCSC in conducting workload assessments

on supplemental resources (general magistrates, hearing officers, staff attorneys and case

managers). Note: Use of trial court expense reserves as a source for this funding would require

a budget amendment to convert funds to contracted services, which would need approval from

the Chief Justice and the Legislature.

Option 2: If unable to allocate funds to conduct the workload assessment in FY 2017-18 and

FY 2018-19, recommend that OSCA develop and submit to the Supreme Court an issue to be

filed under the Executive Direction budget entity as part of the FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget

Request.

112 of 122

Florida Judicial Workload Assessment

Final Report

May 16, 2016

Brian J. Ostrom, Ph.D.

Matthew Kleiman, Ph.D.

Cynthia G. Lee, J.D.

Shannon Roth

Research Division

National Center for State Courts

Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Agenda Item VII.: Implementation of Recommendations from 2016 Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report Attachment A -- Report Executive Summary

113 of 122

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 1999, the state of Florida has relied on the

weighted caseload method to determine the need

for judges in each circuit and county trial court

during the annual judicial certification process.

Over time, changes in statutory and case law,

court rules, technology, and legal practice can

affect the amount of judicial work associated

with resolving various types of cases. For this

reason, the Office of State Courts Administrator

(OSCA) contracted with the National Center for

State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a judicial

workload assessment to update the weighted

caseload models for circuit and county court

judges, as well as senior judges and quasi-

judicial officers (magistrates and hearing

officers).

Project Design

To provide oversight and guidance on matters of

policy throughout the project, OSCA appointed

a 41-member Judicial Needs Assessment

Committee (JNAC) consisting of one circuit

court judge and one county court judge from

each judicial circuit. The workload assessment

was conducted in two phases:

1. A time study in which all circuit and county

court judges, senior judges, magistrates,

child support enforcement hearing officers,

and civil traffic infraction hearing officers

were asked to record all case-related and

non-case-related work over a four-week

period. The time study provides an empirical

description of the amount of time judges and

judicial officers currently devote to

processing each case type, as well as the

division of the workday between case-

related and non-case-related activities.

Ninety-seven percent of circuit and county

court judges, as well as ninety-six percent of

quasi-judicial officers participated in the

time study.

2. A quality adjustment process to ensure that

the final weighted caseload models for

circuit court and county court judges

incorporate sufficient time for efficient and

effective case processing. The quality

adjustment process included

• a statewide sufficiency of time survey

asking judges about the amount of time

currently available to perform various

case-related and non-case-related tasks;

• site visits by NCSC and OSCA staff to

circuit and county courts in eight

circuits; and

• a structured quality review of the case

weights by a set of Delphi groups

comprising experienced judges from

across the state of Florida.

As compared with judicial workload

assessments previously conducted in 1999 and

2007, the current study incorporates a number of

methodological innovations, including:

• The foundation of the workload assessment

is a time study involving all judges and

quasi-judicial officers throughout the state

of Florida, rather than a time study involving

a sample of judges and judicial officers or a

Delphi survey based on opinion.

• The model explicitly quantifies work

performed by circuit and county court

judges across court levels, including but not

limited to work performed outside of regular

court hours as a “duty judge.”

• The study documented the availability and

use of senior judges and quasi-judicial

officers in all trial courts.

• Election canvassing board duties are

factored into the calculation of judicial need

in county court.


114 of 122

ii

• The quality adjustment process included in-

person site visits to courts in large and small

jurisdictions in all regions of the state,

enabling project staff to gather qualitative

data about the issues judges face in the

efficient and effective handling of their

cases.

• JNAC adopted a procedure for analyzing

judicial workload and rounding judicial need

at the level of the individual judge. This

provides a common yardstick for

jurisdictions of all sizes and enables

additional judicial resources to be directed to

those jurisdictions with the greatest relative

need.

Results

Applying the final weighted caseload model to

current case filings shows a need for a total of

609 circuit court judges and 316 county court

judges in the state of Florida. This represents an

increase of ten circuit court judgeships and a

decrease of six county court judgeships in

comparison with current allocations.

Recommendations

The updated weighted caseload model

developed during this workload assessment

provides an empirically grounded basis for

analyzing judicial workload in each of Florida’s

trial courts. The following recommendations are

intended to ensure the effective use of the

weighted caseload model for the purpose of

judicial certification, and to preserve the model’s

integrity and utility over time.

Recommendation 1

The revised weighted caseload system clearly

shows the changing character of judicial

workload in Florida. When applied, the new case

weights adopted by the Judicial Needs

1 FLA. R. JUD. ADMIN. 2.240(b)(1)(C).

Assessment Committee provide an accurate

means to determine the number of judges needed

in each circuit and county court. In some

jurisdictions, the current number of judges is

insufficient to effectively resolve the cases

coming before the court. The Florida Legislature

should consider creating new judgeships in the

circuit courts and county courts where the

weighted caseload model shows a need for

additional judicial resources.

Recommendation 2

Over time, the integrity of any weighted

caseload model may be affected by external

factors such as changes in legislation, case law,

legal practice, court technology, and

administrative policies. The certification

procedures outlined in the Florida Rules of

Judicial Administration call for the Commission

on Trial Court Performance and Accountability

to review the weighted caseload model “and

consider adjustments no less than every five

years.” 1 NCSC recommends that each review

incorporate a time study to capture empirically

any changes in the amount of judicial work

associated with cases of various types, as well as

a Delphi quality adjustment process to ensure

sufficient time for quality performance. When a

major change in the law, technology, or policy

occurs between regular updates, a Delphi panel

may be convened to consider interim

adjustments to the affected case weight(s).

Recommendation 3

No weighted caseload model can fully quantify

the impact of all jurisdiction-specific factors on

judicial workload. Whenever the weighted

caseload model suggests a change to the number

of judges allocated to a particular court, NCSC

recommends that OSCA conduct a secondary

analysis of the impact of the factors enumerated

in Rule 2.240(b)(1)(B) of the Florida Rules of


115 of 122

iii

Judicial Administration on judicial workload in

the affected court. Furthermore, OSCA should

consider incorporating the additional factors

identified by the JNAC in assessing variation in

judicial workload, such as the amount of judicial

work associated with election canvassing

boards.

Recommendation 4

As Florida continues to expand its use of

problem-solving courts beyond drug courts (e.g.,

veterans’ courts and mental health courts), such

programs will have an increasing impact on

judicial workloads. To permit the creation of a

separate case weight for other problem-solving

courts, NCSC recommends that OSCA begin

collecting and auditing data on the number of

entrants to other problem-solving court

programs on an annual basis for each court.

Recommendation 5

The availability of support personnel, especially

law clerks and staff attorneys, has a profound

impact on judges’ ability to perform their work

efficiently and effectively. To assist funding

authorities in allocating these resources, NCSC

recommends that OSCA conduct workload

assessments for trial court law clerks and staff

attorneys.

Recommendation 6

The current workload assessment documents the

important contribution made by quasi-judicial

officers to the efficient and effective resolution

of cases in circuit and county courts. NCSC

recommends that OSCA conduct a

comprehensive investigation into the various

roles and uses of quasi-judicial officers (e.g.,

Magistrates, Child Support Enforcement

Hearing Officers, and Civil Traffic Infraction

Hearing Officers) across the state of Florida. A

targeted study would allow for a deeper

understanding of the current availability of

quasi-judicial resources, the specific functions

that quasi-judicial officers perform, and the

impact that their work has on the need for

county and circuit court judges. The study

would also assist in identifying variations among

counties and circuits in the availability and use

of quasi-judicial officers. The study should

produce a uniform set of standards for allocating

quasi-judicial officers on the basis of workload,

making it possible to eliminate existing

disparities among courts and ensuring equity in

the distribution of resources.


116 of 122

September 9, 2016

The Honorable Jorge Labarga

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Florida

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Chief Justice Labarga:

At its meeting on August 11, 2016, the Trial Court

Budget Commission (TCBC) addressed the Fiscal Year 2017-18

legislative budget request (LBR) for the trial courts. Among

other issues, the TCBC considered a budget request for general

magistrates, exploring different funding methodologies that

produced a net need ranging from 33.5 to 68.0 full-time

equivalent general magistrate positions.

Ultimately, the TCBC decided not to recommend an LBR

for the general magistrate element at this time, in favor of other

critical budget priorities, such as the second half of the staff pay

issue and the comprehensive technology and court interpreting

needs. The TCBC members, however, discussed the important

contribution of general magistrates to the effective and efficient

adjudication of trial court cases. The recently completed

workload study, which included quasi-judicial officers in

addition to judges, also documented the contribution of general

magistrates.

Chief Judge Bertila Soto of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit

moved and the TCBC unanimously agreed to recommend

respectfully that the Supreme Court examine the role and use of

general magistrates statewide in all case types, but with a

particular focus on probate cases. Chief Judge Soto suggested

that guardianship cases will probably be the next significant

increase in filings the trial courts face after the stabilization of

the foreclosure crisis. Perhaps the Court could include analysis

of general magistrates as part of any ongoing implementation of

the workload study by the State Courts System.

Members

The Honorable Robert Roundtree, Jr. Chair

The Honorable Mark Mahon

Vice-Chair

Catherine Brunson, Circuit Judge

Ronald Ficarrotta, Circuit Judge

Frederick Lauten, Circuit Judge

Wayne Miller, County Judge

Debra Nelson, Circuit Judge

Gregory Parker, Circuit Judge

Anthony Rondolino, Circuit Judge

Elijah Smiley, Circuit Judge

Bertila Soto, Circuit Judge

John Stargel, Circuit Judge

Margaret Steinbeck, Circuit Judge

Patricia Thomas, Circuit Judge

Tom Genung, Court Administrator

Sandra Lonergan, Court Administrator

Kathleen Pugh, Court Administrator

Grant Slayden, Court Administrator

Walt Smith, Court Administrator

Mark Weinberg, Court Administrator

Robin Wright, Court Administrator

Ex-Officio Members

The Honorable Scott Bernstein Florida Conf. of Circuit Court Judges

The Honorable Joseph Williams

Florida Conf. of County Court Judges

The Honorable Diana Moreland Commission on Trial Court Performance

and Accountability

Supreme Court Liaison

The Honorable James E.C. Perry

Florida State Courts System 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900 www.flcourts.org

Attachment B

117 of 122

Thank you for your consideration of this request. The TCBC stands ready to

assist the Court in any matters affecting the operations of the trial courts.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Roundtree, Jr.

RER:EM:ssb

cc: Trial Court Budget Commission Members

Patricia (PK) Jameson

Attachment B

118 of 122

Agenda Item VIII. Report from Chief

Justice Designee to Florida Clerks of

Court Operations Corporation Executive

Council

119 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item VIII.: Report from Chief Justice Designee to Florida Clerks of Court

Operations Corporation Executive Council


120 of 122

Agenda Item IX. Other Business

121 of 122


July 22, 2017

Orlando, Florida

Agenda Item IX.: Other Business


122 of 122

Date post:	14-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times