MEETING AGENDA -- AMENDED 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Saturday, July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida

Transcription

1 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: Welcome and Roll Call I. Opening Remarks by Chair II. III. Approval of June 27, 2017, Meeting Minutes FY 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 Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Reallocation V. FY 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

2 TCBC Agenda July 22, 2017 Page 2 Break 5. Staff Attorneys 6. General Magistrates 7. Other C. Priority Ranking of LBR Issues VI. Other Legislative Developments A 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

3 Agenda Item I. Opening Remarks by Chair 3 of 122

4 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

5 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, DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 27, ATTEST: Chief Justice Jorge Labarga John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court of 122

6 Agenda Item II. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes 6 of 122

7 DRAFT Trial Court Budget Commission Meeting Minutes June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida Attendance Members Present The Honorable Robert Roundtree, Chair The Honorable Mark Mahon, Vice Chair The Honorable Scott Bernstein The Honorable Catherine Brunson Ms. Holly Elomina The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta Mr. Tom Genung The Honorable Robert Hilliard The Honorable Frederick Lauten Ms. Sandra Lonergan The Honorable Diana Moreland Attendance Members Absent Ms. Kathy Pugh The Honorable John Stargel The Honorable Debra Nelson The Honorable Gregory Parker The Honorable Anthony Rondolino Mr. Grant Slayden The Honorable Elijah Smiley Mr. Walt Smith The Honorable Bertila Soto The Honorable Margaret Steinbeck The Honorable Patricia Thomas Mr. Mark Weinberg 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

8 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item II: FY Budget Status A. Salary Budgets Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the trial court salary budgets for FY as of May 31, 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, 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, D. Operating Budgets Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the operating budgets for FY as of May 31, 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, 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 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. Page 2 of 16 8 of 122

9 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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, Ms. Willard stated the TCBC will need to determine if the existing budget management policies and procedures shall continue through FY , 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 cannot be fully evaluated until the certified forward process is completed on September 30, The Executive Committee recommended Option 2, to continue with the FY budget management policies and procedures as is for FY , 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 The Executive Committee recommended an amendment to Option 2, to delay the first quarter sweeps until the BMC completes analysis of FY 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 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 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 . 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 ing 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 ; and make them available on the Florida State Courts System Intranet site. Judge Page 3 of 16 9 of 122

10 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida Ficarrotta moved to approve Option 2. Judge Lauten seconded, and the motion passed without objection. 3. FY Allocations for Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers Lindsay Hafford reported that FY 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 , , and 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 9 th 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 reallocation 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 13 th Judicial Circuit would be eligible to receive the additional resource should reallocation be recommended. The 13 th Circuit has been contacted by OSCA staff and has indicated an interest in the vacant position. a) FY Allocations The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve proposed Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer allocations for FY 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 9 th Judicial Circuit to the 13 th Judicial Circuit. Judge Lauten moved to approve Option 1. Judge Ficarrotta seconded, and the motion passed without objection. 4. FY Allocations for General Magistrates Lindsay Hafford reported that FY 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 , , and 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. Page 4 of of 122

11 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida The FMC recommended Option 1, to approve the proposed General Magistrate and administrative support personnel allocations for FY 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 , 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 are based on the FY 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 FTE and operating category allocations based on maintaining the FY 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 need to be approved by the TCBC. Currently, the allocation methodology is based on a rate of $ 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 Page 5 of of 122

12 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida county judges. Note: Estimated FY re-appropriated days are not included in the total days distributed. Staff recommend reallocating any unexpended FY 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 circuit allocations using the current methodology and a rate of $ ($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 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 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 Page 6 of of 122

13 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 is $19,955,792, and provided an overview of how the appropriation was distributed in FY 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 , 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 , 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 budget allocation cycle. Walt Smith requested clarification of the two TCBC approved positions that were given to the OSCA in FY in support of this system. Roosevelt Sawyer reported the two positions were established in the cross-jurisdictional unit at the OSCA, in FY 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. Page 7 of of 122

14 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 2. Remote Interpreting Roosevelt Sawyer reported that in FY , $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 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 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 is more than the funds available for FY allocation; therefore a deficit may be realized in FY 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 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.) Page 8 of of 122

15 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 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 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 , 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 for ongoing programming and support of ICMS. Ms. Slayden stated that in FY , 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 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. Page 9 of of 122

16 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida Statewide Allocations: Dorothy Willard then provided an overview of FY 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 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 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 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. Page 10 of of 122

17 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 , 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; Page 11 of of 122

18 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 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 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the amended Budget and Pay Memorandum for FY , 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 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. Page 12 of of 122

19 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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, to $57, 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, 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. Page 13 of of 122

20 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 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, 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 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, 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 The FMC recommended the same issues filed in the FY 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 Trial Court LBR issues for cost-out. Page 14 of of 122

21 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida Judge Smiley made a motion that the General Magistrates and the Eleventh Circuit Court Interpreter issues be included for analysis with the FY 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 , the clerks have submitted their budget requests to CCOC leadership, which will be considered at the meeting to be held in August, 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. Page 15 of of 122

22 Trial Court Budget Commission June 27, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 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. Page 16 of of 122

23 Agenda Item III.A. FY Budget Status Salary Budgets 23 of 122

24 Item III.A.: Salary Budgets Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida FY Trial Courts Salary Budget General Revenue and State Courts Revenue Trust Fund June 2017 CIRCUIT COUNTY Trial Court Summary 1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, ,155,818 2 Law Clerk Payroll Liability FY through FY ,372 3 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, ,395,190 4 Salary Appropriation (273,461,920) 5 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment 1,933,270 6 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (4,579,641) 7 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (2,646,371) 8 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, ,949,721 9 Salary Appropriation (85,040,754) 10 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (91,033) 11 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (701,946) 12 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (792,979) 13 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, ,105, Law Clerk Payroll Liability FY through FY , Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, ,344, Salary Appropriation (358,502,674) 17 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment 1,842, Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (5,281,587) 19 Final - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (3,439,350) General Revenue (12,030) State Courts Revenue Trust Fund (3,427,320) (3,439,350) 24 of 122 Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

25 Agenda Item III.A.: Salary Budgets Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida FY Trial Courts Salary Budget Administrative Trust Fund June Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, ,566 2 Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, ,566 3 Salary Appropriation (272,344) 4 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (30,778) 5 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (6,523) 6 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (37,301) 7 Estimated Leave Payouts 0 8 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (37,301) FY Trial Courts Salary Budget Federal Grants Trust Fund June Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, ,015,301 2 Salary Appropriation (6,112,552) 3 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (97,251) 4 Actual Payroll Adjustments through June 30, 2017 (62,759) 5 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (160,010) 6 Estimated Leave Payouts 0 7 Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Full Employment (160,010) 25 of 122 Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

26 Agenda Item III.B. FY Budget Status Positions Vacant More Than 180 Days 26 of 122

27 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.B.: Vacancies over 180 days as of 07/19/17 Circuit Cost Center Cost Center Name Position # Class Title FTE # of Days Vacant Date Position Vacant Base Rate 11th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /01/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /17/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /01/2016 $37, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /25/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /21/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /01/2015 $37, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /30/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /31/2015 $37, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /01/2015 $18, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /01/2015 $18, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /01/2014 $18, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER /1/2015 $37, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /19/2015 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /27/2016 $43, Page 1 of 2 27 of 122 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources

28 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Circuit Cost Center Agenda Item III.B.: Vacancies over 180 days as of 07/19/17 Cost Center Name Position # Class Title FTE # of Days Vacant Date Position Vacant Base Rate 11th Circuit 730 Court Interpreting Cost Sharing 11th COURT INTERPRETER-CERTIFIED /18/2015 $43, th Circuit 210 Cir Cts - 11th Circ - Ct. Admin ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I /01/2016 $33, th Circuit th Circ Law Clerk Post Conviction TRIAL COURT LAW CLERK /27/2017 $45, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER - CERTIFIED /29/2016 $43, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER - CERTIFIED /10/2015 $43, th Circuit 430 Mediation Services 16th Circuit MEDIATOR - CIRCUIT/FAMILY /11/2016 $45, th Circuit 131 Court Interpreting Services COURT INTERPRETER - CERTIFIED /01/2016 $43, ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 The 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. 16 The 11th Circuit has identified this class as being in recruitment status. 17 The 14th Circuit has extended a job offer with an anticipated start date of August 1, ,19 The 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. 20 The 16th Circuit is considering a possible reassignment/reclassification of this position due to the local hiring factors. 21 The 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. Page 2 of 2 28 of 122 TCBC Report prepared by the Office of Human Resources

29 Agenda Item III.C. FY Budget Status Operating Budgets 29 of 122

30 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets The data below represents the status of the FY operating budgets as of June 30, 2017 Category Budget Entity Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Circuit 546, ,582 97, % Other Personal Services County 6,110 5, % Total 552, ,981 98, % Circuit 5,226,926 4,678, , % Expenses County 2,432,461 2,335,580 96, % Total 7,659,387 7,013, , % Circuit 977, ,412 47, % Operating Capital Outlay County 579, ,069 23, % Total 1,557,178 1,485,481 71, % Circuit 816, , , % Contracted Services County 359, ,048 16, % Total 1,175,497 1,048, , % Lease/Lease Purchase Other Data Processing Services Circuit 47,437 38,700 8, % County 28,905 24,001 4, % Total 76,342 62,701 13, % Circuit 97,902 97, % 30 of 122

31 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets The data below represents the status of the FY operating budgets as of June 30, 2017 Category Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Additional Compensation to County Judges Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers Mediation Services 75,000 65,819 9, % 2,039,454 1,752, , % 3,047,487 2,960,105 87, % Due Process - Expert Witness 7,425,057 7,171, , % Due Process - Court Reporting 7,907,404 6,987, , % Due Process - Court Interpreting Total Due Process 3,407,702 3,281, , % 18,740,163 17,440,960 1,299, % 31 of 122

32 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets The data below represents the status of the FY operating budgets as of June 30, 2017 Legislative Projects Circuit Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered , ,815 65, % , ,829 20, % , , , % , , , % Veterans Court ,000 86,284 63, % , ,410 50, % , , , % ,000 87,561 62, % ,000 31, , % ,000 47,789 57, % Total 2,543,109 1,616, , % Mental Health Diversion Program , ,607 71, % , , % Total 450, ,607 71, % 32 of 122

33 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets The data below represents the status of the FY operating budgets as of June 30, 2017 Legislative Projects Circuit Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered , , % , , , % , ,062 26, % , , , % Post Adjudicatory Drug Court , ,426 45, % , , , % Naltrexone - Drug Treatment , , , % , ,680 57, % 17 1,224, , , % Total 5,400,000 3,302,726 2,097, % 00 6,427,547 4,481,058 1,946, % GPS Monitoring , ,033 35, % Juvenile Drug Court , , % Friends of the Children's Advocacy Brevard 00 1,500, , , % 33 of 122

34 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.C.: Operating Budgets The data below represents the status of the FY operating budgets as of July 5, 2017 Senior Judge Activity Summary Regular Senior Judge Allocation June 2017 Circuit Allotted Days Days Transferred Days Served Remaining Allotted Days Percent Remaining 1st 249 (72) % 2nd % 3rd % 4th % 5th % 6th 425 (5) % 7th % 8th % 9th % 10th % 11th % 12th % 13th % 14th % 15th 356 (35) % 16th 45 (5) % 17th 633 (28) % 18th % 19th % 20th % Reserve % TOTAL 6, ,126 1, % Note: The Days Served reflects data as input by the circuits during the compensation process. 34 of 122

35 Agenda Item III.D. FY Budget Status Trust Fund Cash Balances 35 of 122

36 Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - SCRTF Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND Estimated Cash Balances FY through FY Ending Cash Balance June 30, ,115,659 FY Beginning Balance July 1, ,115, Add: FY Projected Revenues 1 $72,771, Add: Cost Sharing 3,695, Less: Estimated Expenditures 2 (78,736,099) 13 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,855,093) 14 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, ,991,274 FY Beginning Balance July 1, ,991, Add: FY Projected Revenues 1 $72,200, Add: Cost Sharing 3,695, Less: Estimated Expenditures 3 (79,098,285) 19 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,787,429) 20 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2019 (4,999,094) FY Beginning Balance July 1, 2019 (4,999,094) 22 Add: FY Projected Revenues 1 $71,900, Add: Cost Sharing 3,695, Less: Estimated Expenditures 3 (79,462,137) 25 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,758,000) 26 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2020 (14,623,884) 36 of 122 Prepared by Office of Budget Services

37 STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND Estimated Cash Balances FY through FY FY Beginning Balance July 1, 2020 (14,623,884) 28 Add: FY Projected Revenues 1 $72,000, Add: Cost Sharing 3,695, Less: Estimated Expenditures 3 (79,827,663) 31 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,758,000) 32 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2021 (24,514,200) FY Beginning Balance July 1, 2021 (24,514,200) 34 Add: FY Projected Revenues 1 $72,100, Add: Cost Sharing 3,695, Less: Estimated Expenditures 3 (80,194,870) 37 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge (5,766,000) 39 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2022 (34,679,723) 1 Official Article V Revenue Estimating Conference Estimates, February 16, Based on FY appropriation plus estimated supplemental appropriations for retirement and pay package adjustments. 3 Based on FY estimated appropriation and historical average of supplemental retirement and health adjustments. Estimates do not include any future pay issues. 37 of 122 Prepared by Office of Budget Services

38 Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - SCRTF Article V Revenue Estimating Conference Projections State Courts System State Courts Revenue Trust Fund - Monthly Cash Analysis Fiscal Year Reporting (Official Estimates) Trial Court Budget Commission Based on Actual Revenues and Expenditures for July - June July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida 1 December 21, ,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, ,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, ,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, ,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 June Year-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 8 Cost Sharing (JAC transfers/$3,695,347 due annually) 736, , , , ,917 80, ,282 80,050 86,816 3,709,655 9 Refunds/Miscellaneous 5,042 5,948 6, , 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, 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, 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, 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) 38 of 122 Prepared by OSCA Office of Budget Services

39 Agenda Item III.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances - ATF Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida State Courts System FY Cash Statement Administrative Trust Fund As of June 30, Circuit Courts Beginning Revenue Ending Expenditures Refunds Balance Received Balance Cost Recovery-Circuit Level 1,523, , (692,740.67) ,636, Cost Recovery-Reserve Level 610, , ,014, Service Charge (63,286.66) 0.00 (63,286.66) Refunds (2,071.20) (3,153.31) (5,224.51) Circuit Courts Ending Cash Balance 2,134, , (354,407.32) (3,153.31) 2,582, *NOTE - Administrative Trust Fund Spending Authority for FY is $1,992,112. OSCA Office of FA Services S:\Cash Statements 39 of 122

40 Agenda Item III.E. FY Budget Status Year-End Spending Plan 40 of 122

41 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.E.: Year-End Spending Plan Status The data below represents the status of the FY year-end spending plan as of June 30, Circuit Category Budget Entity Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Expenses Circuit 15,896 15, % County 4,023 2,259 1, % Operating Capital Outlay County 7,026 7, % Contracted Services Circuit 14,248 14, % County 107, , % 2nd Circuit Total 148, ,845 1, % Operating Capital Outlay 17,320 17, % Circuit Contracted Services 14,987 12,600 2, % 3rd Circuit Total 32,307 29,736 2, % Expenses 2,945 2, % Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 19,961 19, % Contracted Services 1,526 1, % 4th Circuit Total 24,432 24, % Expenses 16,200 15,016 1, % Operating Capital Outlay 76,972 76, % Circuit Contracted Services 2,250 2, % Mediation Services 35,586 35, % 5th Circuit Total 131, ,079 1, % Expenses 3,677 3, % Circuit Operating Capital Outlay 15,573 15, % 6th Circuit Total 19,250 19, % Expenses 19,705 18,187 1, % Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 78,600 77,588 1, % Contracted Services 83,480 65,766 17, % 7th Circuit Total 181, ,540 20, % Expenses 8,002 7, % Circuit Operating Capital Outlay 43,940 41,831 2, % 8th Circuit Total 51,942 49,714 2, % 41 of 122

42 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.E.: Year-End Spending Plan Status The data below represents the status of the FY year-end spending plan as of June 30, Circuit Category Budget Entity Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Expenses 15,818 15, % 9 Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 33,082 31,753 1, % Contracted Services 17,100 17, % 9th Circuit Total 66,000 64,671 1, % Expenses Circuit % 10 Operating Capital Outlay County 139, , % 10th Circuit Total 139, , % 11 Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 68,866 68, % Expenses 5,647 4, % Circuit 13 Operating Capital Outlay 38,204 33,750 4, % 13th Circuit Total 43,851 38,661 5, % Expenses 15,626 15, % Operating Capital Outlay 14,639 14, % Circuit 14 Contracted Services 3,500 3, % Mediation Services 12,500 12, % 14th Circuit Total 46,265 45,258 1, % Expenses 8,756 8, % 15 Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 67,814 64,863 2, % Contracted Services 3,530 3, % 15th Circuit Total 80,100 77,147 2, % Operating Capital Outlay 6,000 5, % Circuit 16 Contracted Services 6,500 6, % 16th Circuit Total 12,500 11, % Expenses 100,000 99, % Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 71,994 71, % 17 90,185 90, % Contracted Services County 49,815 49, % 17th Circuit Total 311, , % 42 of 122

43 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item III.E.: Year-End Spending Plan Status The data below represents the status of the FY year-end spending plan as of June 30, Circuit Category Budget Entity Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Operating Capital Outlay Circuit 10,928 10, % County 77,859 77, % 18th Circuit Total 88,787 88, % Expenses 23,445 20,110 3, % County Operating Capital Outlay 200, , % 19th Circuit Total 224, ,803 3, % Contracted Services Circuit 40,800 40, % Operating Capital Outlay County 123, , % 20th Circuit Total 164, , % SUB-TOTALS GRAND TOTAL Circuit 1,102,656 1,063,737 38, % County 733, ,671 5, % 1,835,722 1,791,408 44, % * The 1st & 12th Circuits did not request year-end spending funds as part of this exercise. 43 of 122

44 Agenda Item IV. FY Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Reallocation 44 of 122

45 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item IV.: FY 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 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 FY circuit allocations for this element were developed based on the maximum number of forecasted filings over fiscal years , , and 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

46 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 Allocation and Net Need Charts If Option 1, above, is adopted, the charts reflecting final FY 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 Option 1: Approve proposed allocations for FY 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. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

47 Agenda Item IV. Attachment A A B C D E F Circuit Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer FTE Allocation Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers Background Statistics FY Allocations Approved by TCBC June 27, 2017 Total Need Administrative Support FTE Allocation Total Need 1 Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Maximum Total Need (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Administrative Support Maximum Total Need 2 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Total 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 , , and 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. 47 of 122

48 Agenda Item IV. Attachment A Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer FY Proposed Circuit Allocations A B C D E Circuit Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer Net Need Net Need 1 Administrative Support Net Need Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer FTE Administrative Support FTE Total Net need is the difference between maximum total need and FY FTE allocation. 2 FY FTE proposed allocations, using current methodology, is based on beginning FY FTE allocations and adjusted for any reallocation actions during the year. FMC Recommendation Option 1: Reallocation of.50 FTE Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officer 2 48 of 122

49 Agenda Item IV. Attachment B Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates Background Statistics A B C D E F FY Allocation Total Need Circuit General Magistrate FTE Allocation Administrative Support FTE Allocation Total Need 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Administrative Support Maximum Total Need 2 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Total 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 , , and 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. 2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate. 3 Circuit 7 FY 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. 49 of 122

50 Agenda Item IV. Attachment B Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates FY FTE Allocations A B C D E Net Need 1 FY Allocations Approved by TCBC on June 27, Circuit General Magistrate Net Need Administrative Support Net Need General Magistrate FTE Administrative Support FTE Total Net Need is the difference between total need and FY FTE allocation. 2 FY FTE allocations, using current methodology, are based on beginning FY FTE allocations. 3 Circuit 16 does not have general magistrate FTEs. 50 of 122

51 Agenda Item V.A. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) LBR Timeline 51 of 122

52 Agenda Item V.A. LBR Timeline FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Timeline Trial Courts Monday, June 12 Tuesday, June 27 Friday, June 30 Wednesday, July 19 Saturday, July 22 Tuesday, July 25 Friday, August 4 (10 days following Notice of TCBC Final LBR decisions) Wednesday, August 9 Tuesday, August 15 Wednesday, August 23 Wednesday, August 30 Preliminary LBR plan discussion; TCBC Funding Methodology Committee meeting Telephone Conference Approval of LBR plan for new issues; Trial Court Budget Commission meeting Orlando, Florida Notice of LBR plan, LBR timeline, and LBR instructions (if applicable) distributed to Chief Judges and Trial Court Administrators Approval of preliminary LBR recommendations; TCBC Funding Methodology Committee meeting Telephone Conference Approval of final LBR recommendations; Trial Court Budget Commission meeting Orlando, Florida Notice of TCBC Final LBR decisions distributed to circuits Budget issue appeals, if any, due to TCBC Joint meeting of leadership materials sent out via 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) Final LBR recommendations distributed to the Supreme Court for Court Conference Approval of LBR recommendations by the Supreme Court Thursday, September 14 Friday, September 15 Public Hearing Tallahassee, Florida Submission of the Legislative Budget Request to the Legislature 52 of 122

53 Agenda Item V.B.1. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Employee Pay Issue 53 of 122

54 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.1.: FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Employee Pay Issue Background In its Fiscal Year 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 and Fiscal Year 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 request, the branch sought $6,388,909. Following is a portion of the narrative submitted for the Fiscal Year 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 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

55 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 longerterm 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, Decision Needed 1. Recommend a Fiscal Year 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, The FY 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, of 122

56 Agenda Item V.B.2. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Trial Court Technology 56 of 122

57 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.2.: FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Comprehensive Trial Court Technology Background In FY , 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 , with minor modifications to some components of the request, resulting in an LBR of $25,299,973 and 65 FTE. For FY , 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 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 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 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

58 Trial Court Budget Commission 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. Benefits of Proposed Solution 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. Benefits of Proposed Solution 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

59 Trial Court Budget Commission 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. Benefits of Proposed Solution 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 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 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 Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

60 Agenda Item V.B.2. Attachment A Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Trial Court Technology Comprehensive Plan FY Legislative Budget Request FY Legislative Budget Request Technology Projects to Support Business Capabilities Solution I: Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS Viewers) General Revenue Recurring General Revenue Non- Recurring Total General Revenue Recurring General Revenue Non- Recurring 1 Applications Development and Licensing 1 $250,000 $3,284,931 $3,534,931 $0 $0 $0 2 Support Services - Refresh and Maintenance 2 $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 Group I Subtotal Solution II: Digital Court Reporting (DCR) Total $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 Group II Subtotal Solution III: Support for Minimum Level of Technology $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 Group III Subtotal Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth $9,694,198 $155,935 $9,850,133 $0 $0 $0 11 Remote Interpreting Implementation 5 $0 $2,841,610 $2,841,610 $0 $2,951,549 $2,951, Support Services - Refresh/Maintenance for Remote Interpreting Equipment 5 $84,428 $0 $84,428 $445,293 $0 $445, Support Services - Statewide Call Manager for Remote Interpreting 6 $171,371 $0 $171,371 $93,619 $0 $93, Bandwidth $1,471,366 $0 $1,471,366 $0 $0 $0 Remote Interpreting and Bandwidth Subtotal TOTAL 1 Includes funding for proposed order submission enhancement. $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 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. 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 threeyear 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 noncivil 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 , $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 , $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 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 includes $93,619 to purchase an additional 17 licenses. 60 of 122

61 Agenda Item V.B.3. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Court Interpreting 61 of 122

62 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.3.: FY 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 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 , 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 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 request. Additionally, as part of the Comprehensive Trial Court Technology legislative budget request in FY and FY , the SCS requested $3,031,560 and $2,412,750, respectively, to expand remote interpreting systems. In FY , 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

63 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 11 th 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 , the courts received 4.0 FTE and $1,049,387 in contractual funds; however, in FY , the budget was reduced by 2.0 FTE and $184,739. In FY , the Legislature provided $100,000 in nonrecurring 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 SC amending the rules for certification and regulation of court interpreters. In response to concerns expressed during the FY 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 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 The Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring contractual dollars, partially funding this request for FY In FY , 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 , 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 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, of 122

64 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Option 1 (see Attachment A) utilizes the current funding methodology in which FY need is projected using FY 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 Option 2 (see Attachment B) projects the FY need by applying the average statewide growth rate in contractual expenditures over the last three years to estimated FY expenditures. The average growth rate is multiplied by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide growth rate from 2016 to Option 3 (see Attachment C) projects the FY need based on the average percent change in expenditures for each circuit from to estimated Circuits with a negative percent change in expenditures were set at FY estimated expenditures. Option 4 (see Attachment D) projects the FY need based on the average percent change in expenditures for the circuits that have experienced the largest increase in expenditures (5 th, 9 th, 11 th, and 15 th circuits) from to estimated 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

65 Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option 3. Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida b) Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11 th Judicial Circuit The 11 th 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 , 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 Based on the reported contractual rates from the full service firm in the Miami-Dade area, an additional $75,000 would provide funding for hours per week of interpreting services, which would provide the minimum level of coverage for Title IV-D cases. For FY , the total budget for court interpreting resources in the 11 th circuit was $3,149,959. This request represents 2.4% of the total current budget. Decision Needed Option 1: Recommend filing an FY LBR for $75,000 for court interpreting resources in Title IV-D cases in the 11 th 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. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option 1. c) Court Interpreting Base Salary Increase In its FY 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 Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding, without additional funding for FY , 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 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

66 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 , 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 judicial branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option 1. 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 , FY , and FY 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 and FY 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

67 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 Manager 1 $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 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 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 Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

68 Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment A Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Court Interpreting FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 1 A B C D E F G Circuit FTE FY Allocation 1 (CC 131, CC 267, and CC 730) Salaries, Benefits, & Expenses Beginning Contractual Allotment Total Budget FY Estimated Contractual Expenditures 2 FY Estimated Total Need Based on 6.5% Growth Rate $0 $47,630 $47,630 $51,630 $54, $0 $30,094 $30,094 $26,549 $28, $0 $34,190 $34,190 $28,282 $30, $0 $276,793 $276,793 $278,909 $297, $319,582 $145,386 $464,968 $190,266 $542, $138,155 $268,624 $406,779 $256,869 $420, $190,830 $72,686 $263,516 $65,887 $273, $67,554 $41,079 $108,633 $40,275 $114, $600,784 $187,108 $787,892 $216,222 $870, $413,499 $74,332 $487,831 $70,328 $515, $3,282,412 $561,370 $3,843,782 $557,147 $4,274, $122,916 $312,997 $435,913 $274,439 $423, $618,910 $152,332 $771,242 $151,250 $820, $0 $39,498 $39,498 $44,133 $47, $823,429 $172,141 $995,570 $206,947 $1,097, $133,467 $18,445 $151,912 $18,238 $161, $970,515 $150,919 $1,121,434 $152,740 $1,196, $60,793 $44,456 $105,249 $51,362 $119, $135,356 $472,670 $608,026 $494,025 $670, $437,355 $430,190 $867,545 $440,245 $934,644 Total $8,315,555 $3,532,940 $11,848,495 $3,615,743 $12,892,634 Option 1: FY LBR 4 $1,044,139 1 FY Allocation includes CC 131 (Court Interpreting), CC 267 (Cost Recovery), and CC 730 (Cost Sharing). 2 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward. 3 FY Estimated Total Need applies an estimated 6.5% statewide growth rate to the sum of each circuit's FY Allocation - Salaries, Benefits, and Expenses and FY 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 Option 1 FY LBR is the difference between FY Estimated Total Need and FY Total Budget. 68 of 122

69 Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment B A B C D E Circuit Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Court Interpreting FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 2 FY Expenditures FY Expenditures FY Estimated Expenditures 1 FY Estimated Expenditures 2 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, $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $84, $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $937, $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $327, $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $180, $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $52, $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $247, $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $21, $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $182, $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $61, $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $590, $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $525,966 Total $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $4,591,909 Percent Change 16.7% 1.9% Average Increase 9.3% Option 2: FY LBR 2 FY Estimated Expenditures is based on the average statewide percent change in expenditures from to estimated $1,058,969 1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward. 69 of 122

70 Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment C A B C D E F Circuit Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Court Interpreting FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 3 FY Expenditures FY Expenditures FY Expenditures FY Estimated Expenditures 1 FY Estimated Expenditures 2 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, $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $73, $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $1,092, $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $274, $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $166, $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $53, $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $412, $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $19, $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $180, $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $85, $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $580, $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 FMC Recommendation Option 3: FY LBR $1,487,818 1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward. 2 FY Estimated Expenditures is based on each Circuit's average percent change in expenditures from to estimated Circuits with a negative percent changes in expenditures were set at FY estimated expenditures. 70 of 122

71 Agenda Item V.B.3. Attachment D Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Court Interpreting FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 4 A B C D E F Circuit FY Expenditures FY Expenditures FY Expenditures FY Estimated Expenditures 1 Estimated FY Expenditures 2 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, $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $128, $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $857, $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $502, $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $276, $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $80, $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $378, $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $33, $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $279, $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $94, $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $904, $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 Percent Change 16.8% 16.7% 1.9% Average Increase 5th, 9th, 11th and 15th 83.1% Option 4: FY LBR $2,925,306 1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward. 2 FY Estimated Expenditures is based on the average percent change in expenditures from to estimated for the 5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits, where increases in interpreting demand has been greatest. 71 of 122

72 Agenda Item V.B.4. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Case Management 72 of 122

73 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.4.: FY 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 , 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 and FY 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 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, of 122

74 Option 1 1:5,500 Filings Ratio Using Three-Year Maximum Filings Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida 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 through FY , 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 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 through FY , 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 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, 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 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 2: File an LBR for $1,007,585 for an additional 15.0 FTE case managers. Option 3: File an LBR for $3,344,085 for an additional 50.0 FTE case managers. Option 4: Do not file an LBR for additional case managers. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

75 Agenda Item V.B.4. Attachment A A B C D E F G H Circuit FY FTE 1 Three-Year Maximum Filings 3 Total Need (Rounded to whole FTE) Net Need FTE 5 Three-Year Average Filings 4 Total Need (Rounded to whole FTE) Net Need FTE , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Total ,981, ,820, 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 through and does not include civil traffic infraction filings. 4 Three-year average filings based on fiscal years through and does not include civil traffic infraction filings. 5 Net need does not include circuits with a negative need. Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting FY Legislative Budget Request Case Management Option 1: Maximum Filings Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio 2 Option 2: Average Filings Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio 2 75 of 122

76 Agenda Item V.B.4. Attachment B Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017, Meeting Trial Court Budget Allocations FY Circuit Case Management - CC 122 FTE OPS Drug Court - CC217 Post-Adjudicatory Drug Court - CC 753 Contracted Services FTE FTE Recurring Veterans Court $300,000 Nonrecurring Veterans Court $125,000 $50, $ $350,000 $150, $27, $250, $14, $300, $150, $200, $150, $86, $2, Juvenile Drug Court Contracted Services (Non-Recurring) $116,149 $175, Veterans Court - CC $86,000 Total $42,419 $89, $1,425,000 $802,649 $175,000 Note: Not all funding received for problem solving courts is used for case management positions. 76 of 122

77 Agenda Item V.B.4. Attachment C A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Q Total: 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% Note: Case management resources include FTEs and contractual/ops resources, converted to FTEs. 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. Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting FY Legislative Budget Request FY Case Management Resources by Court Division 1 Family Court Circuit Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil County Criminal County Civil Pro Se DV/ DR UFC Other/ Unsp. Total Family Juvenile Probate / Guar. Other / General Drug Court 2 Veterans Court Total of 122

78 Agenda Item V.B.4. Attachment D Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting FY Legislative Budget Request Case Management Option 3: FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T FMC Family Court Rec. Circuit Criminal 1:3 Ratio Circuit Civil 1:3 Ratio Domestic Relations Juvenile 1:2 Ratio Probate/Guardianship 1:3 Ratio Grand Case Net Case Total Net Case Case Total Net Case Total Net Total Judicial Manager Total Need Judicial Manager Need Need Judicial Manager Judicial Manager Need Need Judicial Manager Need Need Net Circuit FTE 1 Resources 2 Need FTE FTE 1 Resources 3 FTE FTE FTE 1 Resources 4 FTE 1 Resources 5 FTE FTE FTE 1 Resources 6 FTE FTE Need Total Percent 31% 20% 26% 10% 22% 51% 13% 8% 5% 6% 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, 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). 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. 78 of 122

79 Agenda Item V.B.5. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Staff Attorneys 79 of 122

80 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.5.: FY 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 process 1 ). However, starting in FY , 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 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 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

81 Trial Court Budget Commission 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. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

82 Agenda Item V.B.5. Attachment A Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Trial Court Staff Attorneys FY Legislative Budget Request Option 1: Ratio of 1 Staff Attorney for Every 2 Judges A B C D E Circuit Number of Circuit Court Judges FY Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation 1 Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need 2 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Trial Court Staff Attorney Net Need 3 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Total FY Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation includes positions in CC 258 and CC (post Trial conviction). 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 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation. 4 The 2nd Circuit includes 1.0 FTE prison petition Staff Attorney in their FY 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 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation and Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need. Note: Resources associated with new judges are addressed in the certification process. 82 of 122

83 Agenda Item V.B.5. Attachment B Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Trial Court Staff Attorneys FY Legislative Budget Request Option 2: Death Penalty Staff Attorneys (Based on 10 Years of Cumulative Convictions) A B C D E F Capital Murder Delphi Case Weight (in Minutes) 3,273 FMC Recommendation 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) ,757 77, ,926 77, ,917 77, ,594 77, ,837 77, ,410 77, ,113 77, ,825 77, ,422 77, ,748 77, ,588 77, ,472 77, ,938 77, ,190 77, ,140 77, ,092 77, ,410 77, ,674 77, ,745 77, ,920 77, Total 1,966 6,434, The 10 Year Cumulative Capital Murder Convictions include Summary Reporting System data from FY through FY The Summary Reporting System statistics provided above were extracted from a dynamic data base and may be amended by the Clerk of Court. 83 of 122

84 Agenda Item V.B.5. Attachment C Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Trial Court Staff Attorneys FY Legislative Budget Request Option 3: FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division A B C D E F G H I J K L Circuit Criminal 2:1 Ratio Judicial FTE 1 Staff Attorney FTE Need Judicial FTE 1 Circuit Civil 2.5:1 Ratio Staff Attorney FTE Need Judicial FTE 1 Family 3:1 Ratio Staff Attorney FTE Need Judicial FTE 1 Staff Attorney FTE Need Circuit FTE Need Allocation Need Total Percent 31.4% 26.1% 34.7% 5.2% 1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, Totals may not be exact due to rounding. 2 Rounded to the 1.0 FTE level and does include negative net need values. Probate/Guardianship 2.5:1 Ratio Total Trial Court Staff Attorney FY Trial Court Staff Attorney Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Net 84 of 122

85 Agenda Item V.B.6. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration General Magistrates 85 of 122

86 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.6.: FY 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 , during Revision 7 to Article V. Additionally, general magistrates and their support staff were reduced by FTE in The last request submitted by the Court for general magistrate resources was for the FY 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 of 122

87 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 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 , , and 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 , , and , 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

88 Trial Court Budget Commission 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. Option 2: File an LBR for the General Magistrate element (16.0 Magistrate FTEs; 24.5 Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $3,535,727) based on the official methodology, using the average projected filings over three fiscal years. Option 3: File an LBR for the General Magistrate element (22.0 Magistrate FTEs; 34.0 Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $4,888,725) based on divisional need, using the average actual filings over three fiscal years. Option 4: File an LBR for the General Magistrate element (21.0 Magistrate FTEs; 34.0 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. Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation Approve Option of 122

89 Agenda Item V.B.6. Attachment A 89 of 122

90 Agenda Item V.B.6. Attachment A 90 of 122

91 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment B Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates Background Statistics - Option 1 A B C D E F FY Allocation Total Need Circuit General Magistrate FTE Allocation Administrative Support FTE Allocation Total Need 1 General Magistrate Average Total Need (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Administrative Support Average Total Need 2 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Total 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 , , and 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. 2 Administrative Support average total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate. 3 Circuit 7 FY 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. 91 of 122

92 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment C A B C D E Circuit General Magistrate Net Need Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 1 Net Need 1 Administrative Support Net Need General Magistrate FTE Administrative Support FTE Total The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. FMC Recommendation Option 1 FY Legislative Budget Request 1 Net Need is the difference between total need and FY FTE allocation. 92 of 122

93 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment D Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates Background Statistics - Option 2 A B C D E F FY Allocation Total Need Circuit General Magistrate FTE Allocation Administrative Support FTE Allocation Total Need 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Administrative Support Maximum Total Need 2 (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) Total 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 , , and 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. 2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate. 3 Circuit 7 FY 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. 93 of 122

94 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment E Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 2 A B C D E Net Need 1 Option 2 FY Legislative Budget Request Circuit General Magistrate Net Need Administrative Support Net Need General Magistrate FTE Administrative Support FTE Total Net Need is the difference between total need and FY FTE allocation. 2 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. 94 of 122

95 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment F Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Background Statistics - Option 3 A B C D E F G H I J K Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil Family Court Probate Mental Health and Guardianship Circuit General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) Total 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, 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 , , and 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. 3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. 95 of 122

96 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment G Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 3 A B C D E F G H Circuit Circuit Civil Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Family Court Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Mental Health and Guardianship Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Option 3 FY Legislative Budget Request General Magistrate (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 FY Administrative Support FTE FY Administrative Support FTE Need 2 Option 3 FY Legislative Budget Request Administrative Support Total Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments. 2 FY Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY FTE need minus FY Administrative Support FTE. 3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. 96 of 122

97 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment H Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting Background Statistics - Option 4 A B C D E F G H I J K Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil Family Court Probate Mental Health and Guardianship Circuit General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) 2 General Magistrate FTE Assignments 1 General Magistrate Maximum Total Need (Unrounded) Total 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, 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 , , and 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. 3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. 97 of 122

98 Agenda Item V.B.6.: Attachment I Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Meeting General Magistrates FY Legislative Budget Request - Option 4 A B C D E F G H Circuit Circuit Civil Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Family Court Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Mental Health and Guardianship Proposed General Magistrate LBR (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 FY Administrative Support FTE FY Administrative Support FTE Need Total Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments. 2 FY Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY FTE need minus FY Administrative Support FTE. 3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs. Option 4 FY Legislative Budget Request General Magistrate (Rounded to the nearest whole FTE) 1 Option 4 FY Legislative Budget Request Administrative Support 2 98 of 122

99 Agenda Item V.B.7. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Other Issues 99 of 122

100 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item V.B.7.: FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Issues for Consideration Other Issues There are no materials for this agenda item. 100 of 122

101 Agenda Item V.C. FY Legislative Budget Request (LBR) Priority Ranking of LBR Issues 101 of 122

102 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 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

103 Agenda Item VI.A. Other Legislative Developments 2018 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda 103 of 122

104 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Orlando, Florida Agenda Item VI.A.: Other Legislative Developments 2018 Judicial Branch Statutory Agenda There are no materials for this agenda item. 104 of 122

105 Agenda Item VI.B. Other Legislative Developments Interim Meeting Schedule 105 of 122

106 Trial Court Budget Commission July 22, 2017 Agenda Item VI.B.: Other Legislative Developments -- Interim Meeting Schedule INTERIM COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE September 2017 Week of the 11th October Week of the 9th October Week of the 23rd November Week of the 6th November Week of the 13th December Week of the 4th 106 of 122

107 Agenda Item VI.C. & D. Other Legislative Developments Statewide Uniform Case Management Database System Development Plan; Quarterly Travel Reports 107 of 122

108 Trial Court Budget Commission 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, Following is the specific proviso language from the General Appropriations Act (GAA), Chapter , 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, of 122

109 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 , 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

110 Agenda Item VII. Implementation of Recommendations from 2016 Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report 110 of 122

111 Trial Court Budget Commission 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 quasijudicial 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

112 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 and $413,847 for FY ). 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 and FY (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 and FY , 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 Legislative Budget Request. 112 of 122

113 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 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 113 of 122

114 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 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 quasijudicial 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 caserelated 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. i 114 of 122

115 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 The quality adjustment process included inperson 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 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 1 FLA. R. JUD. ADMIN (b)(1)(C). ii 115 of 122

116 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 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. iii 116 of 122

117 Attachment B September 9, 2016 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 The Honorable Jorge Labarga Chief Justice Supreme Court of Florida 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida Dear Chief Justice Labarga: At its meeting on August 11, 2016, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) addressed the Fiscal Year 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. 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 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. 117 of 122