Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Video ... · 22/05/2018 · Judge Barbara Lagoa Judge Darryl Casanueva . Others Present. P.K. Jameson, Eric Maclure, Sharon Bosley and

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Video Conference Meeting

AGENDA

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks A. Roll Call B. Approval of September 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes

II. FY 2017-18 Budget Status

A. Salary Budget B. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days C. Operating Budgets D. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

III. FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) A. LBR Timeline B. Discussion of LBR Issues and Priorities 1. 2nd DCA New Courthouse Site Acquisition and Design 2. Judicial Suite Staffing Complement 3. Judicial Suite Funding Model 4. Funding of Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions IV. Other Business and Adjournment

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks

Page 2 of 40

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission Meeting Minutes

September 5, 2017 Orlando, Florida

Members Present Judge Jonathan Gerber, Chair Judge Wendy Berger Judge Stevan Northcutt Judge Bradford Thomas Judge Spencer Levine Judge Jay Cohen

Marshal Veronica Antonoff Marshal Charles Crawford Marshal Jo Haynes Judge Leslie Rothenberg Marshal Chris Corzine Marshal Daniel DiGiacomo

Judge Clayton Roberts Members Absent Judge Vance Salter Judge Edward LaRose Judge Barbara Lagoa Judge Darryl Casanueva Others Present P.K. Jameson, Eric Maclure, Sharon Bosley and other OSCA staff Special Note: It is recommended that these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting materials. Agenda Item I.: Welcome and Opening Remarks Judge Jonathan Gerber welcomed members and called the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. Judge Gerber inquired if there were any edits to the August 3, 2017, meeting minutes. Judge Northcutt noted the minutes incorrectly reflect recommendations from the Salary Budget Committee regarding the Budget and Pay Memo. Judge Gerber requested Judge Northcutt to provide the required changes to the minutes. The August 3, 2017, draft minutes were approved subject to revisions.

Page 3 of 40

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission September 5, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Agenda Item II.: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Salary Budget A. Update on Previous DCABC Actions

i. First DCA Central Staff Director Pay Request – Supreme Court Conference

August 30, 2017 Judge Gerber provided an update on the First DCA Central Staff Director Pay Request stating the proposal submitted contained two alternatives. Option One was an across the board pay increase. Option Two consisted of an increase for the First DCA central staff only. Judge Gerber stated the supreme court met on August 30, 2017, and approved the second alternative, an increase to the central staff in the First DCA. PK Jameson noted that there was no discussion by the court regarding the issue, just an approval.

ii. Judicial Assistant CAD Issue – Being Analyzed by OSCA Staff

Beatriz Caballero reported that due to the current workload associated with the LBR pay plan issue, the Judicial Assistant CAD review had not been conducted yet. Ms. Caballero stated once the review is complete, the information will be forwarded to the DCABC. Marshal Haynes inquired if the review will be conducted prior to court conference in October. Ms. Caballero replied that she would hopefully have a recommendation soon. Judge Gerber noted that due to timing, an email vote would be preferred if DCABC action is required.

B. Update on Supplemental Appropriations

Judge Gerber stated this agenda item was related to the Salary Budget Committee (SBC) charge to determine if a rate distribution is possible. Eric Maclure advised that budget staff can view preliminary numbers and noted that staff will complete the analysis after affirmation of numbers and once the LBR is filed. Judge Northcutt noted the CAD issue would also need to be finalized for the SBC to make rate distribution recommendations.

C. Review and Confirm Budget and Pay Memo Recommendations Judge Gerber stated at the August 3, 2017, meeting the SBC presented their recommendations regarding the Budget and Pay Memo. The DCABC voted for Judge Gerber and Judge Roberts to meet with the chief justice to set up dialogue and communicate the DCABC concerns regarding the memo. Judge Gerber stated a meeting was scheduled for August 31st and subsequently cancelled. The DCABC received direction via a letter from the chief justice to proceed with setting forth recommendations for the Budget and Pay Memo. Marshal Haynes noted the meeting minutes reflect the marshals would be included in the

Page 4 of 40


$1,000 pay increase, however, the Budget and Pay Memo does not reflect the pay increase. Judge Gerber stated the version of the memo presented in the materials addresses this issue in another section. With no objections, the recommended Budget and Pay Memo presented in the meeting materials was approved.

D. Senior Judge Pay Increase Proposal

Eric Maclure reviewed the senior judge pay increase issue, stating at their June meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) voted to approve a pay increase for senior judges to $375 per day. Marshal Haynes inquired if the Supreme Court has approved the trial courts budget and pay memo and if the increase in pay would be retroactive. Judge Gerber confirmed that the trial courts memo has been approved. Beatriz Caballero noted it would not be an issue for the pay increase to be retroactive to July, if approved. Judge Gerber stated the chart presented for approval is an accurate representation of how the pay increase would impact each district court. The proposed increase to senior judge pay was approved with no objections, with the caveat that the budget and pay memo would be revised to reflect the approval and that the pay increase would be retroactive with a July 1st effective date.

E. Fourth DCA Floating Law Clerk Continuation Request

Eric Maclure presented the Fourth DCA issue. Judge Gerber stated it was the Fourth’s intention to convert this position to a third deputy marshal, however, due to anticipated lengthy absences, the Fourth needs to retain the floating law clerk. Judge Gerber stated the Fourth will review this position annually to best determine the need and will convert the position to its original intention once the need to retain a floating law clerk is no longer necessary. With no objections, Option One, to approve the Fourth DCA request to maintain the floating law clerk FTE and evaluate the workflow levels annually to determine whether to maintain or convert the position, was approved.

F. First DCA Reclassification Request

Beatriz Caballero presented the First DCA reclassification request. Judge Thomas stated that the First DCA has taken internal measures and thanked Marshal Crawford for his assistance. Judge Roberts noted the incumbents of the positions are long-term sworn law enforcement officers but have not been in sworn positions. The First DCA has recently become a law enforcement agency. Option One, approve the Fist DCA’s request to reclassify position numbers 11672, 11673, and 10674 from Court Security Officer I to the minimum of a Deputy Marshal-District Court classification, in accordance with Section A-7 of the November 22, 2016, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum was unanimously approved.

Page 5 of 40


G. Third DCA Reclassification Request Beatriz Caballero presented the Third DCA reclassification request. Judge Rothenberg requested the action to be expedited if approved due to being down an officer. Ms. Caballero noted, if approved, the position would only need to be reclassified and this process can be accomplished quickly. Option One, approve the Third DCA’s request to reclassify position number 99006 from a Court Security Officer I to the minimum of a Deputy Marshal-District Court classification, in accordance with Section A-7 of the November 22, 2016, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum was unanimously approved.

Agenda Item III.: Update on Second DCA FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request Judge Gerber presented an update on the Second DCA LBR request, stating the additional $4 million requested for acquisition of land was the mid-range of comparable land sales. Judge Gerber reported that he and Judge Roberts held a conference call with the trial courts once the DCABC approved including the additional funds for the LBR issue. PK Jameson stated the chief justice and the courts were very supportive of the Second DCA LBR issue.

Agenda Item VI.: Other Business and Adjournment Other Business Judge Gerber reminded members of the following:

• September 14th – LBR press conference. • The first legislative committee week is scheduled for the week of September 11th. Judge

Gerber and Roberts will be in Tallahassee during the committee week. Judge Gerber stated he fully expects to engage the Second DCA judges with the legislature.

• Judge Gerber stated it is not necessary to schedule future meetings at this time; however, members should monitor for emails in the event issues arise requiring immediate action.

Adjournment With no other business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

Page 6 of 40

II. FY 2017-18 Budget Status

Page 7 of 40

District Court of Appeal Budget CommissionMay 22, 2018

Video Conference Call

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

Agenda Item II.A.: Salary Budget

1 43,483,260

3 (755)

4 3,562

5 9,399

6 4,066

7 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2018 43,499,532

8 (43,454,531)

9 45,001

10 (769,981)

11 (724,980)

12 43,314

13 (681,666)

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2018

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

Actual Payroll Adjustments through April 30, 2018

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

FY 2017-18 District Courts of Appeal Salary Budget

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

Estimated Remaining Leave Payouts

Salary Appropriation

April 2018

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

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

Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2018

Page 8 of 40



District Court

Cost Center

Cost Center NamePositionNumber

Class Title FTE# of Days

Vacant

Date Position Vacant

Base Rate

1st 111 Judicial Assistants 000063 Judicial Asst - District Court 1.00 185 11/13/2017 35,868.39




2nd 115Facility Maintenance & Management

000079 Custodial Worker 0.50 531 12/02/2016 21,682.13

* 000 Reserve 011922 Deputy Court Marshal-District Court 1.00 0 00/00/0000 35,903.40










Agenda Item II.B: Positions Vacant over 180 Days

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

Page 9 of 40


Video Conference CallAgenda Item II.C.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

1st 24,809 0 24,809 0.00%2nd 14,560 1,016 13,544 6.97%3rd 14,560 4,791 9,769 32.91%4th 18,634 16,242 2,392 87.16%5th 76,434 21,432 55,002 28.04%

TOTAL 148,997 43,480 105,517 29.18%1st 1,425,124 1,392,176 32,948 97.69%2nd 1,097,272 1,019,590 77,682 92.92%3rd 327,087 233,240 93,847 71.31%4th 308,786 234,727 74,059 76.02%5th 264,886 193,577 71,309 73.08%

TOTAL 3,423,155 3,073,311 349,844 89.78%1st 4,642 0 4,642 0.00%2nd 64,770 14,234 50,536 21.98%3rd 3,725 1,225 2,500 32.89%4th 18,977 17,081 1,896 90.01%5th 7,250 4,853 2,397 66.94%

TOTAL 99,364 37,392 61,972 37.63%1st 7,700 0 7,700 0.00%2nd 23,079 4,565 18,514 19.78%3rd 0 0 0 0.00%4th 0 0 0 0.00%5th 2,016 0 2,016 0.00%

TOTAL 32,795 4,565 28,230 13.92%1st 83,594 21,609 61,985 25.85%2nd 231,012 172,496 58,516 74.67%3rd 147,950 133,276 14,674 90.08%4th 165,247 145,588 19,659 88.10%5th 69,771 57,352 12,419 82.20%

TOTAL 697,574 530,320 167,254 76.02%

Expenses

Operating Capital Outlay

Contracted Services

Senior Judge Days

Other Personal Services

The data below represents the status of the FY 2017-18 operating budget as of April 30, 2018.

Page 10 of 40


Video Conference CallAgenda Item II.C.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

The data below represents the status of the FY 2017-18 operating budget as of April 30, 2018.

1st 86,641 38,649 47,992 44.61%2nd 34,977 23,787 11,190 68.01%3rd 9,600 7,857 1,744 81.84%4th 0 0 0 0.00%5th 15,705 14,846 859 94.53%

TOTAL 146,923 85,139 61,784 57.95%1st 16,895 10,067 6,828 59.59%2nd 13,669 12,251 1,418 89.63%3rd 6,100 3,466 2,634 56.82%4th 4,586 4,586 0 100.00%5th 12,446 7,371 5,075 59.22%

TOTAL 53,696 37,741 15,955 70.29%

Administrative Trust Fund

AppropriationExpended /

EncumberedRemaining

Balance% Expended

94,669 19,344 75,325 20.43%27,000 0 27,000 0.00%

121,669 19,344 102,325 15.90%TOTAL

DCA Law Library

Category

ExpensesOperating Capital Outlay

Lease/Lease Purchase

Page 11 of 40

Prepared by Office of Budget Services

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

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

3 Add: FY 2017-18 Projected Revenues1 74,596,076

4 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

5 Less: Estimated Expenditures2 (70,139,610)

6 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge³ (5,922,045)

7 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2018 14,345,427

8 Beginning Balance July 1, 2018 14,345,427

9 Add: FY 2018-19 Projected Revenues1 73,670,230

10 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

11 Less: Estimated Expenditures⁴ (75,997,425)

12 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge³ (6,001,501)

12 Less: Estimated 5% Reserve⁵ (3,383,436)

13 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2019 6,328,642

⁵ The estimated 5% reserve is calculated on the February 9, 2018 Revenue Estimating Conference projection for FY 18-19 less the 8% GR service charge.

3 The GR service charge is based on revenues collected/projected for the last three months of the prior fiscal year and the first, second, and third quarters of the current year.

⁴ The total estimated budget authority including supplemental appropriations is $75,997,425 ($75,962,425 staff salary expenditures and $35,000 refund of state revenues).

FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19



FY 2017 - 18

FY 2018 -19

2 Represents actual year-to-date expenditures and estimated expenditures for staff salaries and estimated refunds. The total budget authority is $75,003,092 ($74,968,092 staff salary expenditures and $35,000 refund of state revenues).

Estimated Cash Balances

As of April 30, 2018

¹ Based on actual revenues and refunds received and/or February 9, 2018, Revenue Estimating Conference projection.

STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND

Agenda Item II.D. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Page 12 of 40

1 Beginning Balance July 1, 2017 69,666

2 Revenues Received 1,892,832

3 Expenditures (1,360,914)

4 Cash Balance as of April 30, 2018 601,584

FY 2017 - 18

FY 2017-18 Cash StatementAs of April 30, 2018



ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST FUND

Agenda Item II.D. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Page 13 of 40

III. FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

Page 14 of 40

2019-2020 Legislative Budget Request Timeline

District Courts of Appeal

Tuesday, May 22 Preliminary LBR discussion; District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission (DCABC) meeting 1p.m. to 3p.m. - Video Conference Meeting

Thursday, May 24 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) technical instructions distributed via

email to Chief Judges and Marshals

Friday, July 13 Budget requests due to OSCA Office of Budget Services

Monday, July 16 - Issues and summaries prepared by Budget Services for District Court of

Friday, July 27 Appeal Budget Commission review

Tuesday, August 14 District Court of Appeal Budget Commission meeting to review and

approval of final Legislative Budget Request 3:30p.m. to 4:30p.m. - Video Conference Meeting

Thursday, September 6 Joint meeting of leadership materials sent out via email

Tuesday, September 11 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 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. – Telephone Conference (Executive Conference Center has been

reserved for Tallahassee participants)

Tuesday, September 18 Final LBR recommendations distributed to the Supreme Court for Court

Conference

Wednesday, September 26 Approval of LBR recommendations by the Supreme Court

Friday, October 12 Public Hearing 2:00p.m. to 3p.m. – Executive Conference Center

Monday, October 15 Submission of the Legislative Budget Request to the Legislature

Page 15 of 40

bosleys

Text Box

Agenda Item III.A.

FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Plan

Fixed Capital Outlay Legislative Budget Request Timeline

District Courts of Appeal

Tuesday, May 22 Preliminary LBR discussion; District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission (DCABC) meeting 1p.m. to 3p.m. - Video Conference Meeting

Thursday, May 24 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) technical instructions distributed via

email to Chief Judges and Marshals

Thursday, May 31 Marshals notify Project Monitor* and OSCA Chief of Budget Services of

intent to file issue(s) for FCO and begin development of FCO issues

Friday, July 13 FCO project plans and CIPP forms due to OSCA Project Monitor and

FCO narratives due to OSCA Budget Services Office

Monday, July 16 - Project Monitor review of FCO issue request. Issues and summaries

Friday, July 27 prepared by Budget Services for District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission review

Tuesday, August 14 District Court of Appeal Budget Commission meeting to review and

approval of final Legislative Budget Request 3:30p.m. to 4:30p.m. - Video Conference Meeting

Thursday, September 6 Joint meeting of leadership materials sent out via email

Tuesday, September 11 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 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. – Telephone Conference (Executive Conference Center has been

reserved for Tallahassee participants)

Tuesday, September 18 Final LBR recommendations distributed to the Supreme Court for Court

Conference

Wednesday, September 26 Approval of LBR recommendations by the Supreme Court

Friday, October 12 Public Hearing Tallahassee, Florida

Monday, October 15 Submission of the Legislative Budget Request to the Legislature

*Project Manager Contact Information:

Steven Hall, Chief of General Services

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (850)487-2373

Page 16 of 40

State Courts System Policy

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

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

I. Accountability for Judicial Branch Actions in the Administration of District Court Fixed

Capital Outlay (FCO) Projects

This policy sets forth procedures for the oversight and monitoring of district court

courthouse construction projects provided by the Supreme Court, through the Office

of the State Courts Administrator. This policy is applicable to planning, construction,

and post- construction activities. Projects included in this policy must meet the

following criteria:

a. Project requested or funded in accordance with s. 216.011(1)(p), [“Fixed capital

outlay” means the appropriation category used to fund real property (land,

buildings, including appurtenances, fixtures and fixed equipment, structures,

etc.) including additions, replacements, major repairs, and renovations to real

property which materially extend its useful life or materially improve or change

its functional use and including furniture and equipment necessary to furnish

and operate a new or improved facility, when appropriated by the legislature in

the fixed capital outlay appropriation category.]

b. Project funded with state revenues.

II. Legislative Budget Requests

Legislative Budget Requests (LBR) for fixed capital outlay projects must be submitted

to the Office of Budget Services within the Office of the State Courts Administrator,

as follows:

a. DCA Marshals will notify the Budget Services Manager of their court’s intent to

file an issue for FCO.

b. The State Courts Administrator will assign an internal Project Monitor to work

with the Marshal on front-end consultation with project components:

i. Identify liaison with Department of Management Services (DMS) for DMS

managed projects;

Page 17 of 40

2 District Court Fixed Capital Outlay Policy

ii. Review project plan; and

iii. Review budget for proper format, reasonableness, and financial and

technical completeness.

c. The Office of Budget Services will provide technical training on the format and

required information to complete the Capital Improvement Program Plan (CIPP)

documents.

d. The Budget Services Manager will ensure that the FCO request information is

appropriately completed in the Capital Improvement Program Plan (CIPP) for

inclusion in the DCA LBR package.

e. The Office of Budget Services will forward the request to the District Court of

Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) for review and approval, as part of the final

DCA LBR package sent to the Supreme Court.

III. Contracting/Obligating Fixed Capital Outlay Project Funds

When funds are appropriated by the Legislature the following steps must be

completed before funds may be encumbered:

a. The Project Monitor will consult with the Marshal on the project implementation

plan and timeline.

b. The Project Monitor will consult with the liaison from DMS (if DMS managed)

throughout the implementation phases of the project.

c. The budget must be reviewed and adjusted for any changes since the original

request was submitted. These adjustments include but are not limited to:

i. Legislative change to project scope;

ii. Legislative change in funding amount;

iii. Change to implementation or phase-in schedule;

iv. Change in project management (DMS vs. district court); and

v. The itemized budget must be reviewed by the Project Monitor for proper

format, reasonableness, and financial and technical completeness.

d. The General Services Manager will provide consultation to the Marshal regarding

the appropriate purchasing mechanisms, when the project is managed by the

district court.

e. The Project Monitor will review all contracts and contract change orders for

proper format, reasonableness, scope, financial and technical completeness.

Page 18 of 40


f. The State Courts Administrator, in consultation with the Project Monitor, must

review all contracts before funds are executed.

g. The State Courts Administrator, in consultation with the Project Monitor, must

review all requests for funds to be encumbered.

IV. Making Expenditures Against Fixed Capital Outlay Project Funds

a. The State Courts Administrator, in consultation with the Project Monitor, must

review all expenditures before payment of funds is made.

b. The Project Monitor will advise the Finance and Accounting Services Manager on

the status of the project funds at the inception of the project, so the appropriate

accounting and monitoring structure can be established.

c. The Finance and Accounting Services Manager will make payment of

expenditures according to the Division of Financial Services audit requirements

which include but are not limited to:

i. Date of contract;

ii. Contract service period;

iii. Scope of project;

iv. Authorized signatures;

v. Allowable/reasonable expenditure;

vi. Services/commodities received; and

vii. Availability of funds.

d. The Project Monitor must reconcile expenditures with FLAIR on a monthly basis,

and in consultation with the Marshal and the DMS liaison (if DMS managed).

e. Official accounting records will be maintained in the Office of Finance and

Accounting Services.

f. The district court will maintain all project records in accordance with the Judicial

Branch Records Retention Schedule.

g. Additional supporting records will be maintained by the Project Monitor

according to the Judicial Branch Records Retention Schedule and include but are

not limited to the following:

i. Documents necessary for review and analysis of the budget and

expenditures.

ii. Correspondence necessary to update the State Courts Administrator and

Chief Justice.

iii. Correspondence with the Marshal and DMS (if DMS managed).

Page 19 of 40


V. Reporting Requirements

In addition to the reporting requirements outlined above, the Project Monitor will

provide monthly project expenditure reports to the State Courts Administrator and the

Chief Justice.

The Project Monitor will provide also provide the State Courts Administrator and the

Chief Justice with quarterly reports on the status of the project. These reports will

include but are not limited to:

a. Status of bid proposals, RFP’s, ITN’s, contract negotiations, etc.;

b. Status of project schedule;

c. Changes to scope or project timeline; and

d. Issues of concern.

VI. Audit Requirements

The Supreme Court Office of Inspector General will conduct reviews of judicial branch

actions in all district court building projects during the planning and building phases of

construction, as well as post-construction.

Prepared by Administrative Services Division, Office of the State Courts Administrator, June 1, 2011

Page 20 of 40

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

May 22, 2018


Agenda Item III.B.1. Discussion of LBR Issues and Priorities – Second

District Court of Appeal New Courthouse Site Acquisition and Design

Background:

In FY 2017-18, the Supreme Court submitted a legislative budget request (LBR) for $8,196,359

in non-recurring general revenue for: 1) the Legislature to select a new consolidated courthouse

site; 2) the cost to acquire a site if not already state-owned; 3) the Department of Management

Services (DMS) to retain an architect to design a new courthouse on the selected site; and 4)

DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs of the new courthouse design.

The request was not funded. The detailed narrative submitted is attached (Attachment A).

The draft narrative for FY 2019-20 LBR submission is attached (Attachment B).

Page 21 of 40

Agenda Item III.B.1. Attachment A

Second District Court of Appeal – New Courthouse Building

The Second District Court of Appeal (DCA) requests $8,196,359 in non-recurring for: 1) the

Legislature to select a new consolidated courthouse site; 2) the cost to acquire a site if not

already state-owned; 3) the Department of Management Services (DMS) to retain an architect to

design a new courthouse on the selected site; and 4) DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the

costs of the new courthouse design.

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

Act, directed DMS to “contract for a study of the courthouse space and location needs of the

Second District Court of Appeal.” On December 22, 2016, DMS submitted to the Legislature

the “Second District Court of Appeal Space and Location Needs Study.”

The Study’s Executive Summary includes the following facts and recommendations:

Currently the Second DCA is the only appellate court in the state that has operations in two

locations, Lakeland and Tampa (p. 4).

The Second DCA has vacated the Lakeland courthouse due to health concerns presented by

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

It is estimated that the Lakeland courthouse needs at least $6.5 million in repairs, well above

the facility’s estimated value (p. 7). Even with such investment, a repaired facility does not

meet the Second DCA’s operations requirements (p. 7).

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

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

also includes space for only two central staff attorneys, various support staff, and the Clerk’s

and Marshal’s offices, but does not include a courtroom (p. 8).

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

University’s College of Law (p. 8). However, the Second DCA currently does not have a

courtroom under its control (p. 5). All oral arguments take place in classroom space

controlled by Stetson University or in other locations (p. 5).

All Second DCA judges are provided with limited space in the Tampa leased space (p. 8).

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

staff attorneys and the Second DCA’s central staff attorneys work in cubicles and shared

offices (p. 8).

Consolidation into one location would significantly improve the efficiency of the court by

streamlining operations, reducing duplicative costs, and improving productivity (pp. 4-5).

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

The DMS Study recommends that the parcel selection process for the new courthouse should

first explore state-owned land located in the Tampa Bay region (p. 6). Consideration should

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

Based on the foregoing, the Second DCA respectfully requests $8,196,359 (non-recurring) in

Fiscal Year 2018-19 for:

(1) the Legislature to select a new consolidated courthouse site;

(2) the cost to acquire a site if not already state-owned;

Page 22 of 40

Agenda Item III.B.1. Attachment A

(3) DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse on the selected site; and

(4) DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs to construct that design on the selected site,

so the Second DCA can request those costs in future years.

Of the requested $8,196,359, $4,196,359 is estimated for pre-construction services. That amount

was derived by applying a 1.44 multiplier upon the actual costs of $2,914,138 incurred for pre-

construction services for the new courthouse currently under construction for the Fourth District

Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach. A 1.44 multiplier is being applied because the costs of

pre-construction services typically are based on the estimated square footage of the facility to be

constructed. The Study estimates the Second DCA’s ideal departmental space to be

approximately 59,000 square feet (Study at p. 40), which would be 1.44 times larger than the

Fourth DCA’s departmental space of approximately 41,000 square feet. Thus, applying a 1.44

multiplier upon the actual costs of $2,914,138 incurred for pre-construction services for the new

courthouse currently under construction for the Fourth DCA in West Palm Beach, would amount

to $4,196,359 estimated to be necessary for pre-construction services for a new courthouse for

the Second DCA. It should be noted that only limited pre-construction services can be

completed until the courthouse site has been selected. The building cannot be designed without

full and complete site information.

The remaining $4,000,000 requested is estimated for the cost to acquire land if the Legislature

selects a site which is not state-owned land (i.e., not free land) or land owned by another

governmental jurisdiction which may be available at a lower than market rate. In that event,

additional funds may be needed to complete the land acquisition. Also, if the Legislature

determines that, in addition to building a new consolidated courthouse, the Second DCA should

maintain a satellite location, then additional funds would be needed to construct offices or lease

space at that satellite location.

In the event that the above estimates for pre-construction services or land acquisition are higher

or lower than expected, any remaining appropriated funds would be used to compensate for the

other, or would be used towards building construction.

Page 23 of 40

Agenda Item III.B.1. Attachment B

Second District Court of Appeal (2d DCA) – New Courthouse Building The 2d DCA requests $ as the first year appropriation for a new courthouse building requiring two years of appropriations. The Florida Legislature, in Specific Appropriation 3142A of the 2016 General Appropriations Act, directed DMS to “contract for a study of the courthouse space and location needs of the Second District Court of Appeal.” On December 22, 2016, DMS submitted to the Legislature the “Second District Court of Appeal Space and Location Needs Study.” The Study’s Executive Summary includes the following facts and recommendations: • The 2d DCA has vacated its Lakeland courthouse due to health concerns

presented by the 55-year old courthouse’s degradation (p. 8). • The 2d DCA now operates in Lakeland in separate leased space (p. 8). However,

space exists for only three judges in the Lakeland leased space (p. 8). The Lakeland leased space also includes space for only two central staff attorneys, various support staff, and the Clerk’s and Marshal’s offices, but does not include a courtroom (p. 8).

• The 2d DCA continues to operate in Tampa in leased space controlled by Stetson University’s College of Law (p. 8). However, the 2d DCA currently does not have a courtroom under its control (p. 5). All oral arguments take place in a classroom with a bench designed to host moot court and mock trial competitions (p. 5).

• All 2d DCA judges are provided with limited space in the Tampa leased space (p. 8). However, some of the offices are less than ideal (p. 8). By necessity, several of the judges’ staff attorneys and the 2d DCA’s central staff attorneys work in cubicles and shared offices (p. 8).

• Consolidation into one location would significantly improve the efficiency of the court by streamlining operations, reducing duplicative costs, and improving productivity (pp. 4-5).

• The best long-term option is to build a new state-owned courthouse (p. 6). • The parcel selection process should first explore state-owned land located in

identified submarkets in the Tampa Bay region (p. 6). Consideration should also be given to land owned by other governmental jurisdictions (p. 6).

• Should the acquisition of privately owned land be necessary, the potential purchase price could be as low as $5 per square foot to more than $150 per square foot (p. 7).

• The estimated square foot requirement to build a new state-owned courthouse is 73,149 square feet (pp. 6, 40).

Page 24 of 40

• In addition to land acquisition costs, the estimated design and construction costs are approximately $440 to $460 per square foot or $32.2 to $33.7 million (p. 6).

• This range of anticipated cost includes the cost differences between developing in a downtown submarket versus other submarkets in addition to specific site conditions (p. 6).

• The impact of secured parking – including surface versus structured parking – will also impact overall cost (p. 6).

• The estimated cost would also be impacted by the commencement date of construction as pricing changes over time, plus or minus 5% each year (p. 6).

• The estimated cost does not include furniture, fixtures, and equipment, which also would need to be purchased (p. 6).

Based on the Study, the 2d DCA, during the 2018 session, requested $8.2 million for only pre-construction costs, including the cost to acquire a site if not already state-owned, for DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse on the selected site, and for DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs to construct that design on the selected site, so the 2d DCA could request those construction costs in future years. The request stated that additional funds may have been needed to complete the land acquisition. The requested funds were not included within the 2018 General Appropriations Act. Due to the continued urgent need for a courthouse, the 2d DCA’s request for the 2019 session has increased to reflect not only pre-construction costs, but also a portion of the construction costs. Adding up the estimates in the Study’s Executive Summary (recited above) indicates the total project cost could exceed $40 million: Site/building acquisition $365,000 to $11.0 million (73,149 sq ft x $5-150/sq ft) Design/construction costs $32.2 to $33.7 million (73,149 sq ft x $440-460/sq ft) Furniture/fixtures/equip. (amount not estimated in Study) Therefore, the 2d DCA requests $ in FY 2019-20 (year one) for: 1) the Legislature to select a new courthouse site; 2) the cost to acquire a site or existing building if not already state-owned; 3) DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse for the selected site/bldg; 4) DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs of the courthouse design; and 5) construction, to be applied along with the FY 2020-21 (year two) appropriation. FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request: $ (non-recurring)

Page 25 of 40

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission May 22, 2018


Agenda Item III.B.2. Judicial Suite Staffing Complements Issue: Chief Judge Brad Thomas has requested discussion by the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) regarding changing the present judicial suite staffing complement of two law clerks and one judicial assistant per judge to allow for the judicial assistant position to be classified as a hybrid law clerk/judicial assistant. Issues for Consideration:

• This is a two part issue involving both funding and staffing model changes that would require action by both the DCABC and the District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability Commission (DCAP&A).

Page 26 of 40



Agenda Item III.B.3. Judicial Suite Funding Model Issue: Chief Judge Brad Thomas has requested discussion by the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) regarding the concept of creating a Judicial Suite Funding Model under which all judicial suites have equal salary budgets. To help facilitate the discussion, attached is a spreadsheet detailing the present judicial suite cost and position complements for all five appellate courts. Issues for Consideration:

• Should the judicial suite funding model be established as a cap or range? • Would a judicial suite funding model cap or range be calculated based on rate or

salary dollars? • Would the judicial suite funding model cap or range include both judge and staff, or

solely staff? • How or should current years of service be a factor? • How or should current salaries be factored? For example, if a funding cap or range is

established, how do you address judicial suites that may presently exceed it? • How would the model maintain/balance equitable pay among judicial suites verses

experience? • Would the current staffing complement be maintained under the model? • How does a judicial suite funding model impact the Appellate Court Law Clerk Pay

Plan? • What requirements of the current Personnel Regulations may affect establishment and

operation of a funding model? • How will judicial suite funding rates be monitored? • How would the Central Staff employees factor into the judicial suite funding model? • Would legislative funding be sought, if the current budget is not sufficient to fund the

model? • How would a judicial suite funding model factor into future legislative budget

requests for new judgeships? • To what extent will the DCABC, chief judges, or the Supreme Court be involved in

decisions regarding allocation of funds among employees in a judicial suite?

Page 27 of 40

Agenda Item III.B.3: Judicial Suite Funding Model - ATTACHMENT

RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS

1 Total 152,254 $208,338 132,103 $187,067 199,261 $280,305 160,885 $207,914 152,959 $201,833

2 Total 169,740 $231,464 156,277 $215,459 172,176 $222,025 169,861 $242,291 146,645 $207,947

3 Total 146,923 $206,181 137,644 $196,433 164,534 $233,539 168,530 $229,931 166,234 $235,214

4 Total 170,074 $236,762 196,379 $258,440 182,992 $262,266 172,997 $250,716 172,388 $215,424

5 Total 154,100 $205,678 161,752 $218,284 179,454 $254,134 150,472 $218,731 170,544 $228,743

6 Total 144,998 $186,317 205,309 $281,823 176,923 $246,293 160,095 $226,727 169,571 $235,545

7 Total 150,061 $207,911 182,862 $261,031 185,775 $265,482 171,525 $248,756 167,990 $223,076

8 Total 131,003 $182,535 156,956 $214,317 189,368 $259,231 161,160 $227,936 163,113 $232,150

9 Total 156,582 $197,811 165,529 $214,547 182,011 $261,248 163,483 $220,618 165,663 $222,246

10 Total 194,855 $270,793 179,790 $242,204 137,119 $195,435 138,403 $182,792 133,817 $192,728

11 Total 138,218 $187,804 172,845 $250,363 138,403 $182,070 171,961 $214,261

12 Total 128,696 $167,959 168,744 $221,880 148,903 $216,149

13 Total 167,465 $224,933 188,733 $258,152

14 Total 140,596 $183,857 175,121 $233,057

15 Total 147,773 $203,606 153,293 $200,020

16 Total 138,871 $194,167

2,293,339 $3,101,949 2,672,207 $3,647,244 1,769,613 $2,479,958 1,904,715 $2,654,632 1,780,885 $2,409,166

152,889 $206,797 167,013 $227,953 176,961 $247,996 158,726 $221,219 161,899 $219,015


May 22, 2018


Judicial Suite Cost

3RD DISTRICT 4TH DISTRICT 5TH DISTRICT2ND DISTRICT1ST DISTRICT

Total Cost

Average Suite Cost

Page 28 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS

1.0 000065 JUDICIAL ASSISTANT - 50,851 $76,187

1.0 001654 SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.0 54,586 $70,564

1.0 004787 LAW CLERK 1.0 46,817 $61,586

50,751 $69,446


1.0 004401 CAREER ATTORNEY 9.3 65,303 $82,951

1.0 008976 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.7 54,586 $70,564

56,580 $77,155


1.0 006553 SENIOR LAW CLERK 4.8 54,586 $79,406

1.0 004790 CAREER ATTORNEY 16.0 70,887 $98,245

48,974 $68,727


1.0 003221 CAREER ATTORNEY 8.7 65,337 $91,831

1.0 011670 SENIOR LAW CLERK 4.1 54,886 $79,752

56,691 $78,921


1.0 009074 CAREER ATTORNEY 18.7 71,721 $90,368

1.0 006571 SENIOR LAW CLERK 4.8 55,086 $79,983

51,367 $68,559


1.0 009237 CAREER ATTORNEY 16.0 70,887 $89,404

1.0 009001 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

48,333 $62,106

1.0 - JUDICIAL ASSISTANT VACANT 35,868 $54,806

1.0 004399 SENIOR LAW CLERK VACANT 53,586 $74,118

1.0 004789 CAREER ATTORNEY 10.9 60,607 $78,987

50,020 $69,304


1.0 004370 LAW CLERK 0.5 45,817 $63,253

1.0 004043 LAW CLERK 1.3 49,317 $64,476

43,668 $60,845


1.0 008702 CAREER ATTORNEY 7.3 61,107 $78,101

1.0 003954 CAREER ATTORNEY 0.0 59,607 $64,904

52,194 $65,937

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

FTE

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

COURT YEARS RATE SALARY DOLLARSSUITE #

1

2

3

4

5

CLASS TITLE

STAFF COMPLEMENT

(by position number)

7

8

9

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

170,074 $236,762

TOTAL SUITE

152,254 $208,338

169,740 $231,464

146,923 $206,181

154,100 $205,678

6144,998 $186,317

131,003 $182,535

156,582 $197,811


May 22, 2018


1ST DISTRICT

150,061 $207,911

Page 29 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARSFTE COURT YEARS RATE SALARY DOLLARSSUITE #

1

CLASS TITLE

STAFF COMPLEMENT

(by position number)

TOTAL SUITE

152,254 $208,338


May 22, 2018


1ST DISTRICT


1.0 003957 CAREER ATTORNEY 118.4 73,608 $94,011

1.0 009238 CAREER ATTORNEY 27.7 71,396 $98,833

64,952 $90,264


1.0 004535 CAREER ATTORNEY 5.1 61,107 $78,101

1.0 004400 LAW CLERK 2.0 49,817 $73,895

46,073 $62,601


1.0 003922 SENIOR LAW CLERK 2.7 54,586 $70,564

1.0 008350 LAW CLERK 0.6 46,817 $61,586

42,899 $55,986


1.0 004793 CAREER ATTORNEY 15.8 72,407 $103,855

1.0 004788 CAREER ATTORNEY 26.9 73,608 $92,548

55,822 $74,978


1.0 008687 SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.7 56,010 $72,210

1.0 006573 LAW CLERK 0.7 45,817 $59,396

46,865 $61,286


1.0 009075 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.9 55,086 $72,606

1.0 004044 SENIOR LAW CLERK 0.4 53,919 $68,609

49,258 $67,869

NUMBER OF FTE TOTAL RATE

TOTAL SALARY

DOLLARS AVERAGE RATE

AVERAGE

SALARY

DOLLARS12.0 537,619 $775,654 44,802 $64,638

13.0 877,584 $1,142,139 67,506 $87,857

10.0 546,915 $738,378 54,692 $73,838

7.0 331,221 $445,778 47,317 $63,683

CAREER ATTORNEY

SENIOR LAW CLERK

LAW CLERK

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

CLASS TITLE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

ALL SUITES

11

13

15147,773 $203,606

14140,596 $183,857

167,465 $224,933

138,218 $187,804

12128,696 $167,959

10194,855 $270,793

Page 30 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS


1.0 011759 LAW CLERK 0.9 46,817 $61,586

1.0 000084 LAW CLERK 0.1 45,817 $61,442

44,034 $62,356


1.0 011756 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.4 60,607 $78,987

1.0 007020 SENIOR LAW CLERK 0.5 53,586 $69,698

52,092 $71,820


1.0 008242 LAW CLERK 1.6 49,317 $63,753

1.0 - LAW CLERK VACANT 45,817 $65,862

45,881 $65,478


1.0 008240 CAREER ATTORNEY 29.4 81,313 $110,294

1.0 000069 CAREER ATTORNEY 18.1 73,251 $100,400

65,460 $86,147


1.0 009395 CAREER ATTORNEY 8.5 61,516 $78,311

1.0 000080 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.9 54,586 $79,406

53,917 $72,761


1.0 008241 CAREER ATTORNEY 31.7 82,395 $115,931

1.0 004404 CAREER ATTORNEY 28.8 80,795 $109,696

68,436 $93,941


1.0 003301 CAREER ATTORNEY 15.6 68,437 $95,197

1.0 008062 CAREER ATTORNEY 12.9 67,425 $94,244

60,954 $87,010


1.0 007262 CAREER ATTORNEY 14.5 67,425 $85,403

1.0 004791 LAW CLERK 0.9 46,817 $61,586

52,319 $71,439


1.0 003300 CAREER ATTORNEY 12.8 67,425 $77,689

1.0 008698 SENIOR LAW CLERK 4.1 54,586 $79,406

55,176 $71,516

AVERAGE SUITE COST

7182,862 $261,031

AVERAGE SUITE COST

9165,529 $214,547

AVERAGE SUITE COST

8156,956 $214,317

5161,752 $218,284

AVERAGE SUITE COST

6205,309 $281,823

AVERAGE SUITE COST

3

AVERAGE SUITE COST

4196,379 $258,440

AVERAGE SUITE COST

137,644 $196,433

1132,103 $187,067

AVERAGE SUITE COST

2156,277 $215,459

AVERAGE SUITE COST


May 22, 2018


2ND DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT

(by position number) CLASS TITLE COURT YEARS RATE SALARY DOLLARS

TOTAL SUITE

Page 31 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS

1132,103 $187,067


May 22, 2018


2ND DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE


1.0 007019 CAREER ATTORNEY 24.0 75,854 $99,181

1.0 004407 SENIOR LAW CLERK 2.7 53,586 $68,175

59,930 $80,735


1.0 008598 CAREER ATTORNEY 8.7 66,637 $93,333

1.0 004074 CAREER ATTORNEY 5.2 60,607 $86,364

57,615 $83,454


1.0 006559 CAREER ATTORNEY 16.8 71,038 $89,578

1.0 - LAW CLERK VACANT 45,817 $65,86256,248 $73,960


1.0 006561 CAREER ATTORNEY 23.4 78,046 $106,518

1.0 000071 CAREER ATTORNEY 7.6 63,587 $89,809

62,911 $86,051


1.0 011187 CAREER ATTORNEY 17.9 71,645 $98,688

1.0 003932 CAREER ATTORNEY 6.1 60,607 $77,523

58,374 $77,686


1.0 004075 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.5 60,607 $78,987

1.0 008061 LAW CLERK 1.6 49,317 $63,753

51,098 $66,673



1.0 - LAW CLERK VACANT 45,817 $65,862

46,290 $64,722


TOTAL SALARY


AVERAGE

SALARY

DOLLARS16.0 707,521 $1,000,312 44,220 $62,520

19.0 1,319,219 $1,766,133 69,433 $92,954

5.0 269,929 $371,091 53,986 $74,218

8.0 375,538 $509,708 46,942 $63,714

15153,293 $200,020

AVERAGE SUITE COST

16

AVERAGE SUITE COST

138,871 $194,167

AVERAGE SUITE COST

13

14175,121 $233,057

AVERAGE SUITE COST

188,733 $258,152

11172,845 $250,363

AVERAGE SUITE COST

12

AVERAGE SUITE COST

168,744 $221,880

10179,790 $242,204

AVERAGE SUITE COST

ALL SUITES


CAREER ATTORNEY

SENIOR LAW CLERK

LAW CLERK

Page 32 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS


1.0 008359 CAREER ATTORNEY 28.3 85,907 $115,270

1.0 000085 SENIOR LAW CLERK 2.7 54,586 $79,406

66,420 $93,435


1.0 001662 CAREER ATTORNEY 19.3 77,848 $98,912

1.0 008249 LAW CLERK 4.0 51,359 $66,835

57,392 $74,008

1.0 000087 JUDICIAL ASSISTANT VACANT 40,868 $64,285

1.0 004037 CAREER ATTORNEY 21.7 77,848 $106,290

1.0 001663 LAW CLERK 0.6 45,817 $62,964

54,845 $77,846


1.0 008248 CAREER ATTORNEY 13.5 85,907 $115,603

1.0 004528 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $70,427

60,997 $87,422


1.0 008358 CAREER ATTORNEY 7.4 71,000 $98,375


59,818 $84,711


1.0 004038 CAREER ATTORNEY 22.2 80,069 $108,856

1.0 006298 SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.2 54,586 $70,564

58,974 $82,098


1.0 001488 CAREER ATTORNEY 10.7 74,900 $102,882

1.0 009078 CAREER ATTORNEY 9.1 60,607 $86,364

61,925 $88,494


1.0 000086 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.6 71,500 $98,809

1.0 006299 CAREER ATTORNEY 16.3 74,900 $102,882

63,123 $86,410

$265,482

8189,368 $259,231

AVERAGE SUITE COST

AVERAGE SUITE COST

7185,775

5179,454 $254,134

AVERAGE SUITE COST

6176,923 $246,293

AVERAGE SUITE COST

3164,534 $233,539

AVERAGE SUITE COST

4182,992 $262,266

AVERAGE SUITE COST

1199,261 $280,305

AVERAGE SUITE COST

2172,176 $222,025

AVERAGE SUITE COST


May 22, 2018


3RD DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE

Page 33 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS

1199,261 $280,305


May 22, 2018


3RD DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE


1.0 001661 CAREER ATTORNEY 29.1 86,557 $116,167

1.0 003942 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.5 54,586 $79,406

60,670 $87,083


1.0 001666 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

1.0 001664 LAW CLERK 0.6 45,817 $64,704

45,706 $65,145


TOTAL SALARY


AVERAGE

SALARY

DOLLARS10.0 468,600 $699,535 46,860 $69,954

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

4.0 217,343 $303,494 54,336 $75,873

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

9182,011 $261,248

AVERAGE SUITE COST

$195,435

AVERAGE SUITE COST

LAW CLERK

10137,119

ALL SUITES


CAREER ATTORNEY

SENIOR LAW CLERK

Page 34 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS


1.0 001670 LAW CLERK 1.7 49,317 $63,753

1.0 000102 CAREER ATTORNEY 1.6 66,568 $84,412

53,628 $69,305


1.0 008261 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

1.0 008260 CAREER ATTORNEY 30.3 80,368 $113,481

56,620 $80,764


1.0 003916 SENIOR LAW CLERK 2.7 53,586 $59,739

1.0 003925 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.0 60,607 $86,364

56,177 $76,644


1.0 004582 CAREER ATTORNEY 13.0 69,342 $96,460

1.0 003304 LAW CLERK 1.7 49,317 $73,317

57,666 $83,572


1.0 003303 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $70,427

1.0 004053 LAW CLERK 1.7 49,317 $64,476

50,157 $72,910


1.0 004054 CAREER ATTORNEY 5.9 62,834 $88,938

1.0 006092 SENIOR LAW CLERK 3.0 54,586 $70,564

53,365 $75,576


1.0 000103 CAREER ATTORNEY 6.6 65,917 $92,502

1.0 005028 CAREER ATTORNEY 4.2 60,607 $86,364

57,175 $82,919


1.0 004581 CAREER ATTORNEY 11.9 69,342 $96,460

1.0 006093 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

53,720 $75,979

7171,525 $248,756

AVERAGE SUITE COST

8161,160 $227,936

AVERAGE SUITE COST

5150,472 $218,731

AVERAGE SUITE COST

6160,095 $226,727

AVERAGE SUITE COST

3168,530 $229,931

AVERAGE SUITE COST

4172,997 $250,716

AVERAGE SUITE COST

1160,885 $207,914

AVERAGE SUITE COST

2169,861 $242,291

AVERAGE SUITE COST


May 22, 2018


4TH DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE

Page 35 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS

1160,885 $207,914


May 22, 2018


4TH DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE


1.0 004052 CAREER ATTORNEY 4.6 60,607 $86,364

1.0 005029 CAREER ATTORNEY 4.4 60,607 $77,523

54,494 $73,539

1.0 003915 LAW CLERK 1.7 49,317 $64,476


1.0 001669 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

46,134 $60,931


1.0 008242 LAW CLERK 22.2 49,317 $63,753

1.0 008258 LAW CLERK 1.3 46,817 $61,586

46,134 $60,690


1.0 008257 LAW CLERK 22.2 49,317 $64,476

1.0 008256 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.3 54,586 $79,406

49,634 $72,050


TOTAL SALARY


AVERAGE

SALARY

DOLLARS12.0 555,167 $825,032 50,470 $75,003

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

3.0 162,757 $209,709 54,252 $69,903

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

AVERAGE SUITE COST

ALL SUITES

JUDICIAL ASSISTANT

CAREER ATTORNEY

SENIOR LAW CLERK

LAW CLERK

9163,483 $220,618

AVERAGE SUITE COST

CLASS TITLE

10138,403 $182,792

AVERAGE SUITE COST

11138,403 $182,070

AVERAGE SUITE COST

12148,903 $216,149

Page 36 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS


1.0 008384 LAW CLERK 0.6 45,817 $59,396

1.0 008383 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.7 53,586 $60,461

50,986 $67,278


1.0 004438 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.1 59,607 $74,917

1.0 008265 LAW CLERK 0.7 45,817 $68,237

48,882 $69,316


1.0 009338 LAW CLERK 2.5 44,736 $59,180

1.0 004443 CAREER ATTORNEY 29.7 80,278 $109,098

55,411 $78,405


1.0 008456 LAW CLERK 1.7 49,317 $64,476

1.0 008264 CAREER ATTORNEY 19.5 72,100 $72,100

57,463 $71,808


1.0 009245 CAREER ATTORNEY 15.3 69,716 $96,747

1.0 004436 CAREER ATTORNEY 8.7 59,607 $67,203

56,848 $76,248


1.0 004445 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $70,427

1.0 004440 CAREER ATTORNEY 17.0 70,975 $89,506

56,524 $78,515


1.0 008385 CAREER ATTORNEY 3.1 60,607 $75,783

1.0 004444 CAREER ATTORNEY 10.7 66,162 $92,640

55,997 $74,359


1.0 008382 CAREER ATTORNEY 1.3 67,237 $94,027

1.0 009337 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $61,586

54,371 $77,383


May 22, 2018


5TH DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE

1152,959 $201,833

AVERAGE SUITE COST

2146,645 $207,947

AVERAGE SUITE COST

3166,234 $235,214

AVERAGE SUITE COST

4172,388 $215,424

AVERAGE SUITE COST

5170,544 $228,743

AVERAGE SUITE COST

6169,571 $235,545

AVERAGE SUITE COST

7167,990 $223,076

AVERAGE SUITE COST

8163,113 $232,150

AVERAGE SUITE COST

Page 37 of 40


RATE

SALARY

DOLLARS


May 22, 2018


5TH DISTRICT

SUITE # FTE

STAFF COMPLEMENT


TOTAL SUITE

1152,959 $201,833


1.0 011765 CAREER ATTORNEY 8.2 61,107 $79,420

1.0 004437 SENIOR LAW CLERK Vacant 53,586 $74,118

55,221 $74,082


1.0 006549 LAW CLERK 0.7 46,817 $70,427

1.0 011764 LAW CLERK Vacant 45,817 $65,862

44,606 $64,243


1.0 004442 CAREER ATTORNEY 22.2 76,107 $87,722

1.0 004447 SENIOR LAW CLERK 1.3 55,586 $64,006

57,320 $71,420


TOTAL SALARY


AVERAGE

SALARY

DOLLARS11.0 502,667 $751,826 45,697 $68,348

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

3.0 162,757 $198,586 54,252 $66,195

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

9165,663 $222,246

AVERAGE SUITE COST

LAW CLERK

10133,817 $192,728

AVERAGE SUITE COST

11171,961 $214,261

AVERAGE SUITE COST

ALL SUITES


CAREER ATTORNEY

SENIOR LAW CLERK

Page 38 of 40



Agenda Item III.B.4. Funding of Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions Issue: There are presently 9.5 unfunded FTE remaining in reserve from the FY 2008-09 budget reductions. For the past two legislative sessions, questions have arisen about the continued need for these unfunded FTE and whether they can be eliminated. It has been expressed to the Legislature on both occasions that these positions are needed to fulfill critical security needs in the appellate courts. It is estimated that $891,951 in salary dollars would be needed to fully fund these FTE. Issues for Consideration:

• Should funding be sought through the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) process for full funding?

• Due to the critical need, can some or all of the FTE costs be absorbed within the existing salary budget?

Security and Administrative Staff of the Marshal's Office by

DCA

Class Title 1st

DCA 2nd DCA

3rd DCA

4th DCA

5th DCA

Administrative Asst. I 1.00

1.00

1.00

Administrative Asst. II 1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Administrative Asst. III 1.00

1.00

1.00

Chief Deputy Marshal 1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Clerical Assistant 2.00

Court Security Officer I 1.00

Deputy Marshal 3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

Marshal 1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Total 8.00

5.00

8.00

6.00

6.00

Page 39 of 40

IV. Other Business and Adjournment

Page 40 of 40