Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission ... · Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission Fiscal Year 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request 4. Technology . Background

Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission

Fiscal Year 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request

Issue 1: Civil Case Efficiency Initiative

Nationally and in Florida, trial court filings have been trending lower over the last several years

(see Attachment A). However, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) Executive

Committee noted recent filing increases in specific cases types in the circuit civil, county civil,

and probate court divisions and discussed possible resource solutions to improve the timeliness

of civil case processing, recognizing this increase in case filings. The TCBC authorized the

Executive Committee to work with staff from the Office of the State Courts Administrator

(OSCA) to solidify the components of the legislative budget request (LBR) for presentation at

the Funding Methodology Committee meeting on August 16, 2018, and the TCBC meeting on

August 28, 2018.

At a July 20, 2018, conference call, the TCBC Executive Committee examined information

related to the circuit civil, county civil, and probate divisions and identified the following

components that would increase the efficiency in handling those cases:

1. Law Clerks to provide legal research for complex circuit civil cases as well as other

circuit civil cases.

2. Case Managers to help with timely processing of other circuit civil and probate cases.

3. Mediation resources to provide additional options for resolution in county civil cases.

4. Technology resources to oversee case management systems, which provide more

efficient workflow. In addition, data quality resources to ensure the most accurate

information is available in order to target cases and monitor performance through

reporting.

5. State level support for the civil case efficiency initiative.

Each court division handles specific filing types, which contain unique factors that influence the

needed time and resources to resolve a case.

Complex and Other Circuit Civil Filings – Additional Law Clerk Resources Needed

Although handled in the same division of court, complex circuit civil cases may contain multiple

parties or attorneys, address complex subject matter, involve complicated testimony concerning

causation, contain requisites of a class-certification order, or incorporate complex substantive

law. Due to these components, the duration of time to disposition or settlement is greater than

non-complex circuit civil filings.

Professional malpractice, products liability, other negligence, commercial foreclosure, and other

civil case types are examples of complex circuit civil filings. One particular phenomena that may

be contributing to the longer time to disposition are the Engle Tobacco cases. In 2006, the

Florida Supreme Court allowed members of the original class action lawsuit who suffered from

smoking-related illnesses to file cases individually against tobacco companies. As of July 28,

2018, only 252 cases had reached a verdict, leaving 3,058 cases pending.

Page 1 of 17



According to the National Center for State Courts, complex litigation requires more intensive

judicial management; thus judges may benefit from additional support resources such as law

clerks. In Florida’s trial courts, complex circuit civil filings represent approximately 45% of the

total circuit civil filings. Providing additional law clerks in the circuit civil court division will not

only increase the quality of functions by providing direct assistance and counsel to a judge

through making legal determinations and in writing opinions, but also increase the quantity of

cases being addressed or more efficiently manage docket time.

Other Circuit Civil and Probate Filings – Additional Case Managers Needed

Other circuit civil and probate filing trends show increases over the past two years, specifically

in auto negligence, contract and indebtedness, condominium, and guardianship case types.

Circuits report that after Hurricane Irma in 2017, there has been continued increase of related

contract indebtedness, insurance claim, and construction defect filings. For example, at the state

level, contract indebtedness has increased by 27%. In order to help manage circuit civil and

probate cases, case managers are identified as a potential component to further assist in the

timeliness of case disposition.

County Civil Filings – Additional Mediation Resources Needed

Small claims and evictions are examples of county civil case types. Since FY 2015-16, small

claims have increased 39%. Mediation serves as an alternative method to resolving disputes. It

alleviates pressure from the docket by addressing issues prior to entering and affecting judicial

workflow. Providing additional mediators would allow expansion of these services, thus

allowing judicial staff to center their efforts on the more intricate county court cases.

Note: The initiative does not address the need for additional judicial resources, as it is not within

the jurisdiction of the TCBC.

1. Law Clerks

Background

In the past, the State Court System (SCS) has requested additional trial court law clerk resources

using a methodology based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two existing judges. In

2014-15, the TCBC began using a more targeted approach for requesting additional law clerk

resources for post-conviction matters related to sentences of death. The trial courts have not

received funding for additional staff attorney resources since FY 2006-07.

Current Issue

At the July 20, 2018, conference call, the TCBC Executive Committee directed staff to examine

the need and cost for additional law clerks, specifically for more complex circuit civil case use in

Page 2 of 17



the trial courts as part of the FY 2019-20 LBR. OSCA staff have prepared three options for

consideration.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Funding formula based on a rate of 2 circuit civil judges and general magistrates for

every one law clerk (see Attachment B).

Total Cost: $3,219,920 (40.0 FTE)

Option 2: Funding formula based on a rate of 2 circuit civil judges and general magistrates for

every one law clerk for complex civil cases only, as calculated by applying a weighted workload

proportion to judges/general magistrates assigned to the circuit civil division (see Attachment

C).

Total Cost: $2,012,450 (25.0 FTE)

Option 3: Recommend an alternative.

Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation

The Funding Methodology Committee considered these options and recommended Option 1.

Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation

The Trial Court Budget Commission considered this issue as one of the five components of the

civil case efficiency initiative. The Commission recommended to not submit the initiative for

consideration.

2. Case Managers

Background

Case managers provide early and continuous intervention through the life of a civil case that

leads to timely disposition. Specifically, case managers perform intake, screening, evaluation,

monitoring, tracking, coordinating, scheduling, and referral activities. Based on feedback from

circuits, increasing the FTE quantity of case managers would not only provide an adequate level

of services throughout the state, but also aid in the efficiency of civil cases. For the last 3 years,

the SCS has requested additional cases managers, although funding was not appropriated.

Current Issue


the need and cost for additional case managers, specifically for circuit and county court civil case

use in the trial courts as part of the FY 2019-20 LBR. OSCA staff have prepared three options

for consideration.

Page 3 of 17



Case managers provide support to judges in developing and implementing proactive case

management initiatives. Case management functions include early screening and classification of

civil cases, facilitation of pretrial discovery and case management plans/orders, and scheduling

case management conferences in problematic cases to resolve issues contributing to case delay.

Utilizing sufficient case managers is expected to provide the minimum increased management

support to circuit civil and probate trial judges necessary to improve efficiency and timeliness in

case processing.

Decision Needed

Option 1: A funding formula based on appropriate (average) staffing levels and growth in filings

(see Attachment D).

Total Cost: $1,807,572 (26.5 FTE)

Option 2: A funding formula of approximately 2:1 ratio of circuit civil and probate trial judges

and general magistrates to case managers based on the average judicial/general magistrate

assignments for small, medium, large, and very large circuits (see Attachment E).

Total Cost: $3,510,772 (51.5 FTE)

Option 3: A funding formula of 2:1 ratio of circuit civil and probate trial judges and general

magistrates to case managers based on the division of court and actual assignment in each circuit

(see Attachment F).

Total Cost: $4,223,936 (62.0 FTE)



The Funding Methodology Committee considered these options and recommended Option 1.




consideration.

3. Mediation

Current Issue

Since Revision 7 in 2004, the Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation element has never been

fully funded. Currently, the trial courts are underfunded by $4.8 million, according to the

official funding formula calculation of the funding ceiling. The SCS received additional funding

in FY 2006-07. Additional requests were made in FY 2008-09 and FY 2010-11 but not funded.

Page 4 of 17




the need and cost for additional mediation resources, specifically for county court civil case use

in the trial courts as part of the FY 2019-20 LBR. OSCA staff have prepared a proposal based on

the growth rate in small claims and other county civil filings for consideration.

The funding ceiling is recalculated using a 35.5% growth in small claims over the last two years

and a 27.2% growth in other county civil cases over the last two years. The new funding ceiling

amount includes the potential county court mediation sessions that could have been conducted

given the growth in filings over the last two years by circuit if resources were available. A

proportional analysis by circuit estimates that $1,135,434 of the $5,186,318 identified as

underfunded is related to actual and potential county court work.

Decision Needed

Option 1: A funding formula based on a new calculation of the funding ceiling and assuming a

10 percent future growth in resource needs. This option assumes the request would be limited to

contractual resources for county court mediation services, calculated in total rather than by

circuit (see Attachment G).

Total Cost: $1,248,978 (contractual only)

Option 2: A funding formula based on a new calculation of the funding ceiling and assuming a

10 percent future growth in resource needs. This option includes contractual resources for

county court mediation services, calculated in total rather than by circuit. In addition, this option

recognizes that the current funding formula may not capture the full extent of county court

mediation services needed based on filings now or in the future. With that in mind, Option 2 also

requests 10 county mediators statewide based on the circuits that indicated a need for staff

resources to conduct county mediations, provide coordination, or oversee county court

mediations, to address current or future demands (see Attachment G).

Total Cost: $1,930,258 (10.0 FTE and $1,248,978 contractual)

Option 3: Approve an alternative.


The Funding Methodology Committee did not recommend an option and directed staff to

provide a second option to the full commission based on input from the trial courts on type of

resource needed.




consideration.

Page 5 of 17



4. Technology

Background

In FY 2016-17, the Supreme Court submitted an LBR for $25,299,973 and 65 FTE to fund a

multi-year comprehensive strategy for addressing the statewide technology needs of the trial

courts. For FY 2017-18, each element of the comprehensive request was updated and support for

the cross-jurisdictional support unit within the OSCA was added, resulting in a request of

$21,846,048. FY 2018-19 used the previous year’s LBR as a base to update cost estimates for the

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

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

requests have not been funded. Additionally, there is only one technology staff person funded by

the state per circuit, the Trial Court Technology Officer.

Current Issue

At the July 20, 2018, conference call, the TCBC Executive Committee directed staff to identify

technology resources needed to increase the efficiency of civil cases. Based on input from the

circuits, OSCA staff identified the need for technology-focused FTE throughout the circuits. The

proposal includes one Deputy Court Technology Officer FTE per circuit, at the Information

Resource Management Consultant level, to oversee systems used in case management.

Additionally, it includes one Data Quality/Reporting FTE per circuit, to focus on data quality and

data access in the civil division, as well as to develop performance measurements and reliable

evaluation and monitoring of data (see Attachment H).

Also, on February 1, 2018, then-Chief Justice Jorge Labarga established a workgroup for the

purpose of developing an implementation plan for judicial e-filing, in response to the Florida

Courts Technology Commission’s recommendation that judicial officers who have the capability

to electronically sign and file their orders through an electronic means do so. The workgroup

created aspirational goals for judicial e-filing, which will aid the civil case efficiency initiative.

Decisions Needed

Case Management System Oversight and Data Quality

Option 1: Recommend approval for 20.0 FTE Deputy Court Technology Officers and 20.0 FTE

Data Quality/Reporting positions.

Total Cost: $3,777,640 (40.0 FTE)



The Funding Methodology Committee recommended to approve Option 1.

Page 6 of 17






consideration.

E-Filing

Option 1: Recommend including a preliminary cost estimate for the implementation of e-filing

as it pertains to the efforts of increasing efficiency in all civil cases. This LBR component is

contingent upon the finalization of recommendations by the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup, review

and submission by the Florida Courts Technology Commission, and approval by the Florida

Supreme Court.

Total Cost: $3,554,846 (Total excludes the calculation for the 20.0 FTE Deputy Court

Technology Officers, which are already included in the Case Management System

Oversight and Data Quality issue above; however, it includes the additional 6.5 FTE to

implement e-filing.)

Option 2: Recommend an alternative option.


The Funding Methodology Committee recommended to approve Option 1. If the commission

decides to approve only the E-Filing issue for the technology component of the Civil Case

Efficiency Initiative, the 20.0 FTE Deputy Court Technology Officers would need to be added

back in to the E-Filing cost estimation for a total cost of $5,771,466.




consideration.

5. State Level Support

Background

Historically, OSCA has provided technical support to the trial courts for family courts (including

child support), dependency, and domestic violence cases. Staff provide program and legal

assistance to court administration to help improve court procedures and provide support for

reporting and performance management. However, OSCA has not provided assistance on civil

court issues through dedicated staff.

Page 7 of 17



Current Issue

At the July 20, 2018 Executive Committee meeting, a member suggested a component be added

to the initiative for state level support to the trial courts. Enriching the support available to a

specific court division and its judicial staff was recommended to help improve the quality of its

functions. The concept is to consider a state level, 1.0 FTE Senior Attorney and 1.0 FTE Senior

Court Analyst II, to focus on the circuit civil, county civil, and probate court divisions.

The Senior Attorney position would not only provide legal assistance and best practice support to

the initiative, but also facilitate the engagement of other civil justice partners to help coordinate

the efforts for an expedited process.

The Senior Court Analyst II position would provide data quality control and performance

measurement to support the staff devoted to data quality and performance reporting in the

circuits.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend a request for 1.0 FTE Senior Attorney for legal support to the trial courts

and 1.0 FTE Senior Court Analyst II for data quality and reporting of statewide performance

measurement.

Total Cost: $194,711 (2.0 FTE)



The Funding Methodology Committee did not recommend an option and deferred to the full

commission.




consideration.

Page 8 of 17



Issue 2: Employee Pay Issue

In its Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 legislative budget request (LBR), 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 judicial branch proposed a two-year implementation

period. During the 2014 session, 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.

In subsequent years, the judicial branch requested, as the second phase of the staff pay initiative,

recurring salary dollars branch wide to finish addressing a wide range of salary issues. The

requests reflected refinements of the underlying analysis of salaries (both for class titles

addressed and class titles not addressed in the first phase), as well as efforts to address the effects

of compression between positions occupied by new and existing employees. The respective

LBRs were:

FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17: $5,902,588;

FY 2017-18: $6,388,909; and

FY 2018-19: $11,275,855.

FY 2019-20 LBR Considerations and Methodologies

The Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) discussed developing two statewide trial court

issues to be considered for possible recommendation to the Supreme Court as part of the FY

2019-20 LBR:

An initiative to reduce the time in resolving civil case disputes, with multiple components

to achieve its goal; and

A request to address court system employee pay.

At its June 26, 2018, meeting, the TCBC authorized the Executive Committee to work with staff

of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) on these issues in advance of the August

28, 2018, TCBC meeting.

In lieu of again recommending a budget request for the second phase of the staff pay issue for

overall equity, recruitment, and retention, and to complement a civil case efficiency initiative,

the Executive Committee focused on and directed staff to cost out pay adjustments for certain

classes: case managers, mediators, law clerks, and digital court reporters. From a resource-need

perspective under the civil case efficiency initiative, the mediation focus was on county court

mediations. Although digital court reporters are not related to the civil case efficiency initiative,

the Executive Committee asked staff to review this class because of perceived salary challenges

and because the class was not addressed in the first phase of the staff pay initiative.

Page 9 of 17



To cost out this focused pay issue, staff of OSCA identified the target base rate of pay for the

specific class titles as requested in the FY 2018-19 LBR; reviewed any changes to the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics annual salary averages for these titles; reviewed Internet

compensation platforms; and collected information from some other states. Based on that

analysis, staff recommends using the target base rate of pay for these titles as requested in the FY

2018-19 LBR but adjusting upward by 3% based on the Consumer Price Index.

A request was made to update the trial court law clerk classes as part of the FY 2018-19 LBR.

However, for those classes, OSCA staff recommended basing the new target base rate of pay on

a different methodology. For the law clerk classes, OSCA did independent research compiling

the average of the results of a survey of 15 other responding states and then combining that data

with Internet research using a variety of research tools and national average salary aggregators

(such as Glassdoor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, state, and other Internet research). OSCA

employed this methodology because the information obtained from the states directly represents

salary numbers for attorneys who perform nearly identical duties to the duties that Florida court

system law clerks currently perform.

Further, as with the FY 2018-19 LBR, staff recommended using a 4% compression factor to

adjust the salary of any current employee whose salary is above the new minimum for the

affected class. Within the mediation element, the whole series of mediation classes had to be

reviewed even though there are not currently any employees in the mediator-county job class.

An adjustment to the mediator-county class, therefore, would necessitate adjustment to other

mediation-related classes in order to maintain appropriate salary distance among these classes.

For comparison purposes, staff also costed out a branch wide pay increase for all courts system

staff at varying percentages.

Options for Consideration

Staff Pay Adjustment

Option 1: To in part complement the Civil Case Efficiency Initiative, recommend a FY 2019-20

LBR seeking pay adjustments for the following class titles:

Court Program Specialist I (Case Manager);

Court Program Specialist II (Case Manager);

Mediator-County (no positions currently affected);

Mediator-Circuit/Family;

Mediation Services Coordinator;

Alternative Dispute Resolution Director;

Trial Court Law Clerk;

Senior Trial Court Law Clerk;

Supervising Senior Trial Court Law Clerk; and

Digital Court Reporter.

Page 10 of 17



The total cost in salaries and benefits for the adjustments is: $2,997,283.58. Attached is a table

that shows the current minimum for affected classes and the proposed target base rate of pay.

It should be noted that, because the law clerk classification is also used in the district court of

appeal and the Supreme Court budget entities, an adjustment to the trial court law clerk salaries

may warrant adjustments within these other entities to ensure salary distance as appropriate.

Option 2: Recommend an FY 2019-20 LBR for a branch wide pay adjustment for all non-judge

court system employees at 2%, 3%, or 5% increases. Those respective costs would be:

Percentage

Increase

Branch Wide

Cost

Trial Court

Portion

2% $3,648,558.94 $2,801,147.76

3% $5,472,838.41 $4,201,721.64

5% $9,619,433.16 $7,002,869.39

Option 3: Recommend not filing an LBR for court staff salary issues.

Classification and Pay Study

The Executive Committee also discussed the merits of a court system-wide classification and pay

study and noted that such a study would improve the ability of the judicial branch to most accurately

identify salary needs and frame salary budget requests in future fiscal years.

Option 1: Recommend that the Office of Human Resources prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) to

solicit vendors that would conduct a comprehensive study on the State Courts System classification

and pay system. This study would be funded with current year dollars, with the cost potentially

shared among different budget entities. The cost is unknown until an RFP is initiated and reviewed;

however, in 2006 a similar study, known as the MAG study, was conducted, and the approximate

cost was $200,000.

Option 2: Request an LBR for the classification and pay study. Note: Such a budget request might

have to be pursued through the supplemental LBR process once the cost is determined.

Option 3: Do not conduct a classification and pay study.

Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation:

Staff Pay Adjustment The TCBC approved filing a FY 2019-20 LBR for a pay plan amount equivalent to a 5% pay

adjustment for all non-judicial trial court employees to be distributed at the discretion of the trial

courts to address salary equity, recruitment, and retention issues. The commission also

recommended contacting the other State Court System budget entities for interest in submitting

as a branch wide issue.

Page 11 of 17



Classification and Pay Study

The TCBC did not recommend filing an LBR for a comprehensive study on the State Courts

System’s classification and pay system. Instead, the commission recommended using current

year funds, and with the approval of the other budget entities within the judicial branch, prorating the

cost with the other budget entities.

Page 12 of 17



Attachment

Option I: Affected Classes and Proposed Target Base Rate of Pay

Class Title

Current Base

Rate of Pay

Proposed Base

Rate of Pay

Court Program Specialist I $30,320.04 $36,050.00

Court Program Specialist II $36,115.32 $41,200.00

Mediator-County $36,115.32 $42,778.60

Mediator-Circuit/Family $45,303.72 $53,662.26

Mediation Services Coordinator $45,303.72 $53,662.26

ADR Director $52,444.80 $62,263.50

Trial Court Law Clerk $45,817.20 $49,476.00

Senior Trial Court Law Clerk $55,202.40 $57,257.00

Supervising Senior Trial Court

Law Clerk $57,962.52 $60,119.85

Digital Court Reporter $31,664.64 $37,545.90

Page 13 of 17



Issue 3: Courthouse Furnishings

On June 26, 2018, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) considered possible new issues

for the trial court’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 legislative budget request (LBR) submission. The

circuits were notified of the issues to be considered at the TCBC meeting on August 28, 2018.

The circuits were also asked to review their individual needs for courthouse furnishings.

Five circuits submitted requests for funding of courthouse furnishings. All items submitted were

reviewed for compliance with provisions in section 29.008, Florida Statutes, and with the

Department of Financial Services and the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget guidelines.

The total of all requests submitted for courthouse furnishings is $2,794,389 ($1,187,153

Expenses and $1,607,236 Other Capital Outlay (OCO)) in non-recurring funding.

A. Fifth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Courthouse Expansions – $118,177

($42,752 Expenses and $75,425 OCO)

1. The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners approved a new courthouse

space plan (Hernando Judicial Expansion), estimated for completion in September

2019, which will add three new courtrooms to the existing Hernando County

Courthouse. The non-public areas in the Hernando Judicial Expansion include three

judicial suites, three judicial assistant areas, two hearing officer areas, three

conference rooms, and four law clerk offices.

2. The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners approved a new courthouse

space plan (Citrus Judicial Expansion), estimated for completion in February 2020,

which will add three new courtrooms to the existing Citrus County Courthouse. The

non-public areas in the Citrus Judicial Expansion include two judicial assistant areas,

two conference rooms, two hearing officer areas, eight court administration staff

offices, and four law clerk offices.

Options: 1. File issue as requested.

2. Propose alternative option.

3. Do not file issue.

B. Sixth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Courthouse Expansion – $54,698

($29,337 Expenses and $25,361 OCO)

A courthouse annex is scheduled to be constructed and completed at the Pinellas County

Justice Center in May 2020. Five judges and judicial assistants will be moving into new

chambers in the annex. The furniture in their current chambers needs to be left behind for

judges moving into the space they now occupy from traffic courts. Additionally, their

judicial assistants currently have built-in furniture and thus will need new furniture when

Page 14 of 17



they move into the new annex. Also, four magistrates and three assistants will be moving

into the new annex and will require furniture.




C. Ninth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $436,348 ($125,323

Expenses, $311,025 OCO)

The furniture items requested are to replace the original judicial chamber furniture that was

in place when the Orange County Courthouse opened in 1996. The current 22 year old

chamber furniture is showing wear through chips and fading and continued problems with

door slides and broken hinges. In recent years, Court Administration has continually pieced

together different components using a lot of mismatched furnishings to keep judicial offices

functionally furnished.

In 2016, the circuit started replacing this furniture using allocated Operating Capital Outlay

funds. To date, the circuit has completed 12 of the 45 chambers leaving 33 still to be

upgraded. The items requested are the standard furnishings necessary to complete the

remaining 33 chambers. Once replaced, the original furniture is evaluated and repurposed

for staff offices whenever possible.




THIS ISSUE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CIRCUIT

D. Tenth Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $162,880 (Expenses)

The Tenth Circuit is requesting furniture for each of the 40 judicial suites. The courts moved

into the Polk County Courthouse in July 1987 and each of the judicial suites was fully

furnished at that time. Though the old furnishings have stood up to 31 years of everyday use,

the majority of the furnishings are worn and some have become dysfunctional. Laminate is

coming away from the desks, credenzas, and conference tables in judges' chambers. Doors

on credenzas and desks are broken and drawers are not working properly. Efforts to replace

furnishings in courtrooms, hearing rooms and other public areas have been in place for the

last several years through county funding and improvements have been noted for those areas.

Page 15 of 17






E. Eleventh Judicial Circuit Furnishings Request for Replacement – $2,022,286 ($826,861

Expenses and $1,195,425 OCO)

The Eleventh Circuit is requesting funding to replace office furniture in non-public areas in

various court locations.

1. The Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center furniture request is to replace furniture in

non-public areas on eight floors occupied by judges, magistrates, and their respective

staff. The furniture being replaced was purchased when the building was retrofitted and

opened as a courthouse in 1999.

2. The Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building furniture request is to replace furniture in non-

public areas on seven floors occupied by judges and staff, and Administrative Office of

the Courts staff. The furniture being replaced was purchased over 15 years ago.

3. The Dade County Courthouse has constant mold, dust, and humidity problems. As a

result of these building conditions, the furniture in the Dade County Courthouse

deteriorates more rapidly than in other courthouses. If funds are approved, furniture will

be replaced in non-public areas on eleven floors. The furniture being replaced was

purchased over 10 years ago, on average.



3. Do not file the issue.

THIS ISSUE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CIRCUIT

Fiscal Year 2019-20 LBR-Furnishings Request

Circuit Expenses OCO Total

5 42,752 75,425 118,177

6 29,337 25,361 54,698

9 125,323 311,025 436,348

10 162,880 0 162,880

11 826,861 1,195,425 2,022,286

Total 1,187,153 1,607,236 2,794,389

Page 16 of 17



Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation:

Based on current TCBC policy that only requests related to new courthouse construction or

expansion projects be considered, and the small amounts of funding requested, do not file a LBR

issue and revisit closer to fiscal year end for use of any available year end funds.

Page 17 of 17

Documents

Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission ... · Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission Fiscal Year 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request 4. Technology . Background