majortechnology review at8:00 a.m. regular … · 5/2/2000 · l..s. oepart:'tte:-;tof...

$: MAJORTECHNOLOGY REVIEW AT8:00 A.M. REGULAR … · 5/2/2000 · L..s. oEPART:'ttE:-;TOf HOLSL"'lG A.'\D LRBA.'i DEVELOP\IE:-'T Texas State Office. Southwest Office ofPubltc Housmg$
1

DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURTBRIEFING AGENDA

MAY 2,2000

MAJOR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AT 8:00 A.M.

REGULAR COURT AT 9:00 A.M.

REPORTSIRECOMMENDATIONSIREQUESTS

1) HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

PAGE NOS.

a) Additional Section 8 Voucher - Crest A ApartmentsTX559V00036 4-7

b) Removal of Equipment from P.W.A. Coalition of DallasInc., D.B.A. AIDS Services of Dallas to return item backto Dallas County 8-9

c) Approval of Contract Awards and Budgets forFY 2000-2001 Ryan White Title I Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-19

d) Counseling Agreement between Home Loan Counseling Centerand The Homeward Foundation 20-22

e) Request for Proposals for State of Texas HIV Healthand Social Services Grant Contract Insert 23

f) Older Adult Services Program FY'2000 ServiceContract Contract Insert 24-25

2

2) LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNTY JUDGE

Large Screen Equipment for the County Courts at Law 26-28

3) COUNTY TREASURER

District Attorney TCDRS Participation 29-33

4) COUNTY TREASURER! PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

RFP - Bank Card Services; Bid No. 98-341 34-36

5) PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

a) RFP for Fuel Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-44

b) Annual Contract for Auto Damage/Body RepairService; Bid No. 2000-057-298 45-48

6) ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT

a) Remote Refrigeration Storage - Lew Sterrett,George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building & Old Jail 49-51

b) Indefinite Quantity Architectural and EngineeringServices SOQ 2000-118-418 52-53

7) JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

a) Project Spotlight Supplemental Grant Award 54-56

b) Study of Substance Abuse Program PerformanceMeasures " Contract Insert 57-58

c) Contract Amendments for the Dallas County Juvenile InformationSystem for the Dallas County JAIBG Collaboration 59-63

(COURT ORDER ON FORMAL AGENDA)

3

8) FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Amend the Rideshare Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-82

9) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

a) Regal Row 91-837/50078 - (C.R.I. & P. RR to IH. 35E) 83-85(COURT ORDER ON FORMAL AGENDA)

b) CMAQ Improvements Program Payment of TxDOTEngineering, Project 74 86-88

10) OFFICE OF BUDGET & EVALUATION

FY 2000 First Interim Report on Budget 89-135

11) Finance Phase III (Payroll) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

12) Miscellaneous, Travel Requests, Miscellaneous Equipment,and Telecommunications Requests 136-141

FIVE SIGNATURE DOCUMENT(s) FOR CONSIDERATION

Minister's Letter of Appreciation

DATE(s) TO REMEMBER

oI APR 26 AM 9: 45

4DALLAS COUNTY r-, _ ; n _' ~ ;- yDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ;~iji'-.. ,-~-- . : -~:.~ C":'~~\T

ADMINISTRATION

BETTYJ.CULBREATH~STER

DIRECTOR

TO: COMMISSIONERS COURT

FROM: Betty J. Culbreath-Lister, Director

DATE: April 25, 2000

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERCREST A APARTMENTS, TX559V00036

BACKGROUNDDallas County Health and Human Services administers the Dallas County Section 8 HousingAssistance Program. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) hasadvised this agency of the issuance of 107 additional housing vouchers under the Crest AApartments increment.

FINANCIAUOPERAnONAL IMPACTThe Crest A Apartments increment provides $821,281 in funding for the 107 additional vouchers.Administrative funds are provided for one (1) Accounting Clerk/Grade 8 to be responsible forpreparing requests for rental and utility assistance payments for Section 8 clients per HUDregulations and maintaining CFRs for all such housing assistance programs. The bUdget officehas been advised of the additional staff and is processing the request. A program bUdget hasbeen developed which requires the approval of the Court for full implementation. There is noimpact to Dallas County from this increment.

LEGAL IMPACTThe approval of the Commissioners Court is required for the additional vouchers and thesubmitted program budget

RECOMMENDAnONIt is recommended that the Commissioners Court approve the program bUdget for the operationand administration of the Crest A Apartments increment under the Dallas County Section 8Housing Assistance Program, which includes an additional 107 vouchers, providing an additional$821,281 in funding, a a ch

RECOMMENDED BY: ---";;:;~~~'--,¥~~-'----"l4---::rt'-ftt'-.ItfI4---

Iypattachmentc: J. Allen Clemson, Court Administrator

Virginia Porter, County AuditorPhil Scheps, Budget Officer

2377 Stammons FreewaySuite 600 LB-16

Dallas, Texas 75207-2710 Office (214) 819-1858FAV«214) 819-6022

5

REPLY, TO CORRESPONDENCE CODE:

April 21, 2000

6APHB

~

u.s. DEPARTME1'l'T OF HOUSING A1'iD URB~ DE"'ELOP:\lE;".TTexas State Office, Southwest -.:::rOf

" ~flce of PublIc HOUSIng 0:::

80 I Cherry Street ~

Burnett Plaza C$)C$)

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 ...

Betty J. Culbreath-Lister, DirectorDallas County Housing Assistance ProgramATTENTION: Samuel Sally2377 N. Stemmons, #700Dallas, TX 75207

Dear Ms. Culbreath-Lister:

Subject: Revised Effective Date for Section 8 Rental Assistance forCrest A Apartments, TX559V00036 (Opt-out)

This is to notify you that the effective date, for the 107 Section 8 vouchers toassist eligible residents of the Crest A Apartments who are being affected. by thedecision of the owner to opt-out of an expiring project-based Section 8 contract, hasbeen revised to July 1. 200~~

The Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) Authority reserved for these vouchers isas follows:

TotalUnits

107

Bedroom SizeOne BedroomTwo BedroomThree Bedroom

ContractAuthority

$821,281

Number of units106532

BudgetAuthority

$821,281

Revised Form HUD-52520A and the Funding Exhibits which reflect the addition ofthis increment will be forwarde~ to you under separate cover. The effective date ofthese vouchers is July 1, 2000. At this time, we are requesting that you prepare thefollowing budget forms:

1. HUD-52673, Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions

2. HUD-52672, Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates

3. HUD-52663, Annual Requisition for Funds

Please return the completed forms to:

Sherry RothSection 8 Financial Management CenterU. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1150Kansas City, MO 64108-2503

If you have any questions concerning the budget documents, please contactMs. Roth at (816) 426-6184.

Sincerely,

f'~Eileen RogersDirectorOffice of Public Housing

6

DALLAS COUNTYDEPARTl\'tENT OF HEALTH AND HUIVIAN SERVICESWELFARE DIVISION

BETTY J. CULBREATH-LISTERDIRECTOR

SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMCrest A Apartments [Voucher TX559V00036]

Grantor: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentAnnual Budget

A.

B.

Administration

1. Personnel Salary

Accounting Clerk (Grade 8) $25,440Responsible for preparing request forrental and utility assistance paymentsfor Section 8 clients per HUD regulationsand maintaining CFR's for all such HAP

2. Fringe Benefits $6,643

a. Social Security $1,946

b. Insurance $2,280

c. Retirement $1,781

d. Workers Compo $ 636

3. Operating Exp. $26,737

Rental and Utility Assistance

$58,820

$762,461

TOTAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY $821,281

2377 Stemmons FreewaySuite 200 - LB 16

Dallas, Texas 75207-2710 Office (214) 819-1865FAX (214) 819-1822

L ..s. oEPART:'ttE:-;T Of HOLSL"'lG A.'\D LRBA.'i DEVELOP\IE:-'T

Texas State Office. Southwest

Office of Publtc Housmg

80 I Cherry Street

Burnett Plaza

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

REPLY TO CORRESPONDENCE CODE: 6APHB

Aprd lJ, 2000

Betty J. Culbreath-Lister, D~rector

Dallas County Housing Ass~stance ProgramATTENTION: Samuel Sally2377 N. Stemmons, POODallas, TX 75207

Dear Ms. Culbreath-Lister:

SubJect: Section 8 Rental Assistance forCrest A Apartments, TX559V00036 (Opt-out)

This is to notify you that we are providing 107 Section 8 vouchers to assist elig~ble

residents of the Crest A Apartments who are being affected by the decision of the owner to optout of an expiring project-based Section 8 contract.

The Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) Authority reserved for these vouchers is asfollows:

TotalUnits

107

Bedroom SizeOne BedroomTwo BedroomThree Bedroom

ContractAuthority

$821,281

Number of units106532

BudgetAuthority

$821,281

Form HUD-52520A and the Funding Exhibits which reflect the addition of this ~ncrement Wl~l

be forwarded to you under separate cover. The effective date of these vouchers isJune 1, 2000. At this time, we are requesting that you prepare the following budget forms:

1. HUD-52673, Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions

2. HUD-52672, Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates

3. HUD-52663, Annual Requisition for Funds

Please return the completed forms to:

Sherry RothSection 8 Financial Management CenterU. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1150Kansas City, MO 64108-2503

If you have any questions concerning the budget doc~ents, please contact M~. Roth at(816) 426-6184.

Sincerely,

/~./('. , :....-<..-4-

Eileen RogersDirectorOffice of Public Housing

8

'_\ _, ~ ry. . ' ~,~ C: L' i\ T

oI ~.PR 25 AM g: 44

BETTYJ.CULBREATH~STER

DIRECTOR

TO: THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS COURT

FROM: BETTY J. CULBREATH-LISTER, DIRECTORHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

DATE: APRIL 26, 2000

SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF EQUIPMENT FROM P.W.A. COAUnON OF DALLAS INC. D.B.A.AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS TO RETURN ITEM BACK TO DALLAS COUNTY

Background of Issue

The Dallas County Judge is the grantee and legal recipient of Ryan White Title I funds forthe Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA). Dallas County Health and Human Services(DCHHS) is designated to serve as the Administrative Agency for Ryan White Title I funds.The Administrative Agency is responsible for the atlocation and oversight of funds underTitle I of the Ryan White C.A.R.E. Act and for the recommendation of the award ofcontracts to service providers in the EMA. The Administrative Agency tracks theexpenditure of funds by service providers throughout the year and makesrecommendations, 'Nhen appropriate, to allocate funds.

On March 16, 2000, AIDS Services of Dallas extended notice to the Administrative Agencythat the equipment purchased with FY 1993 Ryan White Title I Supplemental grant fundsis no longer operational. The referenced equipment is a Hewtett Packard C1750A ScanJetllc, Serial Number: 3265A23744. It is the intention of AIDS Services of Dallas to disposeof the above equipment and remove it from their inventory list. This request is a directresult of the repair cost far exceeding the cost of a replacement item.

Fiscal Impact

There is no fiscal impact on the Dallas County.

Operational Impact

There is no operational impact on Dallas County.

2377 Stemmons FreewaySuite 200 LB-16


9

Legal Impact

There is no legal impact on the Dallas County.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Commissioners Court authorize the Purchasing Departmentto remove the Hewlett Packard C1750A ScanJet lie (Serial Number 3265A23744)purchased with FY 1993 Title I, Supplemental funds from AIDS Services of Dallas forproper disposal and accountability_

RECOMMENDED BY:---=~~~Ui-J~~:':::""::'.:::....Jt...,L-.f."""4;;;t;;J.~------Be

c: J. Allen Clemson, Court AdministratorVirginia Porter, County Auditor

DALLAS COUNTYHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESGRANTS MANAGEMENT

10


TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Background of Issue

THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS COURT

BETTY J. CULBREATH-LISTER, DIRECTORHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

APRIL 26, 2000

APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AWARDS AND BUDGETS FOR FY 2000-2001RYAN WHITE TITLE I FUNDS

The Dallas County Judge is the grantee and legal recipient of Ryan White Title I funds, and Dallas CountyHealth and Human Services (DCHHS) is designated to serve as the Administrative Agency for Ryan WhiteTitle I funds for the Dallas Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA). In accordance with the provisions of Title I ofthe Ryan White C.A.RE. Act, the grantee appoints members to serve on the Dallas EMA HIV HealthServices Planning Council (HSPC). The HSPC is charged with the responsibility of establishing prioritiesfor the allocation of Title I funds and determining the categorical allocation of funds by service category.

On August 11, 1999, the service category awards were established by the HSPC. The AdministrativeAgency issued a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) to determine the specific contract awardrecommendations for FY 1999-2000 Ryan White Title I funds. On October 18, 1999, the AdministrativeAgency made RFPs available to all interested parties. Proposal submission deadline was 2:00 p.m. onNovember 22,1999. The proposals were reviewed and scored by an External Review Committee, whichwas comprised of individuals demographically reflective of the Dallas EMA's HIV/AIDS cases.

Under provisions of the Ryan White C.A.RE. Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrative Agency'sExternal Review Committee reviews and evaluates r&:tuests for funding by service providers. TheAdministrative Agency reviews the initial recommendations from the External Review Committee and makesfinal recommendations for the award of contracts to Commissioners Court.

Fiscal Impact

Under provisions of the Ryan White C.A.RE. Act, the Administrative Agency will receive up to five percent($553,850) of the total award of$11 ,077,000 for administration including staff salaries, benefits, equipment,supplies, etc. The Ryan White C.A.R.E. Act allows for reasonable and necessary funds to be allocated forthe HSPC.

The Administrative Agency budget for $553,850 is being recommended for contract approval as submittedon Attachment #1. The HSPC support budget for $185,000 is being submitted for approval as outlined onAttachment #2. The HSPC program support budget for $9,000 is being submitted for contract approval asoutlined on Attachment #3.

The remainder of FY 2000-2001 Ryan White C.A.RE. Act Title I award of$9,845, 170 and the FY 2000-2001Ryan White Title I Congressional Black Caucus subset award of $483,980 are allocated to be subcontractedto service providers to provide services to individuals and families impacted by HIV/AIDS in accordance withthe Ryan White C.A.R.E. Act Amendments of 1996.

11

Page TwoFY 2000-2001 Ryan White Title I

Of the $9,845,170 Ryan White Title I award available for subcontracts, $8,073,128 has been approved forcontract through Commissioners Court. Obligated funds in the amount of $1,564,128 will be allocated uponprocess of budgets with awarded service providers. Contracts and bUdgets for these funds will be submittedto Commissioners Court under separate briefing and court order for these allocated funds.

Of the $483,980 Ryan White Title I Congressional Black Caucus subset award available for subcontract,obligated funds in the amount of $483,980 will be allocated upon process of budgets with awarded serviceproviders. Contracts and budgets for these funds will be submitted to Commissioners Court under separatebnefing and court order for these allocated funds.

Of the $9,845,170 Ryan White Title I award available for subcontracts, $207,914 is being recommended forcontract approval with The Visiting Nurse Association of Texas as outlined on Attachment #4.

Operational Impact

Administrative Agency staff will coordinate and monitor the programmatic and fiscal accountability of thesubcontractors in accordance with the responsibilities assigned by Commissioners Court. The programmaticand fiscal contract compliance will be reviewed by Administrative Agency staffwho are specifically assignedthe responsibility of conducting compliance audits of the HIV services sub-grantees. The administrativeaward from this grant provides the funds for these positions through the Administrative Agency budget.

Legal Impact

The signature of the County Judge is required on the contract with the service provider, and theCommissioners Court must approve the budgets.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Commissioners Court approve the recommendations of funds of theAdministrative Agency for the FY 2000-2001 Ryan White Title I Administrative Agency budget as reflectedon Attachment #1, HSPC support bUdget as reflected on Attachment #2, HSPC program support budget asreflected on Attachment #3, and on the award of the contract to The Visiting Nurse Association of Texas asreflected on Attachment #4 and authorize the County JUdge to sign the contract on behalf of Dallas County.

RECOMMENDED BY:


12

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONDALLAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/Dallas EMA

FY 2000 • 2001 Ryan White Title I Budget

III TRAVEL 7,366

A Local Travel @ 31/mile. Local staff travel for on-site 2,400program monitoring and fiscal compliance audit.

B. Out-of Jurisdiction Travel. 4,966

Travel for two (2) staff to participate in HRSA's national 1 trip @ 3,700 3,700conference and technical training meetings.

Ground transportation 4 days @ 10 x 2 80Lodging 4 nights @ 115 x 2 920Per Diem 5 days@ 50 x 2 500Air Fare - round trip @ 800 x 2 1,600Conference fee @ 300 x 2 600

Travel for one (1) staff to attend quarterly meetings of 1 trip @ 264 264Title I EMAs in Austin.

Ground transportation 400 miles @ .31 x 1 124Lodging 1 night @ 70 x 1 70Per Diem 2 days @ 35 x 1 70

Travel for two (2) staff to participate in the Titles I - IV 2 trips @ 369 738meeting in Austin, Texas to be held during May 2000.


Travel for one (1) staff to participate in quarterly SCSN 1 trip @ 264 264meetings in Austin, Texas.


IV. EQUIPMENT $ 5,886

A. File cabinets to archive Title I subcontractor data. 2@ 110 220

B. Laptop computers for program monitors to assist with 1 @ 3500 3,500field-monitoring tasks related to Title I subrecipientagencies and to assist administrative agency staff withpresentations and technical assistance.

400 MHz, 64 MB Ram, CD Rom, 3.5 Disk Drive

C. Laser printers to replace old printers purchased in Nov. 2@ 500 1,0001992 and May 1993.

D. Modems to provide program monitors, grants manager, 8@ 112 896health and budget analysts, and the quality assurancemanager access to the internet. (75%x150=112)

E. Bookcases to be used to shelf Title I related materials 2@ 135 270and documents.

BUDGET JUSTiFICATiON PoW TiTLE' 00 JdSJ412612000 2

13Attachment 1


FY 2000 • 2001 Ryan White Title I Budget

I. PERSONNEL $ 402,728

A. Grants Compliance Officer • Tom Thomas FTE (75% x 64355) 48,266Oversees daily activities and operation of the GrantsDivision.

B. Program Monitor· Karin Petties FTE (750" x 47397) 35,548Conducts programmatic reviews of subcontractors.

C. Program Monitor· Gilbert Kouame FTE (75% x 46116) 34,587Conducts programmatic reviews of subcontractors.

D. Program Monitor· Daniel Edwards FTE (75% x 41883) 31,412Conducts programmatic reviews of subcontractors.

E. Health Analyst· Dan Error FTE (75% x 43603) 32,102Develops and implements standards of care andoutcome measures for services.

F. Grants Analyst· Mitos Uaude, FTE (75% x 41114) 30,836Analyzes and prepares financial reports.

G. Auditor· Asna Tessema FTE (75% x 44530) 33,398Conducts compliance audit of subcontractors.

H. Auditor· Valarie Anderson FTE (75% x 41138) 30,854Conducts compliance audit of subcontractors.

I. Auditor· Lyneice Jordan FTE (75% x 35197) 26,398Conducts compliance audit of subcontractors.

J. Administrative Assistant· VMan Wilson FTE (75% x 34916) 261187Provides administrative support.

K. Administrative Assistant· Wilson Judd FTE (75% x 32940) 24,705Provides administrative support.

L. General OfftC8 Clerk· Teresa Moore FTE (15% x 21277) 15,958Provides clerical assistance to HIV grants Staff.

M. Systems Oper Analyst· Allen Wang FTE (3&% x 55384) 20,761Provides assistance with COMPIS reporting andtracking.

N. BUilding Supervisor· Patsy Walker FTE (38% x 29648) 11,117Schedules meetings for the Administrative Agentits committees.

II FRINGE BENEFITS (23%) 92,627

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION RW TITLE 1 00 ..J412612000

V

VI

14


FY 2000 - 2001 Ryan White Title I BUdget

SUPPLIES

A. General consumable office supplies to support grantrelated activities.

CONTRACTUAL

A. Contract with Grant Writer/Consultant to assist with theFY 2001 - 2002 applications.

B Contract (Direct Services)

8,351

10,329,150

10,301

10,337,501

1] Primary Care Services:

Outpatient Medical CareOutpatient Medical Care - CBCDrug ReimbursementMedical Case ManagementMedical Case Management - CBCDental ServicesMental Health Services/CounselingMental Health Services/CounselingSubstance Abuse Treatment/CounselingHome Health CareHospice Care

2J Support Services:

Food - Home Delivered MealsFood MealsFood PantryInSurance AssistanceLegal ServicesServices for Children & Adolescents - Child CareVolunteer Support/Buddy ProgramAdult Day Care

3J Access Services:

Comprehensive Case ManagementComprehensive Case Management - CBCClient AdvocacyClient Advocacy - CBCMinority AccessInterpretation and Sign LanguageTransportation Services - PeopleTransportation Services - RXInformation and Referral Services

SuDGET JUSTIFICATION RW TITLE 1 00 xlii'0412612000 3

5,375,726

2,091,990100,000541,817704,362100,000620,516619,217

83,980244,163237,189

32,492

2,168,956

21,000359,442326,914720,000111,600180,000345,000105,000

2,784,468

616,486100,000449,971100,000624,696

51,303537,177

80,000224,835

15

BUDGE', JUSTIFICATIONDALLAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/Dallas EMA

FY 2000 - 2001 Ryan White Title I BUdget

VII OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 14,775

A Telephone: local and long distance, and internet access 2,400time. All means necessary to communicate wIthcontractors, the community, grantor, and to obtain HIVIAIDS information.

B. Copier rental and printing charges for Title I administrative 2,460activities.

C. Postage for grant related materials. 1,700

0 Training provided to staff to keep currrent on HIV/AIDS 3,000issues and job related requirements.

E. External Review Committee materials and refreshments. 600Committee reviews proposals and makes recommenda-tions for Title I subrecipient agencies.

F. Office equipment maintenance. 700

G. Advertising for public notice of the RFP. 900

H. Audit-Portion of County-wide OMS Cir. A-128 Audit 3,015

VII PLANNING COUNCIL SUPPORT 185,000

IX PROGRAM SUPPORT 9,000

X INDIRECT COSTS 11,816

TOTAL AWARD $ 11,077,000

SUOGET JUSTIFICATION~ TlTU: 1 00 ..04;2612000 4

16Attachment 2


PLANNING COUNCIL SUPPORT BUDGETFY 2000 • 2001 Ryan White Title I

I. PERSONNEL $ 68,649

A HIV Services Planner· Will Longoria FTE 100% $ 38,808Coordinates Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.

B. HSPC Administrative Assistant· Martin Gozales FTE 1000/. $ 29,841Conducts programmatic reviews of subcontractors.

II FRINGE BENEFITS (23%) $ 15,789

III TRAVEL $ 7,410

A. Local Travel @ .31/mile. $ 966

B. Out-of Jurisdiction Travel. $ 6,444

Travel for three (3) Planning Council staff to attend National 1 trip @ 4,650 $ 4,650Grantee meeting and/or technical assistance training.

Ground transportation 4 days@ 10 x 3 120Lodging 4 nights @ 115 x 3 1,380Per Diem 5 days @ 50 x 3 750Air Fare - round trip @ 800 x 3 2,400

Travel for two (2) Planning Council representatives to attend 1 trip @ 738 $ 738Titles I - IV meeting in Austin, Texas during May 2000.

Ground transportation 400 miles @ .31 x 2 248Lodging 2 nights @ 70 x 2 280Per Diem 3 days @ 35 x 2 210

Travel for Planning Council representative to participate in 4 trips @264 $ 1,056the SCSN quarterly workshops in Austin, Texas.


IV. EQUIPMENT $ 6,900

A. File cabinets to store Planning Council materials. 4@ 100 $ 400

B. Laptop computer for Planning Council and its committees to 1 @ 3500 $ 3,500be used in presentations and for data input dUring communityforums and meetings conducted off site.

400 MHz, 64 MB Ram, removable CD Rom, 3.5 Disk Drive,13" color screen, extra battery.

C. Bookshelves to store Planning Council documents and 4@ 300 $ 1,200reference materials.

D. Maps and overlays of the eight-county service area that will $ 1,800assist the Planning Council in priority setting, resourceallocations, needs assessment activities, tracking communityresources, and implementing the comprehensive plan.

BUOGET ,USTlFICJ\TION HSPC RW TITlE 100 ...

J4i26f2000

17BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

DALLAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/Dallas EMAPLANNING COUNCIL SUPPORT BUDGET

FY 2000 . 2001 Ryan White Title I

V SUPPLIES $ 2,800

A General consumable office supplies to support grantrelated activities.

VI CONTRACTUAL $ 55,000

A Needs Assessment/Comprehensive activities to Identify client's S 35,000service needs and to develop a comprehensive plan for theseservices.

B. Focus Group facilitators to conduct focus groups to receive S 20,000qualitative data to update the Council on client's needs.Facilitators to produce data in report format and present to thePlanning Council.

VII OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS $ 19,297

A. Telephone: local and long distance, and internet access $ 1,750time. All means necessary to communicate with PlanningCouncil members and participants, the community, grantor.grantee, and to obtain HIV/AIDS updates.

B. Copier rental and printing charges for Planning Council $ 4,500materials.

C Postage for Planning Council-related materials. $ 2,750

0 Publication/Promotion costs for planning Council recruitment $ 997for membership and to announce public forums and focusgroups.

E. Reasonable and out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result $ 9,300of participating in the Planning Council and related granteemeetings.

1] Transportation $ 2,250Mileage @ $.31 per mile. $ 1,500Taxi Vouchers $ 250Bus Vouchers $ 500

2] Child Care $ 3,5003] Food $ 2,4504] Lost Wages $ 1,100

VIII INDIRECT COSTS S 9,155

TOTAL $ 185,000

BuDGET JUSTIFICATION HSPC ftW TiTLE 1 00 ...

~'126120002

18

Attachment 3


PLANNING SUPPORTFY 2000 - 2001 Ryan White Title I

I. PERSONNEL $

II FRINGE BENEFITS $

III TRAVEL $

IV. EQUIPMENT $

V SUPPLIES $

VI CONTRACTUAL $ 9,000

The HIV Services Planning Council will select specific initiatives this year that willassist the Council and/or service providers with increasing their capacity to providemore efficient and cost-effective services. It will also include technical assistance tostandardize and enhance service delivery data collection and reporting within theEMA.

VII OTHER ADMINISTRAliVE COSTS

VIII INDIRECT COSTS

TOTAL

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION.PRO SUPP RW TITLE 1

0412612000

$

$

19

ATTACHMENT #4GRANT: FY 2000-20001 RYAN WHITE TITLE I

AWARD AMOUNT: $11,077,000

AGENCY SERVICE CATEGORY AWARD

VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CASE $17,422TEXAS MANAGEMENT

VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF HOME DELIVERED MEALS $21,000TEXAS

VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF HOME HEALTH CARE $137,000TEXAS

VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF HOSPICE CARE $32,492TEXAS

AGENCY OBLIGATED FUNDS SUBTOTAL $207,914PROPOSED ON THIS BRIEFING

FOR CONTRACT APPROVAL

OBLIGATED TITLE I FUNDS AWARDED - PENDING AGENCY $1,564,128BUDGETS

ALREADY CONTRACTED SUBTOTAL $8,073,128

TITLE I SUS-GRANTEE AWARD TOTAL $9,845,170

UNOBLIGATED CONGRESSIONAL AWARDED - PENDING AGENCY $483,980BLACK CAUCUS FUNDS BUDGETS

HSPC NEEDS ASSESSMENT $35,000

HSPC SUPPORT BUDGET $150,000

HSPC PROGRAM SUPPORT BUDGET $9,000

DALLAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION $553,850

TOTAL AWARD TOTAL AWARD $11,077,000

20

DALLAS COUNTYDepartment of Health and Human servi~'_·;:·c,;,g~:\\§Home Loan Counseling Center " ~ \-", ,." \. - "'JO,,,C'

o\ ~pR20 I'\\ \: 51Betty J. Culbreath-ListerDirector

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SlJBJECT:

COl\'Th'USSIONERS' COURT

BETTY CULBREATH-LISTER, DIRECTOR HEALTH Al~D HUMAN SERVICES

April 24, 2000

COUNSELING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HOME LOAN COUNSELING CENTERAND THE HOMEWARD FOUNDATION

BACKGROUND

The Dallas County Home Loan Counseling Center (HLCC) has established partnerships with private, public, andnonprofit lenders and housing entities to provide home buyer education and counseling. This has proven to be anexcellent marketing avenue for the HLCC to increase its client base as well as generate income from contract fees paidby the respective contractors.

The HLCC has been selected by The Homeward Foundation of Clearwater, Florida, to be its sole partner to providehome buyer education and counseling for their program participants in the North Texas area. The HomewardFoundation was founded by U.S. Home Corporation and U.S. Home Mortgage Corporation to assist first-time homepurchasers with down payment and closing costs assistance. It is a 501 (c)3 non profit dedicated to the development ofhome ownership opportunities for low to moderate income families in eleven (11) states.

FISCAL IMPACT

This is a l2-month counseling contract and will pay the HLCC a per family fee of$50 per home buyer for a maximumof 20 families or $1,000. This agreement is based upon The Homeward Foundation obtaining approval from the TexasDepartment of Housing and Community Affairs for funding of the foundation's application for down payment andclosing cost assistance for buyers in the Dallas market area. There is no fmancial impact on Dallas County.

OPERATIONAL IMPACT

There is no impact on the HLCC to accommodate this contract.

LEGAL IMPACT

The County Judge is required to sign the Memorandum of Agreement, after approval of the Commissioners' Court.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Commissioners Court approve this Memorandum of Agreement between The HomewardFoundation and the Dallas County Home Loan Counseling Center. Further, it is recommended that the County Judgebe authorized to sign the Agreement.

Recommended by: .-,M~~~Lj.~~~~~1EcB

c: J. Allen Clemson, Court AdministratorVirginia Porter, County AuditorPhil Sch~ps, Budget Director

2377 North Stemmons FreewayDallas, Texas 75207-2710

Suite 724 Office 214-819-6060FAX 214-819-6069

21

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE HOMEWARD FOUNDATION ANDDALLAS COUNTY HOME LOAN COUNSELING CENTER

1. INTRODUCTION

The Homeward Foundation, a nonprofit whose mission is to provide a affordable housing,homebuyer counseling and support services promoting home ownership for first-timehomebuyers, is making application to the Texas Department of Housing and CommunityAffairs for an award of HOME Program funds for Homebuyer Assistance. This applicationwas submitted on March 17, 2000 with a request for funding in the amount of $5,000 eachto benefit 20 Dallas area first-time homebuyers during a 12-month period.

2. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT

The purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement between the two nonprofits, is to providepre-qualified, income-eligible first-time homebuyers with homebuyer counseling servicesand related self-sufficiency services through the Dallas County Home Loan CounselingCenter's service provider partners, and to assist lower-income families to leverage fundsprovided by TDHCA.

3. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT

Pursuant to this agreement, the Homeward Foundation agrees to make referrals of firsttime homebuyers to the Dallas County Home Loan Counseling Center for purposes ofobtaining homebuyer counseling and necessary support services. The HomewardFoundation, contingent upon approval of its HomebuyerAssistance application by TDHCA,also agrees to provide payment to the Dallas County Home Loan Counseling Center of $50per homebuyer for course fees for the benefit of up to 20 approved homebuyers. Inaddition, if approved for funding, The Homeward Foundation will make available fromHomebuyer's Assistance monies, up to $5,000 per first-time homebuyer in the form of asoft second lien, to be funded at time of close of escrow, for the benefit of up to 20homebuyers. This amount is estimated to be $100,000 for a 12-month period, followingcontract award to The Homeward Foundation by TDHCA. These funds may be applied todown payments, closing costs or gap financing assistance.

4. AGREEMENT PREDICATED UPON FUNDING FOR EACH ENTITY

This agreement is predicated upon TDHCA's approval and funding of The HomewardFoundation's application for Homebuyer Assistance to benefit up to 20 first-timehomebuyers in the Dallas market area. Funds are to be expended within 12 months of theaward of HOME funds by TDHCA.

1

22

The period for which this agreement will be in force is 12 months following contractexecution between The Homeward Foundation and the Texas Department of Housing andCommunity Affairs HOME Program.

AGREED TO BY:

HOMEWARD FOUNDATION

By: Bradford W. BatesExecutive Director

Date

DALLAS COUNTY HOME LOANCOUNSELING CENTER

By: Lee F. JacksonCounty Judge

Date

Recommended by: _Betty Culbreath-Lister, Director

2

23/~~\ DALLAS COUNTY\~(,:, .~ ; ) HEALTH Al~'D HlJ~1.AN SER\1CES\",>-~~ GRAl"ITS ~1ANAGEMENT~

BETTY J. CULBREATH-LISTER

DIRECTOR

Contract available for view in theCounty Administrators Office, call(214) 653-7361

TO: THE HONORABLE CONfMISSIONERS COURT

FROlVI: Betty J. Culbreath-Lister, DirectorDallas County Health and Human Services

DATE: May 2,2000

SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for State of Texas HIV Health and Social Services Grant

Background of IssueThe Dallas County Judge is the grantee and legal recipient of State of Texas HIV Health and Social Services (StateServices) Grant funds. Dallas County Health and Human Services (DCHHS) is designated to serve as the AdministrativeAgency for State Services funds for the Dallas Health Services Delivery Area (HSDA) which includes Collin, Dallas,Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Kaufman, and Rockwall counties. In accordance with the provisions of the Texas Department ofHealth, the Administrative Agency is responsible for distributing State Services funds to eligible service providers in theDallas HSDA.

The funds will be made available to the public through a Request for Proposals (RFP) on May IS, 2000 with proposalsbeing due on June 12, 2000. Submitted proposals will be reviewed and scored by an External Review Committee, whichis comprised of individuals demographically reflective of the Dallas EMSA's HIV/AIDS cases. The Project Sponsor willreview the initial recommendations from the External Review Committee and make final recommendations for the awardof contracts to Commissioners Court on August 9, 2000.

Fiscal ImpactThere will be no fiscal impact to Dallas County.

Operational ImpactThe Administrative Agency's staffwill be responsible for providing technical assistance to parties interested in submittingproposals. In addition, staff will be responsible for reviewing the initial recommendations of the External ReviewCommittee and for making final recommendations to the Commissioners Court.

Legal ImpactThe Commissioners Court must approve the Administrative Agency's RFP (see attachment).

RecommendationIt is recommended that the Commissioners Court approve the Administrative Agency's RFP as reflected in the attachment.

RECOMMENDED BY:_-1J.~2!!:~L:.~~~'-I4tLc:.--_-------


C:\My Documents\Court Orden and Briefmgs\StateSrvcs.RFP.Briefmg.wpd

2377 North Stemmons FreewayDallas, Texas 75207-2710

Suite 200, LB-16 Office 214-819-1840Fax 214-819-1850

24~

~(B~ DALLAS COUNTY\ ":,,' . .: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES\'''c1,~c OF <:,.<r.....'t" ADMINISTRATION


April 25, 2000


;~ . , , .... :) '~,~.:: \r y, ... :

."

oI APR 2S PH 3: I i

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

COMMISSIONERS COURT

Betty J. Culbreath-Lister, Director of Health and Human Services

DALLAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/Older Adult Services ProgramFY' 2000 Service Contract

BackgroundThe Dallas County Health and Human ServiceslOlder Adult Services Program has received the Service Contractfrom the Dallas Area Agency on Aging (DAAA) fOf Congregate Meals and Transportation Services for the periodOctober " 1999 through September 30, 2000. The contracts are based upon grant proposals submitted to theDAAA earlier this year. The contracts outline the funding limits, legal obligations and program requirements ofDallas County and the DAAA.

Operational ImpactAs stated in the contract, the Older Adult Services Program agrees to provide services as described in the Title IIIB(Transportation) and Title m-c (Congregate Meals) grant proposals. The Older Adult Services Program will provide140,000 trips to 1,600 unduplicated older persons to and from senior centers and related activities. At least 3660unduplicated older persons will be served 276,360 meals at 20 senior center locations throughout Dallas County.

Fi§callmpagFunding for Transportation and Congregate Meals services will be received through fixed rate contracts. Fundingfor Transportation and Congregate Meal Services are as follows:

Tran§portation Congregate Meals

Title 111-8 $87,000 Title III-C $ 719,796Participant Contributions 82,402 Participant Contributions 14,415FY '99 Carryover 22,953 FROM FY' 99County Match 50.891 County Match 298,146

TOTAL $ 243,246 TOTAL $1,032,357

2377 Stemmons FreewaySuite 600 LB-1 6


25

Legal InformationThe Service Contract require signatures from the County Judge and the DAAA. The contract has been reviewed bythe District Attorney's Office.

RecommendationIt is recommended that the Commissioner's Court approve the FY 12000 Service Contract with the DAAA and thatthe County Judge be authorized to sign the contract on behalf of Dallas County.

Recommended by: ~~~~.L.liettViCu(f8ath.Li~ ".Director of Health and Human Services

Attachments

c: Allen Clemson, Court AdministratorVirginia Porter, County AuditorPhil 8cheps, Budget OfficerZachary Thompson, Deputy DirectorDianne Rucker, Program Administrator

26

: i. ~ ~;. TY~I.' ;. . '-

01 APR 26 AM fa: 32

NtEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

Dallas County Commissioners Court

Hon. Vic Cunningham, Local Administrative County Judge

SUBJECT: Large Screen Equipment for the County Courts at Law

DATE: April 21, 2000

BACKGROUNDThe Dallas Bar's Computer Committee has volunteered to provide to the five Dallas CountyCourts ofLaw, Elmo Visual presenters, 61 inch Toshiba projection televisions, Toshiba CinemaHiFi VCR's and related peripheral equipment. With these gifts, the five County Courts ofLawwill have the same equipment for use as the 13 Civil District Courts. Approval by theCommissioners Court of placement of the equipment in all five courts is requested.

IMPACT ON OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCEThis equipment will greatly enhance the visibility of all types of evidence for the judges and jurorsduring trials and other hearings, thus improving courtroom effectiveness and efficiency.Maintenance of the equipment will be set up through the Computer Committee.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONSThis equipment is valued at approximately $ 38,970.00. Attached is a more specific list of theequipment that will be installed. There will be peripheral equipment (cabling, etc.) which is notspecifically listed on the attachment. All this equipment will be purchased, installed, andmaintained at no cost to Dallas County.

By authority ofRule 141 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a per diem fee will be chargedeach side during trial. This will provide a fund to defray maintenance and upgrade costs. Litigantscurrently pay approximately $500 per day if they rent this equipment from a vendor. Our fee willbe set (through order of the LACJ) at $18 per trial day per side, thereby radically reducinglitigant's costs and leveling the playing field. Access to this type of equipment to parties nototherwise capable of paying high rental rates is a significant benefit to the overall administration ofjustice.

The fee will be charged as costs and collected through the office of the County Clerk. Each courtwill be responsible for reporting to the County Clerk the amount owed by each side for each trial

27

in which the equipment is used. A standard form will be completed by the court reporter andprovided to the County Clerk. Individual judges will have the option to reduce or eliminate thecharge as may be appropriate. The funds collected will periodically be transferred to an accountadministered by the First Judicial Administrative Region, Presiding Judge, Hon. Pat McDowell forthe benefit of the County Courts of Law. The maintenance contract will be with the ComputerCommittee of the Dallas Bar. These issues have been reviewed by Judge McDowell, the CountyClerk, the Auditor and the District Attorney.

PROJECT SCHEDULEInstallation of the equipment will begin immediately upon authorization by the CommissionersCourt. Scheduling of the installation will be arranged with each court with assistance of theDistrict Court Administrator and may require after hours or weekend access to the courtrooms.

NDEDBY:

Hon. vi:c~am 7 L_~---

Local Administrative County Judge

cc: All County Courts ofLaw JudgesVirginia PorterHon. Pat McDowellEarl BullockAllen Clemson

Glooal-

28(8721512-10-41 p. 1

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY EXTENDEDPRice PRice

TZ61V61 TOSHIBA 61" PROJECTION TV $2,59999 5 $12,999.95SER# 41993923SER# 98991123 ISER# 98991128SER 98991129SER# 98991339

M765 TOSHIBA CINEMA HIFI VCR $399.00 5 $1,995.00St::.K# 65268779SER# 65268803SER# 65269083SER# 65269206SER# 65269209

VIDEOGUARO PANAMAX HT 3YR SURGEI $299.00 5 $1,495.00

WARRANTY FOR TELEVISION37" & LARGER

ELMO EV500AF VISUAL $3,453.00 5 $17,265.00PRF~ENTER

APOLLO TPOUOE OFFICE $169.99 5 $849.95CART_.TVlfW GOLD PC TO TV $333.49 5 $1 ,667.4~

VIDEO CONVERTORTV STANDS $540.00 ~ $2.700.00

29

DALLAS COUNTY

BILL MELTONCOUNTY TREASURER

April 26, 2000Honorable Commissioners Court411 Elm Street - 2nd FloorDallas, Texas 75202

Dear Members of the Court:

District Attorney Bill Hill has contacted me regarding his participation in theEmployee Retirement System of Texas (ERS) based on HB 3174, 76 th

Legislature, effective September 1, 1999, which allows the Criminal DistrictAttorney of Dallas County to draw the majority of his pay from the State under the.Professional Prosecutor's Law. He is now paid the primary portion of his pay fromthe State. Dallas County pays a supplemental portion for which he currentlyparticipates in the Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS). ThisBill allows the first opportunity for the District Attorney of Dallas County toparticipate in ERS. Previous District Attorneys have basically been fullyremunerated from the coffers of Dallas County.

Accordingly, we have now been notified that in order for Mr. Hill to continue toparticipate in TCDRS the Commissioners Court must pass an order authorizingsuch participation. Mr. Hill has reviewed his options which are: 1.) to remainin TCDRS/and ERS or 2.) participate only in ERS. He has elected to participatein both.

Accordingly, we present to you a proposed Court Order in line with the rules andregulations of TCDRS that would allow Mr. Hill to participate in TCDRS for thesupplemental pay that he draws from Dallas County. Please note that oncepassed this will bind all future Dallas County District Attorneys to participate in thesame manner. Dallas County has already done the same for District Judges.

~di'"ill Melton

County TreasurerBM:mgAttach.xc: Honorable Bill Hill

If the Court is agreeable, the Order will be placed on your next Formal CourtAgenda.

:303 RECORDS BUILDING • 509 }IAlN STREET • DALLAS. TEXAS 75202 • (214) 653-i321

CER17FII!D COUNTY TREASURER (CCT) • CER17FII!D IHVESn.IBlT OFFICER (C/O, • CERTlFII!D FINANCE MASTER (CFM'

BILL HILLCRIN1INAL DISTRICT ATTO&l\ffiYDALLAS, TEXAS

30

00 APR I4 1~11 8: I 7

April 11, 2000

Mr. Bill MeltonTreasurer, Dallas County303 Records Building, 3ed Floor509 Main StreetDallas, TX 75202

Re: Retirement Benefits

Dear Bill:

Thank you for your prompt attention to my request for clarification ofmy retirement benefits.Pursuant to the letter from TCDRS Benefits Administrator Karen L. Correa, I would appreciateyou requesting the Commissioners Court to issue an order authorizing my participation in theTCDRS based on my supplemental compensation earned from Dallas County.

I understand it is not possible to transfer funds from one retirement system to the other.Therefore, I will retain my TCDRS Funds in that account.

Ifyou need me to do anything else to help you with this request, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Bill HillCriminal District AttorneyDallas County, Texas

:rmgEnclosurej:\wpdo<:a\bi1lhilN..Bi1IMeIID2.wpd

Frank Crowley Courts Building· 133 N. Industrial Blvd., L.B. 19 • Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 • 214/653-3600

-~-...--~...,;~::J

31512 325 =~28 =.22 22

1-11-21-31-41-51-61-71-81-9

1-101-111-121-131-141-151-161-171-181-191-201-211-221-231-242-12-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-9

2-102-112-122-132-142-152-162-172-182-192-20

A..~ ACT=elat~ng ~o the applicatlon of the professional prcsec~tors law tothe cr~rni~al d~strlct attorney of Dallas County.

at IT ~NACTED BY THE LEGIS~TURE or THE STATE OF TEXAS:SECTIO~ 1. Section 46.002, Gover~~ent Coce, ~s amended to

read as follows:Sec. 46.002. PROSECv70RS SUBJECT TO C¥~PTER. This chapter

applies only to the following prosecutors:(1) the district attorneys fer the 2nd, 8th, 9th,

12th, 18t~, 21st, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 29th, 32r.d, 34th, 35th, 36th,38th, 43rd, 47th, 49th, 50th, 51st, 52nd, S3rd, 63rd, 64th, 66th,69th, 70t:"l., 76th, 8l;:t, 84th, 85th, 88th, 90th, 97th, lOath, l05th,106th, 110th, 118th, 119th, 123rd, 142nd, 145th, 156th, 159th,173rd, 196th, 198th, 216th, 220th, 229th, 235th, 253rd, 259th,266th, 268th, 271st, 278th, 286th, 329th, 34Sth, and 355th Judiciald~stricts:

(2) the criminal district attorneys tor the countiesof Anderson, Austin, Bastrop, S@xar, Bowie, Brazoria, Caldwell,calhoun, Cass, Collin, Comal, Dallas, D~af S~th, Denton, Eastland,Galveston, Gregg, Harrison, Hays, Hidalgo, Jasper, Jefferson,Kaufman, LU~bock, McLennan, Madison, Navarro, Newton, ~anola, Polk,Randall, Rockwall, San Jacinto, Smith, Tarrant, Taylor, Tyler,upshur, Van Zandt, Victor~a, Walker, Waller, Wichita, Weod, andYoakum; and

(3) the county attorneys performing the dutie~ ofdistrict attorneys in the counties of An~rews, Callahan, Cameron,Castro, Colorado, Cros~y, Ellis, Falls, Fannin, Freestone, Grayson,Lamar, Lamb, L~~pasas, Lee, Limestone, Marion, Milam, Morris,Ochiltree, Orange, Red River, Robertson, Rusk, Terry, webb, andWillacy.

SECTION 2. Sections 44.157(e)-(gJ, GoverrJnent Code, arerepealed.

SECTION 3. This Act takes effect or.ly if a speCificappropriation for the implementation of this Act ~s provided inH.S. No.1 (General Appropriations Act), Acts of the 76thLegislature, RegUlar session, 1999. If no specific appropriation~s provided in H.B. No.1, the General Apprepriations Act, this Acthas no eftect.

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 1999.SECTION 5. The ~mportance ot this legislation and the

crowded condition of the calendars in coth houses create anemergency and an imperative public necessity that theconstitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three severaldays in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.

President of the Senate speaker of the HouseI certify that H.B. No. 3174 was passed by the House on April

23, 1999, by a non-record vote: and that the House concurred inSenate amendments to H.B. NO. 3174 on May 28, 1999, by a non-recordvote.

Chief Clerk of the ReuseI certify that H.B. No. 3174 was passed by the senate, with

amendments, on May 26, 1999, by a viva-voce vote.

Secretary of the senate

')-~

':~'-':\.~

<..(C

r-· ~~;; ~

c;

\ ~'9 n411~nnnn , ., ..,., PM'-- TOTAL P.02

PAGE. 02512 328 8708

Governor

DateAPPROVED:

APR 25 2000 15:08

1 "'# 1

32COURT ORDER

ORDER NO: _

DATE:

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BE IT REMEMBERED at a regular meeting of Commissioners Court of Dallas County, Texas held on the

________day of ,2000 on motion made by

_______________________________, and seconded by

__________________________,iliefullow~gorderwasadopred:

WHEREAS, prosecuting attorneys who receive supplemental compensation from County funds in addition tothe compensation received by iliem from ilie State of Texas are not eligible for membership ~ ilie TexasCounty and District Retirement System as employees of iliis County unless, by order of ilie CommissionersCourt, such prosecuting attorneys are made eligible, to ilie extent of compensation paid by ilie County, formembership in ilie retirement system; and .

WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 842.106, 842.201 and 843.402 of ilie Texas Government Code, DallasCounty is auiliorized on ilie terms ilierein stated to provide for inclusion of such prosecuting attorneys in ilieTexas County and District Retirement System to ilie extent of ilie compensation paid each such person byDallas County, notwiilistanding membership in ilie Employees Retirement System of Texas; and,

WHEREAS, Dallas County has determined iliat it is to ilie public interest that such official(s) be so included inthe Texas County and District Retirement System; it is HEREBY ADJUDGED, DECREED AND ORDEREDby ilie Dallas County Commissioners Court iliat:

1. Pursuant to ilie provisions of Section 842.201 of ilie TCDRS Act (Texas Government Code, Title 8, SubtitleF), the County hereby elects to include in ilie Texas County and District Retirement System effective May 9,2000, all persons regularly engaged in ilie performance of ilie duties of prosecuting attorney, as defmed inSection 842.106 (and who are members of ilie Employees Retirement System of Texas) who, in addition to thecompensation received from ilie State of Texas, are paid supplemental compensation from County funds ofDallas County; and all such persons shall be considered (to the extent of the compensation paid to such personby the County), to be employees of Dallas County within the meaning of the TCDRS Act, and as such eligiblefor membership in the Texas County and District Retirement System.

2.(a) Every person who is, on the effective date of this order as above specified, within the class designated byiliis order to be included in the Texas County and District Retirement System, shall become a member of saidSystem, as an employee of Dallas County.

(b) Every person who, subsequent to the effective date of this order, becomes for the first time an employeeof Dallas County by reason of an employment described above, shall become a member of the Texas Countyand District Retirement System at the date of such employment.

3. Any person who becomes a member of Texas County and District Retirement System pursuant to paragraph2(a) or paragraph 2 (b) of this order shall not be allowed credit for previous service unless within ninety-one(91) days after the date the person becomes a member of Texas County and District Retirement System.

(a) For each and all months that such person performed services as an employee of the County between theeffective date of iliis County's participation ~ Texas County and District Retirement System and ilie effectivedate of the person's membership in said System, such person shall pay over and deposit with said System,unless such deposits are already ~ place, a sum equal to the deposits which a member of the System drawingthe same compensation from Dallas County dur~g the same period was required to make to said System.

33

(b) Dallas County within the ninety-one (91) day period from the effective date of the person's membershipshall contribute to the System, unless such contributions have already been made, an amount equal to thedeposits made by the member pursuant to paragraph 3 (a), above.

In the event the deposits mentioned in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) are made within the time specified, the sum sodeposited by the member shall be credited to the member's individual account in the Employees Saving Fund ofthe System, and such member shall be allowed current service credit for each month of service from which themember's said deposits derive; and the matching deposits made by Dallas County shall be deposited to itsaccount in the Subdivision Accumulation Fund of the System.

4. Any person who becomes a member of the System pursuant to paragraph 2(a) or paragraph 2(b) of thisorder, and who shall make and cause to be made the deposits specified in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above, shallbe entitled to receive, and is hereby allowed, credit for "prior service" rendered to Dallas County prior to itsparticipation in said System, and upon certification of the person's prior service in the manner provided by lawand the Rules and Regulations of said System, shall be allowed an Allocated Prior Service Credit determined inthe same manner as if the person had been an employee of Dallas County on the date of the County'sparticipation in the System.

Each such employee who claims "prior service" credit for service performed before the effective date of theCounty's participation shall promptly file with the County Treasurer a detailed written statement (on such formsas are prescribed by or under the direction of tha Board of Trustees of the System) of all such prior service.The County Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to verify each such statement of prior service claimed,and upon being satisfied that the same is correct, to certify to the Board of Trustees of the System on behalf ofDallas County: (a) length of "prior service" for which credit is allowed by this County to the employee-member(stated in terms of months of such service), and (b) the "average prior service compensation" of the employeemember, to be computed and reported as directed by the Board of Trustees of the System.

5. Member contributions of each person who participates in the Texas County and District Retirement Systemby virtue of this order shall be made to the System for each payroll period from and after the effective date ofthe person's participation under this order, at the rate of contribution prescribed for all employees of DallasCounty, upon compensation which said person receives out of County funds; and the County Treasurer shallcollect such member deposits, and shall transmit the same to the System, as provided in Sections 845.402 and845.403 of the TCDRS Act.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of , 2000.

Lee F. Jackson, County Judge

Jim Jackson, Comm. Dist. #1

Mike Cantrell, Comm. Dist. #2

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

Bill Melton, County Treasurer

John Wiley Price, Comm. Dist. #3

Kenneth A. Mayfield, Comm. Dist. #4

34

DALLAS COUNTY

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT01 APR 26 PM 4: 23

May 2, 2000

TO: The Honorable Commissioners Court

FROM: Linda Boles, Purchasing Analyst

SUBJECT: RFP - Bank Card Services, Bid #98-341

Background/lssueBy authorization of the Commissioners Court and Texas Local Government Code 262.030, high technologyrequest for proposals were received by the Purchasing Department for Bank Card Services from thefollowing five companies:

PhoneCharge, Inc.U.S. AudiotexNovus Services, Inc.BA Merchant Services/EDSBanc One

Points3545515

Proposals were evaluated by members of the County's Financial Review Committee,SCT and the TaxOffice. The MlWbe information was evaluated by the MlWbe Officer. The proposals were evaluated basedon information contained in the proposal using the following criteria:

CriteriaProposal RequirementsFee StructureSupporting DocumentationMlWbe ParticipationlRepresentation

I.II.III.IV

Based on the evaluation, the following top three proposers were rendered reasonably susceptible of beingselected for award by the proposal review committee:

Novus Services, Inc.BA Merchant Services & EDSBanc One

As a result, questionnaires were sent to the top three firms to clarify issues submitted by committeerepresentatives. Upon receipt and evaluation of the questionnaires, the proposal evaluation committeerendered and conducted interviews with the top two proposers who were considered reasonably susceptibleof being selected for award. They are as follows:

BA Merchant Services & EDSBanc One

Based on the results of the interviews, the evaluation committee unanimously rendered BA MerchantServices/EDS' proposal to be the most reasonably susceptible firm to be selected for award for the BankCard Services request for proposal.

613 ReCords Bldg., 6th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653·7431

35

RecommendationPursuant to County's procedures for the selectiOn of high technology items (Rule # 12), it is recommendedthat the Commissioners Court authorize the Purchasing, Distnct Attorney and County Treasurer'sDepartments to enter into negotiations wIth BA Merchant Services & EDS Corp, to develop a proposedContract for credit card implementation in Dallas County Government for submission to the Court for formalaward consideration.

To ensure no disruption in service, a Court Order has been scheduled for the May 9,2000 Formal Agenda.

Recommended for Approval by:1 I

I

The Honorable Lee Jackson, County JudgeThe Honorable Bill Melton, County TreasurerThe Honorable David Childs, County Tax CollectorAllen Clemson, Commissioner's Court AdministratorBoween Weems, Civil District Attorney's OfficePhil Scheps, Budget DirectorVirginia Porter, County AuditorAnn Meredith, SeTIrvin Hicks, MlWbe Officer

36COURT ORDER

ORDER NO: --------DATE:

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BE IT REMEMBERED at a regular meeting of Conunissioners Court of Dallas County, Texas held on the

________day of ,2000 on motion made by

_______________________________, and seconded by

__________________________,thefu~w~go~~we~~red:

WHEREAS, Dallas County has accepted High Tech Requests For Performance from organizations desirous ofproviding credit card service to Dallas County, and

WHEREAS, such proposals were received by the Dallas County Purchas~g Department and reviewed andgraded by the Dallas County Credit Card Committee, and

WHEREAS, the Credit Card Committee held personal interviews with two providor firms and has reached aconsensus to recommend to the Dallas County Commissioners Court that negotiations take place with the jointprovidor team of BA Merchant Services and EDS Corporation which has been determined to be reasonablysusceptible of being selected for award

IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED, DECREED AND ORDERED by the Dallas County Commissioners Courtthat the Purchasing Department, District Attorney's Office, and County Treasurer's Office are herebyauthorized to enter ~to negotiations with SA Merchant Services and EDS Corporation to develop a proposedContract for credit card implementation in Dallas County Government for submission to said Court forconsideration.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of , 2000.

Lee F. Jackson, County Judge

Jim Jackson, Comm. Dist. #1

Mke Cantrell, Comm. Dist. #2

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

Bill Melton, County TreasurerChairman, Credit Card Committee

John Wiley Price, Comm. Dist. #3

Kenneth A. Mayfield, Comm. Dist. #4

37

DALLAS COUNTY

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

ivfay 2, 2000

01 APR 25 PH 3: ze

TO:FROM:SUBJECT:

The Honorable Commissioners CourtLinda Boles, Purchasing AnalystRFP for Fuel Management Program

Background/lssueA request for proposal has been written seeking solicitations from finns for a Fuel Management Program(see attached). The specifications, based on a twelve month contract with the option to extend for an

additional two additional twelve month periods, seeks an alternative method for county vehicles to procureunleaded fuel at various sites throughout the metroplex through the issuance of fleet fueling cards asdetennined by the Automotive Services Center.

The specifications, evaluation criteria and points were developed with the assistance of Central Services(ASC). The rating criteria and points assign.ed are as follows:

1.II.III.IVV.IV.

CriteriaAuditingCostCard SecurityLocationIHours of OperationMiscellaneousMlWbe Participation

Maximum Points Allotted20252510515

The proposals will evaluated and scored by representatives from the following county departments; CentralServices/ASC, Auditor, Purchasing, and the MlWbe Officer. After which, the committee will submit arecommendation for award to the Commissioners Court.

RecommendationIt is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department that the Commissioners Court approve the attachedRequest for Proposal for a Fuel Management Program and authorize the Purchasing Department to advertisesolicitations in accordance with local procurement laws.

Should the Court concur with this recommendation the Request for Proposal for a Fuel ManagementProgram will be solicited based on this briefing document.

Recommended for Approval by:

c: Chris Thompson, Director Central ServicesDick Wakeman, ASC

613 ReCords Bldg., 6th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

38

DALLAS COUNTY RFP NO. 2000-156-501

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALFOR

FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PROPOSALS DUE:

J..3.MONDAY, MAYJ8; 2000,2:00 P.M.

Dallas County Purchasing Department509 Main St., 6th Floor, Room 623

Dallas, Texas 75202

39

Dallas County RFP Number 2000-156-501Request for Proposal for a Fuel Management Program

I. INTRODUCTION

This Request for Proposal is to receive proposals from qualified firms regarding services for Fuel ManagementProgram for the County of Dallas.

The following items are provided as general information andspecifications as required by the Dallas County Purchasing Department:

A. Ambiguity, Conflict or Other Errors in the RFP - If the Proposal firm discovers anyambiguity, conflict, discrepancy, omission or other error, in the RFP, he/she shall immediatelynotify the County of such error in writing and request modification or clarification of thedocument. Modifications will be made by issuing an Addendum. Written notice will be givento all parties who have been furnished with the RFP without divulging the source of therequest for same.

If the Proposal Firm fails to notify the County prior to the date and time fixed for submissionof proposals of an error or ambiguity in the RFP known to him, or an error or ambiguity thatreasonably should have b~en known to him, he shall not be entitled to additionalcompensation or time by reason of the error/ambiguity or its late resolution.

The County may also modify the RFP, no later than 48 hours prior to the date and time fixedfor submission of proposals, by issuance of an addendum to all parties who have receivedthe RFP. All addenda will be numbered consecutively beginning with 1.

B. Notification of Most Current Address - The Firm in receipt of this Request for Proposal shallnotify the County Purchasing Department, 214-653-7431, of any address changes,contact-person changes and/or telephone number addition/changes no later than 48 hoursprior to the date and time fixed for submission of proposals.

C. Proposal Preparation Cost - Costs for developing proposals are entirely the responsibility ofthe Proposal Firm and shall not be charged to the County of Dallas.

D. Signature of Proposal - A transmittal letter, which shall be considered an integral part of theproposal, shall be signed by an individual who is authorized to bind the Proposal Firmcontractually.

If the Proposal Firm is a corporation, the legal name of the corporation shall be providedtogether with the signature of the officer or officers authorized to sign on behalf of thecorporation.

If the Proposal Firm is a partnership, the true name of the firm shall be provided with thesignature of the partner or partners authorized to sign.

If the Proposal Firm is an individual, that individual shall sign. If signature is by an agent,other than an officer of a corporation or a member of a partnership, a power of attorney orequivalent document must be submitted to the County prior to the submission of the proposalor with the proposal.

E. Economy of Presentation - Proposals should not contain promotional or display materials,except as they may directly answer in whole or in part questions contained in the RFP. Such

40

RFP NO. 2000-156-501

exhibits shall be clearly marked with the applicable reference number of the question in theRFP. Proposals must address the technical requirements as specified in this RFP. Allquestions posed by the Request for Proposal must be answered concisely and clearly.Proposals that do not address each criterion may be rejected and not considered.

F. Proposal Obligation. The contents of the proposal and any clarification thereof submitted bythe selected Firm shall become .part of the contractual obligation and incorporated byreference into the ensuing contract.

G. Implied Requirements - Products and services not specifically mentioned in this RFP, butwhich are necessary to provide the functional capabilities described by the Proposal Firm,shall be included in the proposal.

H. Compliance with RFP Specifications -It is intended that this RFP describe the requirementsand response format in sufficient detail to secure comparable proposals.

I. Withdrawal of Proposal - The Proposal Firm may withdraw their proposal by submitting awritten request for its withdrawal over the signature of an authorized individual as describedin Section I, paragraph D to the Purchasing Agent at any time prior to the submissiondeadline. The Proposal Firm may at thereafter submit a new proposal prior to the deadline.Modifications offered in any manner, oral, or written, will not be considered if submitted afterthe deadline.

J. Ownership of Proposal - All proposals become the property of Dallas County and will not bereturned to the Firm.

K. Contractual Development - The contents of the RFP and selected Firm's proposal willbecome an integral part of the contract but may be modified by provisions of the contract asnegotiated. Therefore, the Proposal Firm must be amendable to inclusion in a contract of anyinformation provided (in writing) either in response to this RFP or sUbsequently during theselection processes.

L. Loss, Damage, or Claim - The Proposal Firm shall totally indemnify Dallas County againstall claims by his employees, agents or representatives for personal injury arising from anycause. In addition, the Proposal Firm shall totally indemnify Dallas County against all claimsof loss or damage to the Firm's and Dallas County's property, equipment and/or supplies.

M. Test Samples - Samples may be requested by Dallas County for test and evaluationpurposes. Any sample that fails testing for any reason may be considered sufficient reasonto reject a proposal.

N. Fee Requirements

1. All fees for services must include all cost elements2. Fees proposed must be guaranteed for 180 calendar days from the scheduled

proposal submission date.

O. Billing Procedures:

1. The awarded Contractor will submit an itemized monthly billing statement inaccordance with the awarded contract requirements and in accordance with StateLaws governing payments made by Governmental Entities all invoices will be net 30

2

41

RFP NO. 2000·156·501

days upon receipt in the County Auditors Office.

2. The original invoice is to be sent to the County Auditor's Office 500 Main Ste. 407Dallas Tx 75202. A copy of the invoice is to be sent to the Automotive Repair Centerfor approval. Any disputes in billing must be resolved by the County Auditor andAutomotive Service Center.

p . Terms of Contract:

1. Contract will be for a twelve (12) month period, with the option to renew for two (2) additionaltwelve month periods, beginning June 10, 2000 or date thereafter..

2. Either party, County or Contractor, may terminate the contract upon a ten (10) day writtennotice to the other.

3. Question or comments on the solicitation should be in writing and forwarded as quickly aspossible after issuance of RFP to:

Linda Boles, Purchasing Analystc/o Dallas County Purchasing Department509 Main Ste., Ste. 623Dallas TX 75202

a. Collusion • The selected Firm shall will be required to provide an affidavit that he has notconspired with other potential Firms in any manner to attempt to control competitivesolicitation for these services. This paragraph does not however preclude two or more Firmsof certain parts of the requirements form presenting a combined or joint proposal for thepurpose of providing a larger segment or a complete proposal.

S. Policy for Selection of Award· The proposals submitted will be based on competence andqualifications for the services to be performed at fair and reasonable prices. The overallselection will be evaluated on the following criteria:

3

42

RFP NO. 2000·156·501

MaximumPoints

I. Auditing

II. Cost

A. Detailed Statement Information

A. Contractor fuel mark-upB. Miscellaneous service chargesC. Quantity fuel discount

20

25

III. Card Security 25A. Usage restriction capabilityB. Handling of stolen/lost cardsC. Restrictions on Card IssuanceD. Assigned card identification

IV. Location/Hours of Operation 10A. Available number of fueling sites w/in Dallas CountyB. Hours/Days of operation

V. Miscellaneous 5A. Implementation time for start-upB. Any additional considerations

VI. Female and Minority Participation 15A. List of female and minority-owned

firms that will be involved inproject with description of involvement

B. Female and minority employees of firmC. Minority ownership within firm

Total 100

T. Delivery of Proposals - The Proposal Firm shall submit five (5) copies of the letter ofqualification/proposal. The sealed envelope shall be clearly marked on the outside ofthe envelope/package to be considered with the following:

"RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" on theoutside of the package to be considered.

The proposal shall be delivered by Monday,~o. NO LATER THAN 2:00 p.m.The proposal shall be delivered to:

Dallas County Purchasing Agent509 Main St., Records Building, Room 623Dallas Tx 75202

U. Insurance Requirement - The successful Firm will be required to provide General LiabilityInsurance Certificate with at least a minimum coverage as indicated:

$100,000.00 for each person$300,000.00 for bodily injury per occurrence$100,000.00 for property damage per occurrence

4

43

RFP NO. 2000·156·501

PROPOSAL OVERVIEWDallas County is seeking proposals from qualified companies for a Fuel Management Program to be utilizedby various county departments.

The program is to be designed to allow designated county vehicle users the ability to purchase "unleaded"fuel (only) from fueling stations located within Dallas County on a credit card basis. In addition, it is the intentof Dallas County to award this contract to a company that will provide:

1. Detailed audit reports/statements, including: vehicle/department user information, odometerreading, date/time of purchase, personal Ld. #, fueling location, quantity, type and cost offuel/gallon purchased

2. Unlimited issuance of cards, based on department/vehicle. *Dallas County requests thatcards are issued to the respective department/vehicle rather than individual user.

3. Immediate cancellation/re-issuance of lost, stolen and/or damaged cards.

4. Restricted use of cards (for purchase of unleaded fuel ~nly)

5. Accessibility to various fueling locations within Dallas County, some with 24 hour operations

6. Contractor responsible for handling filing for reimbursement of Federal Excise Tax

During FY99, County vehicle users purchased an estimated 200,000 gallons ofunleaded fuel (87 octane) fromthis contract. Dallas County has an approximate fleet of 500 vehicles which utilize unleaded fuel. Theissuance of cards will be at the County's discretion.

To be considered responsive to this proposal bidders are to address in detail the following issues:

I. AUditing:a) Detailed information presented on monthly statements

*preference given to companies that can supply very detailed statement information,including but not limited to: odometer reading, date/time of fuel purchase, personal Ld. #'s,fueling location site, qty./type of fuel purchased, cost/gallon, vehicle number, type of fuel.

b) Billing cycle, payment terms,c) Late charges, as governed by State of Texasd) Handling of reimbursement of Federal Excise Tax

II. Security:a) Issuance/Assignment of cardsb) Replacement/Handling of cardsc) Restricted card access options (Le.: limited card usage)

III. Cost:a)b)c)d)

Percentage of fuel mark-upMonthly/Membership feesMisc. fees (cost for issuance/replacement cards, etc.)Quantity fuel discounts

IV. LocationlAvailabilitya) Number of fueling sites w/in Dallas County (*provide a detailed map)b) Type of facility &hours/days of operation

5

44

RFP NO. 2000·156·501

V. Miscellaneousa) Implementation time required for program start-upb) Specify any additional features/services that should be considered

6

45

DALLAS COlJNTY

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

\1ay 2,2000

TO:FROM:SuBJECT:

The Honorable Commissioners CourtLinda Boles, Purchasing AnalystAnnual Contract for Auto Damage/Body Repair Service, Bid #2000-057-298

Background/lssueOn February 1, 2000, the Commissioners Court awarded the aforementioned contract to Rios Paint & Body Shop, Inc.The contract provides auto damage/body repair service to the various damaged county vehicles by contracting with asingle autobody repair service company based on a discount from the county's appraisal consultant's estimate. The bidspecifications state that all services will be repaired within 7 working days from receipt of the vehicle. The PurchasingDepartment has received reports from the Automotive Services Center (Contract Mgr) of the following contractviolations; 1) not perfonning work in accordance with County's appraisal consultant's estimate, 2} not completingrepairs within seven days after receipt, 3} not properly color matching painted vehicles. As a result, of Rios Paint &Body's lack ofcontract compliance, ASC is experiencing numerous delays andlor numerous returns due to unacceptableworkmanship. ASC has made several attempts to address the contract violations through verbal communication andon-site visits. In addition, on April 12, 2000, the I?urchasing Department sent a letter to Rios Paint & Body putting thevendor on notice of possible contract tennination due to non-performance (see attached). However, ASC is stillexperiencing delays in receiving, sending andlor rejecting vehicles due to contract violations. Consequently, ASC hasrequested that the contract with Rios Paint & Body be canceled due to non-performance.

On April 26, 2000, the Purchasing Department sent Rios Paint & Body a notice oftennination due to non-performancecontingent upon formal approval of the Commissioners Court (see attached).

Allen Samuels Ford (second low bidder) has agreed to honor their discount percentages for the remainder of the contractperiod (letter attached).

Financial ImpactRios Paint & Body's (current contractor) proposal provides a 25% discount from the county's total autobody repairappraisals. Should the Commissioners Court authorize the re-award of Bid #2000-057-298 to Allen Samuels Ford,Dallas County will receive a 19% discount from the county appraiser's total repair estimate.

RecommendationDue to Rios Paint & Body Shop, Inc. 's inability to satisfactorily repair county vehicles in a timely manner and inaccordance with bid specifications, it is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department and ASC to tenninate thecontract as awarded to Rio Paint & Body Shop, Inc. due to non-performance and disallow the company from biddingon future county solicitations for a period of thirteen months. In addition, it is recommended that Bid #2000-057-298be re-awarded to Allen Samuels Ford at a discount of 19% off the county's estimated appraisal.

Should the Court concur with this recommendation a Court Order will be scheduled for the May 9, 2000 FormalAgenda.

Recommended for Approval by:

c: Chris Thompson, Director Central ServicesDick Wakeman, Fleet Manager ASC

613 ReCords Bldg., 6th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653·7431

46

DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

April 26, 2000

Johnny I. Rios, OwnerRios Paint & Body Shop, Inc.516 Fabrication St.Dallas, Texas 75212

Subject: Annual Contract for Auto Damage/Body Service, Bid #2000-057-298

Mr. Rios;

On April 12, 2000, as a result ofyour company's inability to comply with contract requirements, thePurchasing Department sent your company a letter of intent to cancel all contract agreementsassociated with Bid #2000-057-298, due to non-performance. Your company continues not to meetquality standards and fails to perform the services within the required specifications time allotment.In addition and in accordance with the April 12 letter, you have failed to submit a plan ofaction bythe April 24 deadline addressing how your company plans to prevent these contract violations in thefuture. Dallas County makes every effort to work with their contracting companies. However, thecounty can not be put into a situation where the county's day-to-day operations are at risk.

Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 6, page 2 "Non-performance" ofthe bid specifications, thePurchasing Department will submit a recommendation to the Commissioners Court on May 2, 2000,to cancel Bid #2000-057-298 as awarded to your company due to non-performance ofcontract termsand conditions. In addition and in accordance with county policy, a recommendation will be madeto remove your company from bidding on all future county solicitations for a period of thirteenmonths. Furthermore, Dallas County reserves the right to seem monetary restitution against yourcompany for termination due to non-performance.

Should your company disagree with this actio~ you may address this issue on Tuesday, May 2, 2000(9:00 a.m.), by contacting the Commissioners Court Clerk@(214)653-7165 no later than 4:30 p.m.Monday, May 1, 2000.

Should you have any questions pertaining to this matter please feel free to contact myself@ 214-6537597 or Linda Boles, Purchasing Analyst @ 214-653-6500.

613 Records Bldg., 6th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

47

DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

April 12, 2000

Johnny Rios, PresidentRios Paint & Body Shop, Inc.516 Fabrication St.Dallas Tx 75212

Subject:

Dear Mr. Rios;

Annual Contract for Auto Damagel80dy Service, Bid #2000-057·298

On February 1,2000, the Commissioners Court awarded your company the aforementioned contract for theperiod of February 18, 2000 through February 17, 2001.

A requirement of the bid is upon receipt and authorization to proceed, the vehicles are to be satisfactorilyrepaired within seven (1) working days. Basee on correspondence received from the county's ContractManager, your company is in violation of the following contract requirements: ---- -

1. Perfonn work in accordance with the outlined appraisal sheet provided by the county's - -consultanUestimator. - .-- .- _.2. Upon authorization to proceed, satisfactorily complete all work within 7 working days.3. Properly coloring matching vehicles that require painting.

Although the Automotive Services Center has contacted your company on several occasions to correct theinadequacies, it is apparent that the discrepancies with the contract requirements continue to exist.

In accordance with paragraph 6, page 2, of Bid #2000-057·298, Dallas County can terminate the saidcontract due to non-performance as a result of your company's lack of compliance with bid requirements.However, Dallas County prefers to extend every opportunity to our vendors to comply with contract termsand conditions. Therefore, your company has until April 24, 2000, to satisfactorily complete those cars inexcess of the seven day schedule and comply with the terms and conditions of Bid #2000-057..298. Shouldyour company fail to perform in accordance with the contract terms by April 24, 2000, the PurchasingDepartment will submit a recommendation to the Commissioners Court canceling your contract due to nonperfonnance. In addition and in accordance with Dallas County policy, your company will also be disallowedfrom bidding on all future county solicitations for a period of thirteen months. Furthermore, Dallas Countyreserves the right to seek monetary restitution from your company as a result of the termination action.

In the event your company performs the autobody services as requested by the April 24, 2000 deadline yourcontract will be allowed to continue in accordance with the contract requirements outlined in Bid #2000-057298. In addition, please submit to this office, written correspondence as to the steps your company planson taking to prevent these discrepancies from reoccurring in the future.

Should you have questions or desire to meet with County staff concerning this issue, please feel free tocontact me @ (214) 653-7597 or Linda Boles at (214) 653-6500.

c: Dick Wakeman, Ase

613 Records Bldg., 6th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

Apr 2S 00 02:S4p AIle,., Samue'

489722836~52 p.2

111811 8.OIB.8Is

COUNTY OF DALLASCIO LINDA BOLES

Reference: BID NO. 2000-057-298

FROM: ALLEN SAMUELS FORD

As per your request we are sending this notice that we will stili honor the agreementpertaining to the contract for auto damage / body service.

Sincerely,

815 East Camp Wisdcm Duncanville, Texas 75116 (972) 296-1411:{'to!L'.aI!ensamuclsford.com

49Dallas CountyEngineering & Project Management

o\ ~PR 25 AM \0: 02

N1ay 02, 2000

TO:

FROM:

THROUGH:

SUBJECT:

Commissioners Court

Bernard E. Blanton

Dan Savage. Assistant Administrator for OperationP ';::,

Remote Refrigeration Storage - Lew Sterrett, George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building& Old Jail

BACKGROUND:Court Order No. 99-1236Court Order No. 2000-044

06/29/9901/04/00

Authorized Gilbert May, Inc. Construction contract.Change Order # 1: Contract time extension, 47 days

Gilbert May, Inc., General Contractor, did not complete the construction on February 25, 2000 asextended by Change Order # 1. The project construction and installation of the storage refrigerators wasjudged substantially complete March 17, 2000. The contractor had originally planned to use woodframed insulation panels for the refrigerated storage units. However it was determined that foamed inplace panels would be preferable and would result in a credit of$10,500.00. The additional time (21 days)was necessary to effect this change for the panels.

Il\1PACT/OPERATION: The following items pertaining to Change Order No.2 are being added to theconstruction contract:

CHANGE ORDER NO.2

2.1 REFRlGERATED COOLER PANELS:Wood framed cooler panels anticipated for utilization by the GeneralContractor were replaced with a more permanent foamed in place coolerpanel without the wood frame less subject to moisture and its deleteriouseffect. (Phillip/May Corp. Proposal, 04/24/00) CREDIT ($10,500)

The date of substantial completion is established as March 17, 2000. Except as noted above, all terms ofthe original contract or agreement will remain in full force and effect.

LEGAL: These tenns conform to applicable regulations and legal contract requirements.

MlWBE INFORMATION: N/A

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total amount of the credit to the construction contract as a result of ChangeOrder No.2 is ($10,500) resulting in a revised total contract amount of $622,081.00.

Original Contract AmountPrevious Change OrdersTotal Contract to DateChange Order No.2Revised Contract Amount

$618,361$ 14,220$632,581

($ 10,500)$622,081

--

50

Commissioners CourtYfay 02. 2000Page 2

As a result of this Change Order No.2, twenty-one (21) days are added to the construction contract. Therevised completion date is established at March 17, 2000. Additional funding is not required for thisChange Order No.2.

RECOMMENDATION: Engineering & Project Management recommends that the CommissionersCourt authorize Change Order No. 2 for credit of ($10,500) to the construction contract from Gilbert~1ay, Inc. and the County Judge to sign on behalf of Dallas County for a total contract amount not toexceed $622,081.00.

APPROVED BY:

George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building, 600 Commerce Street, 9th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202(214) 653-6728. Fax (214) 653-6729

~ili~I~corporation~Via Messenger

April 24, 2000

Mr. Bernard BlantonDallas County Engineering & Project Mgmt.George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building600 Commerce Street, 9th FloorDallas, Texas 75202

51

Re: Remote Refrigerator for George Allen Courts Building, The Old Jail and Lew Sterett Justice Center

Dear Mr. Blanton:

As you know, the specification for coolers did not make specific reference to wood framing on the coolers.We anticipated utilizing cooler panels that were wood framed. Upon investigation we determined that thepreference was for foamed in place panels that did not utilize a wood frame. The preference was basedupon the fact that the coolers would be more permanent in nature and not subject to moisture and itsdeleterious effect. Specifically, it was determined it was prudent to eliminate the use of wood.

Based upon the foregoing, we were able to effect a more economical installation than that which weoriginally contemplated. This letter is to document the credit in the amount of $10,500 that resulted from theforegoing circumstances.

We trust that you will issue the appropriate deduct change order at your earliest convenience. However, ifyou have any questions regarding this letter or any other aspect of the project, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS/MAY CORPORATION

~~~-Randy BohannonProject Manager

4861 Sharp Street • Dallas, TX 75247 • 214-631-3331 • FAX 214-630-5607 • FAX 214-630-4785

52Dallas CountyEngineering & Project yfanagement • 1'" ~

~lay 2.2000

To: Commissioners Court

O!AP~26 AMIO=02

From:

Through:

Subject:

John P. Nolan P.E .. Assistant Director of Engineering

Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations~

Indefinite Quantity Architectural and Engineering Services SOQ 2000-118-418

Back2round: On May 25,1999 the Commissioners Court was briefed regarding the renewal of theIndefinite Quantity Architectural/Engineering Contract. As part of this briefing it was agreed that the RFPwould be provided to the District Attorney's Civil Section for comments and recommendations. Theserecommendations and comments were so extensive that subsequently the Civil Section effectively rewrotethe RFP and proposal contract to address various legal issues. On Feb 25, 2000 the Commissioners Courtwas briefed that the RFP and Contract had been prepared and was ready to advertise.

The Purchasing Agent then advertised for proposals in the newspaper and solicitation notices were sent toall firms with a completed Architect-Engineering Questionnaire on file with Dallas County. Responseswere received on Monday, March 27, 2000, from five firms including Mateo Consulting Engineers,HT&T Architects, STY Architects, HDRJJMA, and Vidaud +Associates.

The selection committee comprised of Jim Barrett, Shirley Rapp, Bernie Blanton, Rick Loessberg, DanSavage, Irvin Hicks (M/WBE) and John Nolan then rated all of the proposals. The results were asfollows:

Criteria Vidaud HDR/JMA HT&T STV MATEOTotals 63.58 67.5 61.23 55.48 53.16Certified 6 0 0 0 6M/WBEMJWBE 3 3 0 3 3InvolvementFemale & 6 6 0 6 6MinorityEmployeeTotals 78.5 76.5 61.23 64.48 68.16

Due to the closeness of scores of the two highest rated firms, interviews were conducted with Vidaud +Associates and HDR/JMA. The interviews were conducted on April 20. After the interviews it wasagreed that an initial vote would be conducted to see if there was a clear consensus. This vote determinedthat the majority of the committee ranked Vidaud + Associates first and HDR/JMA second.

Impact/Operations: The Indefinite Quantity Contact provides a more efficient professionalimplementation of Dallas County projects.

Legal: This contract conforms to all the legal requirements for Professional Architectural andEngineering Services as prepared by the Office of the District Attorney Civil Section.

MlWBE Information: The ratings as prepared by the Minority Business officer, Irvin Hicks are attached.

George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building, 600 Commerce Street, 9th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202(214) 653-6728 • Fax (214) 653-6729

53

Commissioners CourtMay 2, 2000Page 2

Financial Impact: Funds are not required to award this contract as all required funding will bedetermined as the individual Work Orders are issued for the various projects.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Commissioners Court authorize negotiation with Vidaud+Associates to determine a satisfactory agreement.

inistrator for Operations

54Dallas CountyJUVENILE DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 26, 2000

To: Dallas County Commissioners Court

Fr: Michael K. Griffiths, Director

Re: Project Spotlight Supplemental Grant Award

Background of Issue

Commissioners Court was briefed on April 11, 2000 about the Juvenile Department'srequest to accept the $100,000 supp1emental grant awarded to Dallas County from theOffice of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD) for the "Project Spotlight" initiativethat is currently being operated by the Juvenile Department in zip code 75217, and alsoto request approval to release the Request For Proposals (RFP) to purchase communitybased prevention services for youth and adults residing in 75217. At the time that theJuvenile Department received verbal notification about the available funding, CJD staffrequested that the funding be used to provide "Faith-Based Services" for residents in75217. CJD expressed interest in the development of a pilot project to test theeffectiveness of this program model.

The RFP was written by Juvenile Department staff, according to the guidelines receivedfrom CJD, and submitted to the District Attorney's office for approval. The Assistant DistrictAttorney requested that we delay the Court Order until the legal liability issues that mayresult from entering into a contractual agreement using a faith-based approach to provideservices were resolved. The District Attorney's office indicated that a letter would besubmitted from their office to the Court that provided information about possible liabilityissues, and it was agreed that the Juvenile Department would re-submit the brief and CourtOrder for further consideration. Juvenile Department staff has notified CJD of the DistrictAttorney's concerns, and CJD staff has asked that we not include the Faith-Based Servicesin the RFP until their legal department has researched the issue further. We will continueto work with the Assistant District Attorney and CJD staff to reach a solution that isagreeable. Thus, the original RFP that was submitted to Commissioners Court asAttachment A on April 11, 2000 is currently being revised to include specifications forProject Management Services only. Commissioners Court has already approved therecommendation made by the Juvenile Department on February 1, 2000, through CourtOrder #2000-232, to accept the $138,200. The purpose of this brief is to request that theCommissioners Court authorize the Juvenile Department to release the Request ForProposals for Project Management Services that will be funded using $133,200 ofsupplemental grant funding, with the remaining $5000 used for Project Spotlight stafftraining.

2600 Lone Star Drive, Box 5 Dallas, Texas 75212 (214) 698-2200

55

page 2, Project Spotlight RFP

Project Management Services:

It is the intent of the Juvenile Department to enter into a formal non-residential servicescontractual agreement with one agency for "Project Management" of the additional serviceneeds that have been identified for 75217 and to serve as the Project Coordinator. Therewill be three primary functions of the Project Coordinator:

~ Resource Development: The Project Coordinator will be responsible for identifyingresources that are available to serve the target population, and identifying areas wheregaps in services exist.

• Coordination and/or Delivery of non-residential services to clients: The ProjectCoordinator will also be responsible for providing services when no existing resourcesare available, either directly and/or by subcontracting with other agencies to provide theneeded services. The priority service needs that have been identified are educationalservices, including literacy, tutoring, truancy prevention, and GED preparation; afterschool/summer programs that include social skills development curriculum; jobdevelopment & job placement assistance; independent living preparation; communitydevelopment - specifically to establish "safe hang-outs" for youth; and suicideprevention services.

~ Coordination with Community Advisory Board

Impact on Operations

This project is unusual because CJD did not require a traditional grant application for theinitial funding or for the additional funds allocated for services. The Criminal JusticeDivision identified seven (7) metropolitan areas to set up the project. Juvenile Departmentswere chosen to be the "lead agency" to facilitate the projects statewide, and receivednotification of the grant awards. CJD staff have reviewed and approved the RFP languagethat details the type of services that are being requested.

The Juvenile Department Contract Services Unit, in conjunction with other JuvenileDepartment staff involved in the project, collaborating agencies, and the CommunityAdvisory Committee, will facilitate the RFP process, and contracts between Dallas Countyand the community agency(s) selected for contract award will be monitored by JuvenileDepartment staff. Performance goals will be established, and financial and programmaticaudits will be conducted to ensure quality programming and to evaluate effectiveness.


56page 3, Project Spotlight RFP

Legal Impact

The Request For Proposal (RFP) is being revised by the Juvenile Department's ContractServices staff, using specific language that has been written for contracts that are fundedas a result of a grant award, and also includes standard language that meets requirementsof the Purchasing Department. The RFP will be submitted to the Assistant District Attorneyfor approval, and the revised RFP will be submitted with the Court Order next week.

Financial Impact

Dallas County will receive $138,200for FY2000 and $200,000 for FY2001 that will be usedto fund the Project Management and community services for youth and their families. Withthe additional award, the FY 2000 Project Spotlight grant budget now totals $588,200.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the request madeby the Dallas County Juvenile Department to release the Request For Proposals topurchase Project Management Services that will be funded through grants received fromthe Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division, to be operated in conjunction withProject Spotlight, as described above.

Recommended by:

H:\CCT\2000 spotlight CJD rfp3.wpd


57

Dallas CountyJUVENILE DEPARTMENT


Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

MEMORANDUM

April 17, 2000


Michael K. Griffiths, Director

Study of Substance Abuse Program Performance Measures

Background of Issue

A program review conducted by the Office of BUdget and Evaluation in conjunction with arequest for additional staff by the Substance Abuse Program determined that the programhad a relatively low success rate.

The Office of budget and Evaluation recommended that an independent study becommissioned to determine the effectiveness of this program and make recommendationsto improve its success rate.

Operational Impact

The Juvenile Department identified the University of Texas, at Dallas as a potentialcandidate to conduct this study. The University collaborated with the Department duringthe Cost Benefit Analysis Study, and is familiar with the operational aspects of the JuvenileDepartment's Substance Abuse Programs.

The Bruton Center, School of Social Sciences, of the University of Texas Dallas wascontacted and subsequently submitted a proposal expressing their interest. JuvenileDepartment staff including those from the substance abuse program will actively participatein this study. Researchers will be given access to case files, program policies andprocedures, and other any other data that is relevant to the study. Recommendations fromthis study will be used improve program outcomes.

Fiscal Impact

The Office of Budget and Evaluation allocated $30,000 in the FY 2000 Budget for thisstudy.

58

Legal Impact

The signature of the Dallas County Judge is required on the contract with the Universityof Texas at Dallas. A copy of the contract has been forwarded to Assistant DistrictAttorney John Dahill for review.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the contract withthe University ofTexas at Dallas forthe Evaluation ofthe Juvenile Department's SubstanceAbuse Programs. It is also recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Courtauthorize the Dallas County Judge to sign the contract on behalf of Dallas County.

Recommended by:

H:ICCT\Substance AlluM Pl'O\)nIm EVllluatllll1.BRFwpd

i I~ ;/i . I ,', "'." J' II { (A" / \' ,r ", \. \. ') j'.. '

Michae K:Griffiths, Director• I

'I.,

59

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:


MEMORANDUM

April 26, 2000

J. Allen Clemson, Court Administrator


Request to Place Item on Briefing and Formal AQendas of May 2,2000

Please allow this memo to serve as a.request to place the issue of Contract Amendmentsfor the Dallas County Juvenile Information System for the Dallas County JAIBGCollaboration on the briefing and formal agendas of May 2, 2000. The JuvenileDepartment recommends that the contracts with Orion Communications, Inc. andConvergent Communication Services, Inc. be extended until November 30,2000 to allowfor completion of work on the Dallas County Juvenile Information System. Both contractsexpire on April 30, 2000. Placing this issue on both the briefing and formal agendas ofMay 2, 2000 will avoid additional delay in completing work on this project.


60

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:


MEMORANDUM

April 26,2000



Contract Amendments for the Dallas County Juvenile Information System for theDallas County JAIBG Collaboration

Background of Issue

Fifteen jurisdictions within Dallas County have pooled their funding from the federal JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for the purpose of creating a centralized data basefor juvenile records, called the Dallas County Juvenile Information System (JIS). The ultimategoal of the project is for law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, probation, schools and socialservice providers to access a common records system for juvenile offenders. A Juvenile CrimeEnforcement Coalition (JCEC) was established to set goals and priorities for the project. AJCEC Executive Committee was designated to provide oversight for the project. Dallas Countyhas served as the manager for the overall project. The JAIBG is administered by the Stateof Texas, Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD).

Orion Communications was selected through a competitive bid process to serve as projectmanager for the Dallas County JAIBG. Orion researched similar projects, analyzed existingsystems and coordinated with the JCEC work groups to design the JIS. Orion coordinated asecond competitive bid that selected Convergent Communications Services, Inc. to develop andinstall the initial components of the JIS. The initial JAIBG funding and our contracts with bothOrion and Convergent were originally scheduled to end April 30, 2000. However, all workscheduled for April 30 has not yet been completed. The purpose of this briefing is to requestcontract amendments with both Orion and Convergent to allow work on the JIS to continue.

Status of the JIS Project

Developing the JIS has been a complex and unique project. There have been some similarprojects throughout the nation, but none that mirrored exactly what we wanted to accomplish.Initial project research lead the JCEC Executive Committee to realize that the project had to becompleted in phases. For the first year of the project (Phase I), it was determined that the bestapproach was to focus on meeting the reporting requirements of Section 51.D8c of the FamilyCode, which requires that municipal and justice of the peace courts transfer jurisdiction to theJuvenile Co'urts upon the third Class C misdemeanor filing. Phase I includes: establishing the


61

JAIBG Amendmentspage 2

hardware and software for the core data base; designating the method for juvenile justiceagencies to access the data base; and integrating the new data base with the Caseworkersystem.

Dev~loping ~he JIS h.~s r~quired research, coordination with existing systems, and developingdetailed design specifications before actual work could begin. Orion was primarily responsiblefor these tasks. Convergent's contract is for the actual design and implementation of thehardware and software needed for the JIS and for developing processes to incorporate datafrom participating agencies. The actual deployment of the JIS is based upon the followingdeliverable tasks.

1. Limited Prototype: This is an actual working system that incorporates data fromCaseworker, the Dallas Police Department and the Carrollton Municipal Courts.The purpose of the limited prototype is to ensure that the system design will work.Once installed, agencies can actually access the system and view data from thesethree sources. The original scheduled completion was February 28, 2000. Therevised completion date is May 4, 2000.

2. Extended Prototype: This second stage will add data from an additional 24agencies and will add enhancements including data consolidation and reportwriting. Any problems found during testing of the limited prototype will becorrected. The original scheduled completion was March 31, 2000. The revisedcompletion date is June 30, 2000.

3. Final Working Solution: The final stage will correct any problems encounteredduring testing of the extended prototype. Once accepted as final and complete,the final working solution will end Convergent's contractual obligations and willleave a working system that can be expanded as needed. The original scheduledcompletion was April 30, 2000. The revised completion date is July 31, 2000.

A variety of factors have contributed to the delay in implementing the JIS. Everyone realizedwhen Convergent's contract was executed that the time frames were very tight. There havebeen technical difficulties in developing the interface with the Caseworker system. Convergental.so experienced more difficulty than expected in recruiting staff with the appropriate technicalbackgrounds for this project. Orion's lead staff person was unavailable for a period of time dueto a serious illness. However, during the past month, everyone involved in the project has refocused their efforts and we are confident that we can meet the revised projected completiondates.

Convergent and Orion Contract Amendments

Convergent's contract amendment is a no-cost extension to reflect the revised completion dates.There will be no additional funding as a result of this amendment. Orion's contract amendmentdoes include additional tasks and compensation. The additional tasks provide for resolving


62


some of the technical issues that have contributed to the delay as well as for user training andsupport and general system administration. Orion will commit two staff full-time equivalents plusadditional staff and subcontracted resources as needed. Copies of both amendments areattached.

Operational Impact

The JAIBG grant award is to Dallas County. The JCEC Executive Committee is providing generaloversight and guidance for the project. Orion will continue to serve as overall project managerand will be responsible for managing Convergent and ensuring all contractual obligations aremet. The Dallas County Juvenile Department is serving as the administrative entity for theDallas County JAIBG Collaboration. Dallas County MIS Director John Hennessey serves as anon-voting member of the JCEC and has been involved in all phases of this project. JuvenileDepartment staff and Orion will continue to coordinate on this project and will keep the JCECExecutive Committee informed of the project status. The JCEC Executive Committee, withconsultation from Mr. Hennessey, will be responsible for reviewing Convergenfs work andapproving all requests for payment under the contract.

Juvenile Department staff have submitted a formal grant extension request to CJD. We havebeen verbally assured that the extension will be granted, and are awaiting formal notice fromCJD.

Fiscal Impact

The total JAIBG award to Dallas County for the collaborative effort is $1,242,748, with a cashmatch of $138,083, for total funding of $1,380,831. The recommended amendment does notchange the total value of Convergent's contract, $962,948. This value is a reduction of $42,536from the original $1,005,484 due to lower than expected cost of the system hardware andsoftware. Orion's amendment will result in additional funds of from $155,000 to $199,000depending on whether all additional services are needed. Orion's contract was valued at$196,000 for project management ($121,000) and documentation of processes that will beaffected by the new system ($75,000). The additional funds for Orion's amendment is availablefrom the JAIBG. No County funds are needed other than the County's share of the cash match,$44,029, which has already been allocated.

Legal Impact

Juvenile Department staff have prepared contract amendments for both Orion and Convergent.The extended contract period will be from execution until November, 2000. The amendmentshave been submitted to Assistant District Attorney John Dahill for review and approval as tocontent and form. The signature of the Dallas County Judge is required on the contract.


r

63


Recommendation

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the contractamendments with Orion and Convergent and authorize Judge Lee F. Jackson to sign thecontract amendments on behalf of Dallas County.

Recommended by:__.' 1l_'1dl_"'_{LQ.{_I/i~_G_/J~, _''____ _Michael K. Griffiths, Dir

2600 Lone Star Drive, Box 5 Dallas, Texas 75212 (214) 698..2200

64DALLAS COUNTYFacilities Management

Apri126,2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: Commissioners Court

THROUGH: Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations<V y

FROM: Jim Barrett, Assistant Director, Facilities Management~/"

SUBJECT: Amend the Rideshare Policy

BACKGROUND:

Dallas County by Court Order 90-960 dated July 1, 1990 authorized the adoption of the RideshareProgram. The Rideshare Program was subsequently revised and amended by Court Order No. 92687 dated May 5, 1992, Court Order 92-925 dated June 16, 1992 and Court Order 92-1096 datedJuly 21, 1992. The Rideshare Program simply states the "implementation ofdiscounted parking ratesat County owned parking facilities for employees who participate in a ridesharing program" (seeattached policy).

Facilities Management has received a request from the Auditor's Office to amend the RideshareProgram to allow an employee who has participated in a car pool for a minimum of 2 continuousyears and is not the primary driver, to be able to have the right of first refusal to retain the parkingpass in the event that the primary driver terminates employment with Dallas County.

IMPACT ON OPERATIONS:

There is currently a waiting list ofapproximately 90 people who wish to have a monthly parking passat the George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building underground garage. Currently, when a primary personleaves, the other participant(s) must move to the waiting list to get a monthly card. At the FrankCrowley Courts BuildinglLew Sterrett Justice Center Garages, there is no waiting list due to theavailability of parking. Therefore, when a primary rider terminates their monthly card, the otherparticipant(s) can immediately sign up for payroll deduction and receive a monthly parking space.

Should the Commissioners Court amend the Rideshare Policy as requested by the Auditor's Office,a person who is already in the Rideshare Program at any County owned parking facility will be ableto use the same parking pass as the previous primary driver.

Facilities Management stipulates that the rideshare participant must continue to participate in theRideshare Program in order to have the parking pass assigned to them. Ifthey do not, they must signup for a monthly parking card and move to the botton of the list.

600 Commerce, 9th FloorGeorge L. Allen Sr., Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202

(214) 653-7175Fax (214) 653-6822

65

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The employee would pay the current monthly parking rate at the parking facility that they areenrolling for, or the rideshare rate if they continue in the Rideshare Program.

RECOMMENDAnON:

The Assistant Director ofFacilities Management and the County Auditor recommends that the DallasCounty Commissioners Court amend the Rideshare Policy as follows:

"If an employee has participated in a Rideshare Program for a minimum of 2 continuousyears and the primary driver terminates emplOYment, the car pooler(s) shall have right oftirstrefusal to retain the parking pass ifthey continue in the Rideshare Program by having at leastone participant. The employee will not be required to reapply to participate in the RideshareProgram. If the rideshare participant does not participate in the Rideshare Program, thenhe/she will have to move to the waiting list to apply for a monthly card."

RECOMMENDED BY:

Dan Savage, Assistan Administrator for Operations

Attachments

xc: Virginia Porter, County AuditorLane Weekley, Administrative Assistant

~:alh

DALLAS COUNTY

COUNTY AUDITOR

66

April 17, 2000

To: Jim BarrettAssistant DirectorFacilities Management

From: Virginia Porter J~~~County Auditor U

Re: Ride Share Program

OO~.P~ IS "; c· uil 9..I' ,

In reviewing eligibility for parking passes, we note current policy does not specificallyauthorize a "car pooler" to retain the parking pass after the driver terminates employment.

We have tentatively approved transfer of a parking pass from a driver to the rider, both ofwhom have car pooled together for seven years. The rider agrees to payment at the highersingle rate.

There is no cost to the county. The action provides a benefit to an employee who hasparticipated in "our program to reduce the number of drivers on the road."

We recommend inclusion ofthe following statement to county policy, " If an employee hascontinually participated in the County's program as a rider in a car pool for 2 yearsand the car pool driver terminates employment the designated riders should have theright of first refusal to retain the parking pass. The rider will not be required toreapply to participate in the Ride Share program (name is added to list for the nextavailable slot.)"

Please brief Commissioners Court at your earliest convenience to amend the Ride SharePolicy.

CC: Dan SavageAssistant Administrator For Operations

407 Records Building Dallas, Texas 75202 653-6472FAX 214-653-6440

ORDER NO :_9_0__96__0 _DATE: JUN 1 2 1990

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

COU 67'4\ l...

BE IT REMEMBERED at a regular meeting of Commissioners' Court of Dallas County,

Texas, held on the __1_2_t_h__day of J_tul_e , 1990, on motion made

by John Wiley Price, Commissioner of District No.3

and seconded by Chris V. Semos, Commissioner of District No.4

the following Order was adopted.

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

Dallas County Commissioners' Court wishes to do its part in reducingtraffic, air pollution and waste of energy, and

Commissioners' Court examined various travel demand notificationinitiatives on May 17, 1990, and

Commissioners' Court approved an increase in the employer'scontribution towards the purchase of monthly bus passes by countyemployees, and

Commissioners' Court further approved the implementation ofdiscounted parking rates at county owned parking facilities foremployees who participate in a ridesharing program.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Dallas CountyCommissioners' Court approve an increase in the employee contribution for monthlybus passes and the adoption of a rideshare program effective July 1, 1990 inaccordance with the attached policie~ procedure and rate schedule.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that funding requirements estimatedat $48,000 per year, be transferred from unallocated reserves, as needed, tothe appropriate account to be determined by the County Auditor.

b('C,ORecommended by:__~~~~~~ ~~~---

Mario F. Malacara, DirectorPersonnel/Civil Service

........, :,,:_.

68

PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATIONAND CONTINUING OPERATION

OF DISCOUNTED MONTHLY BUS PASS PROGRAM

authorization for participation in DallasDiscounted Bus Program, appropriation of

Commissioners' Court approvesArea Rapid TransitUS (DART)necessary funding.

2) The last Wednesday of each month, the Personnel Department submits requestfo r payment to the Coun ty Aud i tor IS Offi ce, along wi th a completed DARTbus pass order form for passes to be sold the last of the next month, whichwill be for use in the following month.

1)

3) The first Tuesday of each month, the Commissioners' Court approves paymentfor the projected number of bus passes to be sol d that month for use inthe following month. After court's approval, the Treasurer's Officeprocesses the approved payment all owi ng for DART to recei ve the check andorder form no later than the 10th of each month.

4) On or about the 20th of the month, the Personnel Department wi 11 recei vethe bus passes by delivery service from DART.

5) The 1as t four (4) worki ng days of eac h month and the fi rs t day of thefollowing month, bus passes are sold to County employees in the PersonnelDepartment between the hours of 8:15 a.m. through 4:15 p.m. for use thefollowing month.

6) Bus passes that are not sold are returned to DART for refund or crediton future billing.

7) Proceeds from sa1e of bus passes along wi th other accounti ng procedureswill be administered as required by Dallas County's Auditor.

8) Procedures stated in Item 112 through #7 are duplicated each month throughthe duration of the discounted bus pass program.

, '"" , '\ 0 2 c::Lt.J\ _-.J v

69

POLICIES FOR SALE &USE OFDALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT

EMPLOYER DISCOUNTED MONTHLY BUS PASS PROGRAM

1) Discounted monthly bus passes will be sold through Dallas County's PersonnelDepartment the last four (4) working days of each month and the first workingday of the following month between the hours of 8: 15 a.m. through 4: 15p.m.

2) All sa1es of bus passes are fi na1 and a refund wi 11 not be granted underany circumstances.

3) Each employee shall only be allowed to purchase one (1) pass. Countyemployees purchasing discount bus passes must show identification to allowverification of employment.

4) Passes may be purchased by check or cash. If you desire to pay in cash,only exact change will be accepted.

5) If a bus pass is lost or destroyed, a refund will not be provided.

.....

I t'i I~ ~I :

·t.. 02 r. 'J C)

RATE SCHEDULEDALLAS COm'TY NONTHLY BUS PASS PROGRAM 70

I DART C.HARGES Current Proposed ProposedCurrent TotalCounty Bus Pass Additional Cost to Proposed

Regular County Contri ',;, ·Cost to County Emp 1oyee CountyZone Cost Cost bution Employee Contributior Cost

.Zone 1 27.00 25.00 2.00 23.00 8.00 15.00 10.00

Zone 2 54.00 52.00 2.00 50.00 8.00 42.00 10.00

Zone 3 63.00 61.00 2.00 59.00 8.00 51.00 10.00

Zone 4 81.00 79.00 2.00 77.00 8.00' 69.00 10.00 :

Senior 5.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 - 3.00 2.00Citizen-Handi- 12.00 12.00 2.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 7.00capped

.

~

.J 327 ... .....\,--!.~

71

RATE SCHEDULE

DALLAS COUNTY RIDESHARE PROGRAM

PARKING FACILITY

Frank Crowley BuildingLot A Garage C Garage D

Employee Only $30 $40 $30

Employee + 1 Passenger $15 $20 $15

Employee + 2 Passengers $ 7.50 -$5 $ 7.50

Employee + 3 or more $-0- $-0- $-0-Passengers

GovernmentCenter

$50

$25

$ 6.25

$-0-

rJ 828 i. . I......,J...o1. .....; -.;... -

- ........ __ . . ...

72,--~(

COURT ORDER

92 687::~ so. _

MAY - 5 1992

,T£ OF TEXAS S

:STY OF DA!.I.AS s '.. ~ .

IT REMEMiEP~D, at a ~egular meet:nq of the Commissioners Court of Dallas County, Texas,

Ld on the o_t_h day of .....;~;.::ta.::.y'"_ ~---- 1992 on motion

a.e by __J.....Un...;;;....;;.J..;;;;a.ck.so;;,;;;;;,.;;;;;;;-........n , _Ca.::;,;;:;;rn..:::,.,:,::.u::.:ss:::::.::1:,::o::.:;n:,ze:.a.r_Q¥...f....lDlI'.olaa·slll.lt r i~c""'t-...;;;:..l ...;... , and seconded

___.....Chr......_._i_S;.....;.V~•.-;;;;·Sa_~_!O__s ' _Carmi=.:=..':'::.,=:'s==s:.::ill.llQ:.:.:n~e...r....;Q:lIUI..f...ID",i~s t r i..c"",t........:......4,-- , the follow ing

der was adoptee.:

iER.EAS, the Dallas County Corr.missioners Court on OCtober 29, 1991 by Court OrderNe. 9:-~949, approved the concept for County employees ~G pay for parki~g in:o~nty faci:ities through'payroll deduction; and '

:iEREAS,· . ':~e County Audit:or's Office has established payroll deduction procedures forparkin; fees for County employees effective June 1~ 199~; and

HEREAS,

I'IHER.::AS ,

Payroll dec~:tion for County employees will be mandatory for County emPloyees toqualify for the employee rate at all of the County par~ing facilities; and

'",

on June 12, 1990, the .Oalla·s County Commissioners Court ,also authorized theadoption of a rideshare program by Court Oreer No. 90-960 effective July 1, 1990;and '.

the' Dallas County Public Works Department ane the Dallas County Pe'rsonnelDepartment haye revised the Rideshare Polleiesand Proc~dures for clarificationand~o include penalties for County employees violat~~~ the policies ~ffective

Ju.ne 1, 1992; and .', . ,

the Rideshare rate is amended to include the Bill Decker Corrections. ParkingFaei11ties,'Garage C of the Frarik Crowley courts ~lldin9 1s adju~ted to be thesame rate as Garage 0 and a correction of an error in the George L. Allen, Sr.Courts Building Underground Garage rate;. and

73•

I I, '

:iEREAS, all terms and conditions of Payroll deduction and the Revised Policies anaProcedures were briefed in Commissioners Court on April 7, 1992.

7 'IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Ccmmissioners Court of Dallas County,axas that the fo~lowing i~e~s are hereby authorized and directed to be implemented and added~ the Dallas County Ad~inistrative Policies and Procedures Manual effective June 1, 1992.

1. Payroll deduction for County parking facilities be implemented June 30, 1992 forthe July parking.

2. Payroll deduction for County employees be made mandatory for the County employeetv ~~alify for the employee rate at all the County parking facilities.

3. The revised Rideshare Policies and Procedures with penalties for County employeesviolating the policies and procedures be effective June 1, 1992.

4. The rideshare rates be a~ended t~ include the Bill Decker Corrections Facility,Garage C of the Fra~~ Crowley Courts Building be adjusted to be the same rate asGarage 0 and correct an error in. the George L. Allen, Sr. Courts BUildingUnderground Garage rate.

ONE IN OPEN COURT this the o_-t_h day of .;.;;~!a;;;;..y , 1992.

Joh~ "il~y Price,

RecOfimended by: I/£...~ ·Allen Bud Beene, P.E.Acting Director of Public Works

.;. (). 4tz.'ihtRecommended bY: __~1-~~~~~~~~~~~ _

, Ma io F. Malacara, DirectorPersonnel/Civil Service

38:sa:vpSl :1: COOl! OiCERS\PlYROU. OEDOCl'lc.

74

MAY 5, 1992

TO: ALL COUNTY !XPLOYDS

SUBJECT: PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR COUNTY !XPLOYEE PARltING

ON MAY 5, 1992, THE COMHISSIONBRS COURT APPROVED PAYROLL O!DtJCTION FOR COUNTY !XPLOYEEsTO PAY FOR PARIaNG IN COUNTY PARIaN. FACILITIES. THI FIRST PAYROLL DmoCTION WILL BEI:MPLEKEN'1'!D JUNE 30TH FOR TIm JULY PARXDKi. 1fB B!LI!VI 'l'HAT i'HIS ACTION WILL MAQ ITEASIER FOR COUNTY !XPLOY!ES TO PAY THEIR PARXDKi FEES AND H!LP E.L.DIINAT'E THE NUMBER OFRE'l'URNED CHEC1tS THAT '1'BE DALLAS, COON'l'Y 'l'REASORD' S OFPIC! HAS HAD TO COLLECT. ,

IT WILL BE MANDATORY FOR COUNTY !XPLOYDS WHO WISH TO HAVI THE SPECIAL DISCOUNT PARKINGRATE TO ENROLL IN PAYROLL DBDOCl'ION. THOSE lfHO DO NO'! lIISB TO ENROLL WILL HAW TO PAYTHE PUBLIC RAT! AT THE COONTY FACILITIES. THE AtmITOR'S OFJ'ICS, 'l'BB TR.!.ASClU!::R's OFFICEAND THE DATA SERVIa! On:I:a HAVE ESnBLISBED THE AT'aCEI:D CRI'l'!RIA lOR~ TH!PAYROLL DEDUCTION FOR !XPLOYD PARKING A'r COUH'l"Y 0WH!t) RCILJ:TIBS. ALL EMPLOYB:!S WILLBE ABLE TO OBTAIN NEW !NROLLMEN'l' FORKS AND ADDI'rIOHlL IH:PORMA'rIOH FROM THE PARKINGOPERATORS WHO AX! UNDER CONTRACT TO MANAGB AND OPERATE 'I'D: DALLAS CX7ON'J.'Y PARIaNGFACILITIES.

ALSO ON JUNB 12, 1990, TH! DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONXRS COURT AUTBORIZID TEE ADOPTION OFA RlDESHARE PROGRAM lfHICB 1fAS UFEC'l'IVE JULy 1, 1990. SEVERAL gouTIORS AMD co!t<::!RNSHAVE ARISEN REGARDING 'l'BB POLICY AND PROCEDORES FOR TEl RIDESBAD PROGlUUl.. 'I'BE DALLASCOUNTY PERSONNEL DEPARTMElfr AND '1'E! DALLAS COUN'l"f PUBLIC 1IOR1tS DEPARTKIarr HlVB REYliJfEI)THOSE CONCERNS AND QUBSTIONS AND HAVE DEVIIDPED '1'BB A'r17tc::mm REVISED POLlCI:ES ANDPROCEDUR!S FOR TH! RIDESHARE PROGRAM.

DALLAS COUN'l'Y WISHES TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT 'I'H! RIIJESBARI PROGRAM IN HELPING X!XP THEENVIRONHEN'l' CL!AN AND MINIMIZE COmtTY EMPLOYEE pARmfG DPDSBS. HOWEVER, PLEASE BEAWARE 'I'HAT, UNDER TH! REVISED POLICIES AND PROCIDOIW1, PBDLTIES FOR ABaSING nmRmESHARE PROGRAM HAVE smr IXPL!Jf!H'l'!D AND 1flLL BE ENFORCED.

14

YOUR COMPLJ:ANCE lIITH 'l'BESK HIlI GUIDELINES AND POLICIES lfILL 'BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.SHOOLO YOU HAVE ANY ~OIsnONS P!R'l7UlfING TO 'l'BESK NEIl POLICIIS, PLEASE COft'lAC'l' TBB PUBLICWODS DBPARTMElfr AT 653-6400 OR TEl VARIOUS PARlCIRG OPERATORS AT '1'BB CCJO'N'1"f 01fNE1)

FA TIES.

!lIJa'Das:i~&3tL.Lii i' , i LM

75

CRITERIA FOR It-tPLEMENTING PAYROLL DEDUCTIONSFOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARKING

1. All current County -employees parking in County ownedparking <facilities will re-enroll with the parkingoperators a~ the parking faciltiies.

2. A separate deduction is set up for each different parkinggarage.

·3. only the drivers will carry the deduction <in' theirrecords in payroll.

4. Deductions taken at the end of the month are for paymentfor the next calendar month.

5. The deductions will be for full months only. Nodeductions for partial months will be processed by thepayroll system. Fees collected for partial months fornew participants will be handled by the garage operator.There are no refunds for people terminating employmentbefore the end of the month or reduced rates for sicktime or vacations. .

6. All changes, 'deletions, and new additions will beprocessed through the parking ope~ator. <These changeswill' then be processed to. the Auditor's Office,Treasurer's Office <and Data Services Office.

7. The Auditor's Office- will distribute the payrolldeduction register to the parking operators' on the firstworking day of each month.

SU:CI:wp51:I1])IS81U:I:\<"NO.1I8

76

REV'ISBD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

DALLAS .COUNTY RIDBSRARB PROGRAM - JUNE 1, 1992

1. In order to participate in the Dallas County Rideshare Programall occupants of the vehicle shall be County employee,s, shallenter the same county owned parking facility (cannot dropriders off at. another' location before entering parkingfacility. County employees shall display a "Rideshare CountyProgram" card in the vehicle at all times (Operator shallprovide these cards to participants. The cards are colorcoded to designate number of riders in car).

2. Participants shall complete forms prescribed by the County'soperator(s) and present same to the operator(s) during thepayment cycle.

3. Location of the designated Rideshar.e area for each parkingfacility' and other Procedures must be obtained from theCounty's operator(s).

4. Under the terms of the contract, pro-rated payments will onlybe accepted when an employee enrolls in the Dallas CountyRideshare Program.

If the employee is going on vacation, administrative leave,sick leave, etc., the total monthly payment will still berequired for the month that employee will not be using theparking facilities.

5. At the present time for the Frank crOWley/Lew Sterrett JusticeCenter Garages, only one access card can be -issued for, ,~the

participants in the Rideshare program. When the primaryemployee of the car pool or van pool is going to be absent>"itwill be the responsibility of the priJDary rider to notify ,'.theother riders and give them access to the card. ' ..

The parking operator at the Dallas-County George L. Allen Sr.Coutts Building Unde.rg.round Garage is ai>le to issue accessca.rds to the ind..1.v1d\1al participants due to the type of cardsystem installed at thls location. There will be a numberassigned to thepriJt\ary rider. All the other rideshareparticipants assigned to the primcgyrider will have the samenumber.',_,

At the Bill Decker Corrections Center, the parking operator'issues County emPloyee parking pe_ts~ When the primatyrider of the car pgol or van pool is 901ng to beabsent,;~"1t.will be the responsibility of the prinlaq rider. to notify ',theother riders and give them access to the parklng permit. -<_c

77

6. P~rking spaces for Rideshare participants are limited,therefore participation will be on a first come, first servebasis. The parking operators have the right to set the limiton the amount of space available in each garage based onmonthly and daily parking needs.

7. Employees who violate the terms and conditions of this programwill be subject to disciplinary action.

1. First-violation - warning from the Rarkiog operator andnotification to Department Head.

2. Second violation - three day suspension from work.

3. Third violation - one year parking privilege suspension.

8. As established by Commissioners Court Order No. 90-960, theparking rates for the Rideshare Program are as follows:

However, due to the closing of Garage D at theFrank Crowley Garages between 11: 00 R.m. to 6: 00 a.m.weekdays and all day on weekends t changes w.ere made tosome of the rates as established and authorized byCourt Order No. 90-1924.

EmployeeOr1ly

Employee? 1 Pa.sseD9C'-

Employee• 1"2 Pas.seogers

Employee+3 or DX'8passeagers

LC1l' I GWGE C

$35.00 m:.QQ

$17.50 S15.00

$ 8.75' l.1.J:2

$ -0-' $ --0-

Pl.RIlJiG F1CILm

f'R.lHI CRa4.EY BOILDDiG

GARAGE 0

$30.00

$15.00

$ 7.50

$ -0-

GEORGE t. 1!.LDl, SR.CO~ BOILDDi6 UNDERGROUND GWG!

$50.00

$25.00

$ -0-

SXJ:ss:cs:vp51:BlUEFIHGS:I:\pl'flOU.Dm

EmployeeOaly

t:alployee+lPasseager

Employee+2 Passeagers

Employee+3 or DOnpasseogers

BILL DEClD CORRECTIONS cmrEI'-

$20.00

$10.00

$ 5.00

$ -0-I'---. I

92 925ORDER NOo _

JATE: .' ~_,'_'J.-..;;.t~B~1992r..z._... _

STATE OF TEXAS S

COUNTY OF DALLAS S

78

COURT ORDER

-'

, and seconded by

BE IT REMEMBERED, at a regular meeting of the Commissioners Court of Dallas County, Texas,

held on the __--...:1;.;:6;..:th:::.:.. day of J..;;;un;.;;e,;;;.., , 1992 on motion

:"lade by Nancy E. Judy« Carmissioner of District No. 2

~Chr~~i~s~V~.-=~~~lo::s.,_Commi~~~·S~S_1_·on~er__~o;.;;f~D_i_s~tr~i_ct No__._4~ , the following order was adopted:

YiHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

'l'lHEREAS ,

WHEREAS,

the Commissioners Court on May 5, 1992 by court Order No. 92-687 approved theterms and conditions of Payroll deduction for parking fees for County employees;~d --

payroll deduction for County employees was made mandatory for County employeesto qualify for the employee rate at all the County parking facilities; and

it is the Commissioners Court desire to continue as previously approved certainnon-county personnel working in County owned facilities and/or part-timeemployees to pay the appropriate County employee parking rate; and

it is stipulated that these non-County personnel pay on a cash only basis andthat the Department heads will provide the necessary list of names to theappropriate parking operators for verification; and

there has been concern about County employees who rideshare with other Countyemployees, but drop their riders at different destinations in the downtown area;and

employees· of this cat890ry will be allowed to participate in the Rideshareprogram provided that the Department Heads approve the enrollment form for allE::lnployees participating in this option; and .

the clarification changes for payroll deduction and Rideshare Policy were briefedin Commissioners Court on June 9, 1992. .

79I3 ~HEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Commissioners Court of Dallas County,

~exas that the following items are hereby authorized and directed to be implemented and added:~ the Dallas County Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual e~fective June 16, 1992:

1) The following non-county personnel who are working in County owned facilitiesand/or part-time emp~oyees are allowed· to pay the appropriate County e~loyee

~~rking ra~e with the stipulation that it will ~e on a cash only basis ana thatthe Department heads will provide the necessary list of names to the appropriateparking operators for verification:

a) City and State employees in County owned bUildingsb) Part-time employeesC) Credit Union employeesd) Dallas Independent School District employees~) Contract ··labor for Dallas County

2} Department Heads will be required to approve the enrollment form for allemployees who participate in the Rideshare Program with other County ~mployees,

but. drop their riders at different County parking facilities in the downtownarea.

~NE IN OPEN COURT this the 1_6_th_____ day of ________J_U1'1e , 1992.

2

(

~ ....~.-AllenaUd~·Director of Public Works

Recommended by:

kson, County Judge

stJ:cs:vp51:COaRTORDERS2:1:\CORlDE.EMP

80

".-.. r\/'")\j

-'

C:;lJRT ORDER

,)~n~R NO _9_l_10_9_6 _DATE:_-J-U-L-2-1_19_92 _

STATE OF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF DALLAS S

BE !T REMEMBERED, dt d regular meeting of the Commissioners Court of Dalla~ County, Texas,

held on the 2_1;,,;;;;st~ day of -.;:;.3,;;:Ul=v""_ , 1992 on motion

lllade by _...-;;Clr::=.=:.:i::.::s:.....::V;.:.~.:::SE!tp:.=:.=::Is...'...;:zCgmJi:::ICU&U_·S..S..1.·o..ner..........:Io..f......D~i..str.......i.~......._:NpIWoa....4 , and seconded by

___Nancya-_E_.__J_?dY-A_,_Commi·S_S_1O_·_ner o_f__O_is~tr__i_ct__No•__2 , the following order was adopted:

w1iEREAS,

.i.REAS,

iiHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WltER.EAS,

the Dallas County Commissioners Court on May 5, 1992 by Court Order No. 92-687approved the concept for County employees to pay for parking in County facilitiesthruugh payroll deduction; and

the Commissioners Court on May 5, 1'392 by Court Order No. 92'·087 approved theterms and conditions of payroll deduction for County employees; and

there have been concwrns about whether part-time or temporary personnel couldparticipate in the Rideshare Pr09r~; and

the Personnel Department stated that Ridesh&&e is a County benefit and onlyregular full-time personnel are eligible to participate in the Rideshare Program;and

according to the Dallas County Administrative Policies and Procedures ManualPersoMel/Employment,. ~ectioDA.2.02, itA r!9Ular employee is an individual hiredby the County on a continuing basis without limitations as to' duration ofemployment. A full-time employee is an employee who has a regularly assignedwork liichtadule of 30 hours per wetak or more, less authorized leave with pay"; and

individuals who are classified temporary or part-time employees are not eligiblefor payroll deduction according to COurt Order No. 92-925, ~ated June 16, 1992;and - -

according to the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual itA temporaryemployee is an individual hired by the County to perform a job for a limitedperiod of time, generally not to exceed six months. Temporary employees are notalig~le for paid leave, e.g., vacation and sick leave, insurance or retirementbenefits". "A part-time employee is an employee who has a reqularly assignedwork schedule of less than 30 hours per week". "Temporary full-time, regularpart-time and temporary part-time employees do not qualify for standard Countybenefits and participation in the payroll deduction program"; and

81

}:Idrt-time dfld temporary employees are not in payt'oll deduction, (lot workingregularly and receiving a paycheck every pay period and are not currentlyrt::ectitlving the Standard County beneflts as d full-time employee, eart-time andtemporary employees and will not be eligible for the Rideshare Program; and

the clarifications for Rideshare Program was briefed in Commissioners Court onJuly 14, 1992.

:1' IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED .. AND DECREED by the Commissioners Court of Dallas County,~exas that the County Judge is hereby authorized and directed to implement and add to thejallas County Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual effective July 21, 1992:

The Rideshare Program is limited to Regular full-timeemployees who are empl~yed by Dallas County on acontinuing basis without limitations as to duration of~mpluyment and who have a regular assigned workschedule of 30 hours per week or more, less authorizedleave with pay, in accordance with the Dallas County _.AJministrative Policies and Procedures Manual.

)ONE IN OPEN COURT this the 2;;.;1;;.;s;;.t~_ day of _______.....;;J';.;Ul=-y'-- , 1.992.

RttCOllll1ended by:

\SKJ:cs:vpSl:l:\COUiTORDDS2:1:\R.IDESHIII.CO

Semos, District 4

AfdJB,.. ·~llen Bud Beene, P.E.Director of Public Works

82 A".AClDlE:HT A

PARKING PROCEDURES FOR PASTORAL VISITATION

AT DALLAS COUNTY JAILS

1. Initially, each pastor must visit the Chaplain's Office at the Lev Sterrett,Justice Center and complete an application/signature card to be placed onfile at each parking facility (Government Center Parking Garage, LevSterrett Justice Center Parking Lot A and Garages C and D, and the BillDecker Parking Garage). Pastors viII then be issued an I.D. card vhich theyviII present to the parking attendant upon their exit from the parkingfacility.

2. When the visiting pastor arrives at County parking, the pastor viII beissued a standard parking ticket. Upon exiting the parking facility at the,end of the jail visit, the pastor viII sign the back of the parking ticketand present the ticket and the County-issued I.D.'card to the attendant forverification of the signature. Attendant viII return the I.D. and allovexit fro. the parking facility at no charge.

3. The parking contractor for the Lev Sterrett facilities viII retain thesigned tickets for auditing purposes.

4. The Government Center parking contractor viII retain all signed tickets andsubmit vith invoice to Facilities Management on a monthly basis for payment.

\

L ........j ..j - -' .. '

May 2,2000

MEMORANDUM:


83

COURT ORDER ON FORMAL AGENDA

THROUGH: Commissioner Jackson, Road & Bridge District No.1

FROM: Selas Camarillo, P.E., R.P.L.S., Assistant Director - Property Divisi~

SUBJECT: Regal Row 91-837/50078(C. RI. & P. RR to I.H. 35E-)

Background:

Pursuant to Court Order No. 99-1858, dated September 28, 1999, the Dallas CountyCommissioners Court awarded an Indefinite Quantity Contract to Contract Land Staff, Inc (CLS).Two Work Orders have been negotiated and awarded to CLS, totaling $401,724.00, ($233, 156.00Abrams Rd. 91-827 and $168,568.00 MacArthur Boulevard 91-896).

Impact on Operations:

There is a need to expedite acquisition of right of way on the Regal Row Road Project (C.R.I. &. P.RR to LH. 35E) to meet the scheduled Bid Advertisement date. The Property Division Staff iscurrently actively involved in acquisition on 38 parcels needed for the proposed wideningimprovements. Outsourcing 11 of the complex drainage easement parcels will help in clearing theright of way for utility adjustments, assuming no parcels go to condemnation.

Financial Impact:

The 1991 Thoroughfare Transportation Bond Program includes funding for right of wayacquisition on Regal Row Road 91-827. A fee to provide appraisal services for 11 parcels hasbeen negotiated at a not to exceed the amount of $70,975.00, to be funded from Project 91-837,fund 418.

Legal Impact:

The Dallas County Policy for Right of Way Acquisition Services provides that the Public WorksDepartment negotiate Work Order fee prices for Right of Way Acquisition Services.

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor DaJlas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151

84

DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS aI APR 25 Pt1 I: 52

Ntay 2,2000

MEMORANDUM:


FROM: Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E.Director of Public Works

SUBJECT: Rationale for Same Date Briefing and Court Order

The Public Works Property Division Staff and Contract Land Staff, Inc. have negotiatedWork Order fees for ROW Acquisition Services on the Regal Row Road Project 91-837.

In order to avoid delay in the Contractor's completion time schedule, the Court Orderauthorizing the Work Order has been placed on today's Formal Agenda.

-&MU!(!-Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E.Director of Public Works

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151

85

Commissioners CourtMay 2,2000Page 2

Recommendation:

The Director of Public Works recommends that the Commissioners Court:

1. accept the fee proposal and time of completion negotiated with Contract Land Staff, Inc.for appraisal services of 11 complex drainage parcels on the Regal Row Road Project,

2. execute and award Work Order No.3, Regal Row Road Project 91-837, to Contract LandStaff, Inc. at a not to exceed fee of $70,975.00, to provide appraisal services on 11 parcelsto be completed not later than June 30, 2000.

To avoid delays in execution of this Work Order the Court Order authorizing Work Order No.3has been placed on today's fonnal agenda..

Approved By:

Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E.Director of Public Works

SC:edSelas2000-0 l/c1sregalbrief

01 APR 25 FM 2: 55

April 25, 2000

MEMORANDUM:

86

DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS

.'.... I

;'.' _:.i TY-~("-l-'~

,~ v V"-:\ I

TO:

THROUGH:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Commissioners Court

Commissioner Jim Jackson, District ICommissioner Mike Cantrell, District 2Commissioner John Wiley Price, District 3Commissioner Kenneth A. Mayfield, District 4

Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E.Director of Public Works

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvements ProgramPayment Of TxDOT Engineering - Project 74

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Court Order Number 94-1777 dated October 25, 1994, Dallas County entered into anagreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOn to lead the design and right-of-wayacquisition efforts for specific CMAQ Improvements included in the region's Transportation ImprovementProgram (TIP). As a part of this agreement, the City of Dallas developed plans, specifications and estimatesfor signal improvements at twenty intersections in their city. The City provided the engineering for all twenty(20) intersections at no cost to the County, TxDOT or FHWA.

All twenty intersections are in the Dallas County Bond Program. Five (5) of the intersections are "ON" theState Highway system and totally funded by TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. The fifteen(15) remaining intersections are "OFF" the State Highway System. TxDOT has processed the plans,specifications and estimates and has let the contract for construction. TxDOT is requesting payment of$4,000 for the TxDOT engineering review and administration relating to the "Off' system portion of thisproject.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The twenty intersection improvements included in CMAQ Project 74 are a part of the NCTCOG Project Code# 775 as set forth in the FY 2000 Transportation Improvement Program budget. Project 74 has an estimatedconstruction cost ofSI,694,756.18 but is only a small portion of the S 20,534,000 program for the City ofDallas signal improvement program.

The County had agreed previously to pay the local share (20%) plus engineering. The County paid$253,805.85 escrow for the construction portion on April 4, 2000. TxDOT is now requesting $4,000 for theTxDOT engineering review and administration relating to this project. The table below shows the costs perintersection for the fifteen (15) intersections in the Dallas Bond Program and the costs that will be borne byeach agency.

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 214-653-7151

87CommISSIoners CourtApnl 25. 2000Page 2

10 IntenectioJllmprovement 1 Dis-trict Dallas City of TxDOT- TotaJ ICounty Dallas FHWA I

775 iCanada Dr. at Westmoreland Rd. 1 $266.66 $0.00 $0.00 $266661t 775 IBickers St. at Westmoreland Rd. 1 I $266.66 $0.00 $0.00 $266661I 775 :Singleton Blvd. at Westmoreland Rd. 1 $266.66 $0.00 $0.00 $266661II

775 iBonnie View at Kiest Blvd. 3 $266.66 $0.00 $0.00 $266661775 I Bonnie View at Illinois Ave. 3 $266.66 $0.00 $0.00 $266.66775 iAudelia Rd. at Kingsley Rd. 2 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.671775 IFieldcrest Dr. at Kingsley Rd 2 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266671

775 IMiller Rd. at Sanden Dr. 2 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

775 IAdleta Blvd. at Skillman St. 2 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

775 IPagemill Rd. at Skillman St. 2 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $26667

775 Dallas Pkwy. DNT at Westgrove Rd. 1 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $26667

775 ICamden Rd. at Jefferson Blvd. 4 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

775 Hensley Field at Jefferson Blvd. 4 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

775 Bagdad St. at Jefferson Blvd. 4 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

775 Crusader Dr. at Jefferson Blvd. 4 $266.67 $0.00 $0.00 $266.67

"OFF" Sys-tem Total $4000.00 SO.OO SO.OO S4000.00

The following County accounts will be revised to administer funds for this design contract.

Description

Canada Dr. at Westmoreland Rd.

Bickers St. at Westmoreland Rd.

Singleton Blvd. at Westmoreland Rd.

Bonnie View at Kiest Blvd.

Bonnie View at Illinois Ave.

Audelia Rd. at Kingsley Rd.

Fieldcrest Dr. at Kingsley Rd

Miller Rd. at Sanden Dr.Adleta Blvd. at Skillman St.

Pagemill Rd. at Skillman St.

Dallas Pkwy. DNT at Westgrove Rd.

Camden Rd. at Jefferson Blvd

Hensley Field at Jefferson Blvd.

Bagdad St. at Jefferson Blvd.

Crusader Dr. at Jefferson Blvd.

TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT

Account

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

00492.0000.08311.1998.0000.00585.00000.0000

$266.66$266.66$266.66$266.66$266.66$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67$266.67

S4000.00

IMPACT ON OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

There are no impacts on operations and maintenance.

88CommISSIoners CounApnI 25. 2000Page 3

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The construction of the twenty intersections should get undenvay in July 2000 and be completed m fall 200 I.

RECOMMENDATIONS

CMAQ Project 74 contract has been let in Austin. It is recommended that Dallas County approve theexpenditure of $4,000 in bonds as outlined above for TxDOT engineenng review and administrationrelating to this project. A Court Order authorizing the pa)'ment to TxDOT \vill be on the formal agendanext week.

~D(l10Donald R. Holzwarth, P. E.Director of Public Works

~J'" Attachments: Court Order authorizing engineering escrow of $4,000.

f}IIic: Moosa Saghian, P.E., Texas Department ofTransportationTim Starr, P.E., City of DallasIvan F. Nicodemus, P.E., Parsons BrinckerhoffConstruction Services, Inc., PMIEFile (CMAQ ~ Project 74)

89:-' t, j 1 ,~ ~-".-" \ • ~ ~

, •• ~. - ~\~' : I"~ :\ T

f'I p~.., '1'" 0'..: 1, cel;: ,'",I , . .;..) ii' v' .

FIRST INTERIM REPORT

ON

FY2000 OPERATING AND CAPITALBUDGETS

Prepared by

DALLAS COUNTYOFFICE OF BUDGET AND EVALUATION

Apri125,2000

90

FIRST INTERIM REPORT ON FY2000 BlTDGET

PART I: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to provide the Commissioners Court a report on the FY2000budget and to compare the projected results with the approved budget. To accomplish this task,revenues and expenses will be reviewed using mid-year data, and significant departures frombudget will be analyzed. In addition, special attention will be given to historical problem areas andareas which may have important bearing on the FY2001 budget, now in its preliminary stages ofpreparation.

In addition to the comparison of FY2000 budget and projected actual results, this documentcontains preliminary multi-year projections of the General Fund through FY2003. An appendix tothis document also contains recommended budget transfers at mid-year.

PART II: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table I contains a side-by-side comparison of the projected results of FY2000 operationscompared to the budget approved on September 13, 1999. Prior year projected and actual data areshown for comparison. The difference column indicates the amount projected to be over or underbudget by year-end.

The revenue and expense projections have been made by the Office of Budget and Evaluation, andare presented in the major categories that require examination.

The results indicate that the County will end the year with an unencumbered cash balance of $29.4million, which is approximately $3 million less than projected in the adopted budget. Significantbudgetary problems exist in the following areas: (a) employee health insurance, (b) welfare, (c)workers compensation, and (d) Sheriffs Office overtime, while court costs appear to be underbudget. Sources available are more than predicted. The following paragraphs discuss each area ofbudgetary concern or interest.

PART III: RESOURCE ANALYSIS

Overview- Total sources of funds contributing to the FY 2000 ending balance are expected to be$345.2 million or approximately $4.9 million (1.4%

) above the approved FY2000 budgetaryestimates. This includes an estimated $ I million in prior year funds that will be disencumberedprior to year end. The revenue estimates were made by OBE and are considered optimistic in theamount of$ I million by the County Auditor, whose revenue projections for 2001 must be used inthe preparation of the FY2001 budget.

91

Table I

FY 2000 PROJECTED RESULTS

Compared with FY 2000 Adopted Budget and FY 99 Actual

($1,000)

............FY99............ ...........FY 2000.......... BudgetAdopted Actual

Budget Actual Budget Projection Difference

Beginning Balance 41,435 42,199 38,015 37,162 (853)

Revenues

Property Tax 140,178 . 140,075 151,794 151,794Other Taxes/Fees 1,240 1,324 1,310 1,230 (80)Prisoner Contracts 9,675 7,607 8,820 10,241 1,421Other Recurring 127,595 139,241 140,389 143,751 3,362

Total Revenue 278,688 288,247 302,313 307,016 4,703

Disencumbered Funds 1,500 1,000 1,000

Total Sources 320,123 331,946 340,328 345,178 4,850

Expenditures

Sheriff's Office 73,457 71,422 75,128 72,277 (2,851 )

Traffic Program (net) 800 800Overtime 1,967 5,997 1,620 5,396 3,776

Juvenile Placement 8,829 8,690 9,240 9,484 244

Employee Health Ins 10,075 11,826 14,522 16,769 2,247

Utility Payments 6,515 6,081 6,249 6,249Court Costs 16,902 16,016 17,124 15,891 (1,233)

Other Recurring 171,811 174,752 184,075 188,925 4,850

Total Expenditures 289,556 294,784 307,958 315,791 7,833

Ending Balance 30,567 37,162 32,370 29,387 (2,983)

92

Beginning Balance- The actual beginning balance for FY2000, as finally determined by theCounty Auditor, was $37.2 million, $853,000 less than estimated by the Office of Budget andEvaluation at the time of budget approval. The reason for this difference was payments ofapproximately $900,000 from one IV(e) administrative claim and INS Prisoner payment that werereceived shortly after the first of the year and are therefore shown as revenue in FY2000 ratherthan FY 99.

Property Taxes - the property tax collections associated with FY 2000 are still ongoing, and theestimate of final revenue equals the budgeted amount.

Prisoner Revenue- The Office of Budget and Evaluation projects that Dallas County will receive$1.42 million more revenue for holding contract inmates in FY2000 than originally anticipated.This additional revenue consists of a $591,000 payment from INS that was anticipated to bereceived in FY1999 but was received in FY2000 and $830,000 more revenue for holding contractinmates in FY2000 (see Table II). This additional revenue projection includes an adjustment forthe Massachusetts Prisoner Contract not being renewed and all of their prisoners being removed inJune 2000. Upon the removal of the Massachusetts prisoners, the Deputy authorized for theMassachusetts Law Library in the North Tower will be deleted.

Table IIContract Prisoner Revenue

($1,000)

MassachusettsINSIFEDEllis County*

Total

Auditor's OfficeOriginal Projection$2,300$6,500$ 20$8,820

Budget OfficeMidyear Projection$ 1,700$ 8,091$ 450$10,241

Over/(Under)Budget$ (600)$1,591$ 430$1,421

* Note Ellis County revenue projection includes revenue related to Dart and Baylor Hospital bookins ($17,000).

Fines and Forfeitures-Revenues from Fines and Forfeitures (Table III) are projected to be underbudget for FY2000 and also lower than the FY99 actual. The areas that show diminished growthinclude Justice of the Peace and Criminal Fines. Forfeitures also contributed to a lower- thanbudgeted projection. Until this year, this revenue group has posted an increase in each of the lastfive years. The lower fine and forfeiture revenue probably reflects the lower overall crime rate inthe area in the last six months.

3

93

Table IIIRevenue from Fines and Forfeitures

($1,000)

4320

4851

Totals

Fines and Forfeitures43110 Contempt Fines43210 J. P. Court Fines43310 Criminal Fines43410 Fines Child Safety43510 Forfeitures47421 From Road & Bridge - Fin

Budget$9,400

6,409,0001,365,882

160,000516,735

10,567,500$19,028,517

Projected Over/(Under)$18,397 $8,997

6,149,886 (259,114)1,025,034 (340.848)

163,997 3,997471,437 (45.298)

10,567,500 0$18,396,251 $(632.266)

Other Revenue- Other revenue is expected to be $3.4 million above its original projection,although approximately $2.4 million of this amount results from "bookkeeping" adjustments ratherthan larger-than-expected revenue. The adjustments include $ 1million in County Clerk transferrevenue offset by an equal amount of expenditures for records management, $ 1 million in transferrevenue from Parkland for the HHS Jail Health staff approved after the budget was adopted, and$400,000 which came in shortly after year-end and, causing the beginning balance to be belowestimate by the same amount. True recurring revenues are therefore predicted to be approximately$1 million above budgetary estimates. Attachment A includes a spreadsheet which details theoriginal and projected revenue estimates.

Public Works Transfers- The transfer ofbond funds to the General fund is assumed to be at itsoriginally-budgeted amount of $3.1 million although a significant policy decision to be presentedto the Court prior to year-end may effect the amount of this transfer. In particular, for the first time,the actual time distribution of each staffmember in the Public Works Department is beingaccurately measured, rather than being estimated, with the result that the financial impact of thedepartment may be somewhat different than has been budgeted.

For many years, the Public Works Department has been budgeted entirely in the General Fundlargely repaid from Bond Funds which were shown as a revenue. The amount of thisrepayment was detennined annually by the Public Works Department based on a generalestimate of which members of the department were performing tasks that were not bondrelated and were thus chargeable to the General Fund. The Office of Budget and Evaluationadded an indirect cost to this transfer amount.Approximately 80-85% of the direct charges ofthe department has been charged to bond projects in the past. When an indirect charge isadded(which is a revenue to the General Fund), the true burden of the department on the bondfunds is closer to 95% of the departmental budget.

The concern over the diminishing bond fund administrative allocation, and the advent of thenew Major Capital Development Fund as the long-term source of transportation funding,caused the Public Works Department and the Office of Budget and Evaluation to collaborateon a more detailed time reporting system which began in October 1, 1999 with significant

4

94

modifications added April 1, 2000. This system can also be expected to provide better data onthe "true" cost of projects undertaken by the department.

There appear to be several major funding sources that capture most of the Public WorksDepartment activity (a) bond funds for projects approved by voters in 1985 and 1991,(b)Major Capital Development Fund transportation allocation for post-1991 bond projects andgeneral transportation planning,(c) the General Fund for mapping and appraisal work notrelated to transportation, and (d) the individual Road and Bridge District funds for activitiesrelated to County road maintenance. Smaller amounts of activity are also charged to CDBG,Open Space Funds and grants. Although the information is preliminary, Table IVdemonstrates the apparent annual expenditure on several activities where a funding decisionwill need to occur. Based on six months of data, Table IV lists the top 10 activities thatcurrently encompass 96% of the activities undertaken by the department based on actual timespent. In each case, the department and the Office of Budget and Evaluation have indicated arecommended funding source.

The normal administrative activities of the department (training, departmental administration,personnel activity, etc.) have been distributed to other direct activities on a pro-rata basis. Noindirect cost is added to Table IV. The Court will be asked to provide direction as to thefunding source for each type of activity.

In particular, the most important decisions relate to Public Works activity in support of Roadand Bridge Districts but not related to particular bond projects. Additionally, there will be anincreasingly larger time spent on general transportation planning for post-199l thoroughfareand impact projects that should be understood and charged to an appropriate fund. Thequestion of contributing or distributing central services costs should also be addressed.

The significance of the Table IV is to demonstrate that bond funds have probably absorbed alarge expenditure in past years that should have more properly been charged to other funds.The total General Fund expense using aBE's recommended charging methodology would be$381,000, in line with budgetary estimates.

The final numbers may differ somewhat from the estimates shown, although the order ofmagnitude is deemed reasonable by staff. Commissioners Court direction on the chargingmethodology is solicited at this time.

5

95

Table IVPublic Works Staff Effort by Category

(no indirect costs added)Activity FY2000 Funding Source

Projected RecommendationAmount

1991 Road Bond Program Design and $ 1,950,000 1991 Bond ProgramConstruction1985 Road Bond Program Design $ 220,000 1985 Bond Program

and ConstructionDisposition of County-Owned and $ 200,000 General FundTax Default Surplus Property*Erecting and Maintaining Signs and $ 180,000 Road and BridgeStriping on County Roads District in Which the

Project is LocatedEngineering Support to Other County $ 170,000 General FundDepartments Not Related toTransportation**Design and Construction of CMAQ $ 100,000 General Fund, to be(non-bond) reimbursed from

other entitiesData Collection for and Attendance at $ 100,000 Major CapitalRegional Transportation Planning Development FundMeetingsMCDF Thoroughfare Program $ 60,000 Major CapitalDesign and Construction (Post Bond Development FundProgram)Engineering Support to Road and $ 50,000 Road and BridgeBridge Districts*** District in Which the

Project is LocatedLand Use / Urban Planning $ 50,000 General FundActivities

* As the result of these activities, an estimated $147,600 will be received by the County thatwould otherwise not be received. Other entities that have larger tax rates than Dallas Countyare projected to receive $246,000 that they would not otherwise receive.

** Examples include design of parking lots at County facilities, preliminary constructionestimates for County departments, surveys, and land appraisals.

*** Examples include design and inspection of drainage projects, design of roadreconstruction, processing of interlocal agreements, easement procurement for road expansion,and road surveys.

6

96

PART IV: EXPENDITURE Al~ALYSIS

Overview-This section examines the traditional areas of the County budget that are the mostdifficult to predict or control. As shown on Table I, expenditures for FY2000 are currentlyexpected to be $7.8 million (2.5%) over the budgeted amount of $307.9 million. This amountincludes the $2 million is "bookkeeping" changes that do no truly represent an over-budgetsituation.

Sherifrs Office-The Office of Budget and Evaluation has reviewed the Sheriffs Office budget inlight of an inmate population and detention service officer vacancy rate that are larger thanoriginally projected. Overall, a combination of factors results in an over-budget amount of$925,000 for FY2000.

Jail Population-The Office of Budget and Evaluation projected the FY2000 jail population toaverage 6,642 inmates. During the first half of FY2000 the jail population has had an averagemonthly population of 6,753. The jail inmate population is projected to stay at this level until midJune when 150 Massachusetts inmates will be removed. However, even with the removal of theMassachusetts inmates the average FY2000 jail population is anticipated to be 6,789 or 147inmates more than originally projected. Because the increased population has not required theopening of additional jail floors, no additional staff cost can be directly attributable to thisadditional population.

DAILY JAIL POPULATION AVERAGED FOR EACH MONTHncluding data through Mirch 2000

8.--- -- ---,

7

IJ6

OCT APR OCT APR OCT APR OCT APRJAN 97 JUL JAN 98 JUL JAN 99 JUL JAN 00 JUL

Detention Expenses -The Sheriffs Office grocery expense is directly related to inmate populationthe increased inmate population projection for FY2000 results in the need to add $150,000 to theSheriffs grocery budget. The rest of the Sheriffs Office line items that are sensitive to inmate

7

97

population (detention supplies, clothing and bedding, laundry supplies, sanitary supplies andjanitorial supplies) are expected to be within budget.

Overtime- The FY2000 Budget was developed with the assumptions that there would be anaverage of 55 detention service officer positions vacant in the Sheriffs Office. These anticipatedvacancies resulted in the budgeting of $1.5 million in overtime (net amount after adjusting forunused salary assistants). The Sheriffs Office is now projected to average 97 detention serviceofficer positions vacant in FY2000 resulting in additional overtime expenditures of $2.4 million,however, these vacancies will result in $1.6 in additional salary lag or will have a net cost to theCounty of $800,000.

Midyear Staffing Adjustments-The Sheriffs Office FY2000 Budget assumed mid-year staffingadjustments in five areas. The following paragraphs discuss each of these areas and comparesactual expenses to what had been anticipated.

1) Deletion of five clerks in the Central Intake Division as a result of the imaging system - Thebids for the Central Intake imaging system have been received but were greater than the savingsrelated to the project. As a result, the vendor and the Sheriffs Office are reviewing the bid to seeif there are items that can be removed that will not effect the viability of the system but wouldmake the project cost effective. Should the system not be implemented the funds encumbered forthe project will be utilized to fund the five positions for the remainder of FY2000.

2) Deletion of five clerks in the Release Division as a result of the VINE infonnation system - TheRelease Division VINE infonnation system has been delayed due to the Y2K effect and is nowanticipated to be operational by the end of July 2000. In addition the State Attorney General'sOffice is providing the county the VINE system court's module which will need to beimplemented. As a result, it is anticipated that the five clerks will be able to be deleted in August2000. The continued funding of the five clerks for through August will cost $44,685

3) Deletion of five food service supervisors in the Central Kitchen when the North Tower was fulltray service - The North Tower was placed into full-tray service on March 6, 2000. As previouslyagreed to five food service supervisor positions were deleted. In addition, the leased trailerrefrigeration at the North Tower was removed. Since the five positions and the leased trailer werebudgeted through the end ofMarch, the early elimination resulted in a $12,000 savings to DallasCounty.

4) Deletion ofnine detention service supervisor positions in the Central Kitchen as a result of thereorganization to move the tray preparation and food delivery to the West Tower from the CentralKitchen - The West Tower construction necessary to complete the reorganization began in April.However, the contract requires all work to be completed by the end of September. As a result, thenine detention service officer positions anticipated being deleted upon the completion of thisproject will not occur until FY2001. Maintaining the nine detention service officer positions forthe remainder of FY2000 will cost $137,504.

5) Five Detention Service Officer positions authorized in FY2000 for Central Intake - TheFY2000 Budget included the additional of five detention service officer positions contingent on a

8

98

new agreement with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The agreement called forDallas County to provide certain escort activities (five DSO's) and INS would guarantee 300contract inmates. Commissioner's Court signed the agreement however, the agreement was neversigned by the INS. As a result, the five detention service officers added to Central Intake will bedeleted and will result in savings of$127,537. Through the first six months of FY2000 DallasCounty has held an average of 348 INS contract inmates.

6) Sheriff Highway Management Program-As previously briefed, if Commissioners Courtapproves the Sheriffs Office Highway Management Program the FY2000 net cost of the staff andequipment is anticipated in being $800,000. The FY2001 net impact is projected to be a positive$1.9 million.

Juvenile Department Placement Expense - The FY2000 budget included funds forapproximately 30 additional residential placement beds due to a projected increase in the postadjudication population, bringing the budgeted population to 290. Through the first six months ofthe year, the actual residential placement population has averaged 329, an additional 30 beds. Thegraph below depicts this steady climb in the residential placement population.

Res id e n t ia I P la c e men tA v. ra g. 0 a i1y Pop u la tlo n

400

350

300

250

200

150

~ ~~ / ~ FY 2000 Budget

r--' ~ r'/ --

100

50

The Lyle Medlock facility began operation in July 1998. This 96-bed facility was intended to offerin-County placements for youth who would have otherwise been sent to facilities around Texas.The financial impact of this new facility was expected to be cost-neutral since these beds would beutilized in lieu ofother contract beds.

However, the availability of this facility has not resulted in a decrease of youth being placed.Since the facility's opening, the average daily residential population has grown from 214 to 299.

This increase in youth being ordered to placement cannot be attributed to higher referrals fordelinquent conduct. Delinquent referrals (felonies and misdemeanors) to the Juvenile Departmentsince FY97 show a very flat trend line.

9

99

Deliquent Referrals

1.000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

oC?l'¢ C?l'¢ C?l'¢ C?l'¢ C?l" C?l" ~ C?l" C?l" ~ C?l'O C?l'O 9J'O 9J'O 9J'O 9J'O 9J0) r;fJ 9J0) 9J0) 9J0) 9J0) ~\;;, SJ\;;,

##~#####~#####~#####~#~~

The Juvenile Department has suggested that a law change enacted by the most recent legislature ishaving an effect on the residential placemep.t population. Under the new law, youth adjudicated ontheir third misdemeanor charge are to be ordered to residential placement.

The financial impact of this higher than projected placement population is estimated to be$704,000 in additional residential placement costs. Fortunately, the department has recently beenawarded an additional $371,800 in grant funds from the Criminal Justice Division of theGovernor's Office for residential substance abuse treatment. Through the restructuring of theMedlock facility to convert 24 beds to substance abuse treatment beds, the department will be ableto utilize these funds and reduce the financial impact to the General Fund.

In addition, the need for foster care and contract emergency shelter placements continues to below. The excess funds in these categories can further reduce the need for additional County funds.Table IV shows the projected placement shortfall for FY2000.

Table IVJuvenile Department Placement Expenditures

ResidentialNon-residentialFoster CareEmergency

FY2000 Budget9,610,0002,571,500

402,200208,100

$12,791,800

FY2000 Projection9,943,0572,633,353

348,851110,093

$13,035,353

Difference333,057

61,853(53,350)(98,007)

$243,553

The Office of Budget and Evaluation is not recommending additional funds be approved for theJuvenile Department at this time. It is expected that funds will be available within the

10

100

department's overall budget (salary lag and operating expenditures) to absorb these projectedadditional placement costs.

Court Costs - Court expenditures consist of 16 expense codes that can be grouped into threecategories: visiting judges, indigent defense, and other miscellaneous court costs. As shown inTable VI, overall court costs are projected to be 15.89 million in FY2000, approximately $1.23million under the budgeted amount of$17.1 million.

The projection is reached by performing a modified average for five months of actual courtexpenditures, dividing by the number of months, and multiplying the product by twelve.Expenditures from October are removed because this month has historically demonstrated a belownormal expenditure level, relative to other months.

The visiting judges group expended approximately $800,000 in FY1999 and is projected to spend$596,233 in FY2000. The decrease in expenditures for this group is explained by the addition of aCounty Criminal Court in FY2000. The additional court reduced the need for a visiting judge toalleviate the backlog of domestic violence cases.

The single largest reduction in expenditures from FY99 to FYOO occurs in the indigent defensegroup, which accounts for the cost of court appointed attorneys in the Criminal District, CountyCriminal, Family District, and Juvenile Courts. This group totaled $13.05 million in FY99, whileprojected expenditures in this group for FYOO will total $12.781 million, which represents $1.27million decrease from the FY2000 budgeted amount of$14.05 million.

One explanation for this decrease is that case filings in courts that use court appointed attorneysare down, relative to last year at this time. When case filings, for the above mentioned courts,from October through December of FY99 are compared to the same period for FYOO, 2,250 lesscases have been filed in FY2000. As the number of cases filed in courts using court appointedattorneys decreases, the number of attorneys appointed to cases will decrease.

Expenses in the final, or miscellaneous, group account for substitute court reporters, psychiatricevaluation, transcripts ofproceedings, court appointed interpreter, and expert testimony.Expenditures in this group, budgeted at $2.35 million, are projected at $2.51 million, an excess of$158,000. The excess is caused by an accounting error that occurred when $80,000 was deductedfrom the substitute line item, instead of the contract court reporter line item.

Em.ployee Health Insurance Program- The FY2000 budget made several changes to theemployee insurance program to address rising costs. Revenue to the insurance trust was increasedby raising the County contribution (approximately $3 million) and asking employees to share theburden by paying more for insurance ($10 monthly premium for employee only coverage, 10%increase for dependent coverage, and higher drug co-payments).

The FY2000 budget also assumed that the growth rate of medical costs would return to the 5%level experienced from FY93 through FY98 and that the County could recover $750,000 inimproper claim payments through NYLCare. However, employee health insurance costs continueto be a concern and it is projected that additional funds will be needed in FY2000. Table VII

11

101

compares the FY2000 budget for employee health insurance with current projections based on sixmonths of data.

TcbleVlI

Er'r1JIoyee Insurance Program

FY2OCO FY2OCO8ldget Prqedioos Dfference

Begmng Balance 0 19,~ 19,53)

Ccu1ty~ati(Jl 17,938,400 17,754,aJ9 (183,591)

Er'T"Poyee eartritxJtial 5,772.Em 5,Z21,684 (501,213)

Stqicss Rarrtuserrents 1,COO,COO 1,COO,coo 0Interest 37,500 10,900 (26,:B:l)

ca:lRAIRetiree eartributioos 700,:m 1,010,765 25),385

Tct:i Sa.rces 25,459,177 25,017,738 (441,439)

MD:3t-fv() A"enillTl 4,934,648 4,421,COO (513,648)

MD:30ams 11,731,317 13,583,468 1,852.151

RXOams 2,671,100 3,769,382 1,~1~

DentaleM) A"enilITI 693,COO 662,640 (30,3&»

Dental Oaims 553,428 616,868 63,440

Mrirlstratial

M:!cicSIDentaI Fixed Ccsts 1,370,472 1,769.~ :m,115

Ufe 1rsJ'1'l(2 A"enillTl 1,173,312 1,134,955 (38,347)

LTO A"enillTl 73),00) 005.635 (113,365)

E4PMrin 0 182,459 182,459

Rex Mrirlstratkn'Oaims 1,137,Em ~,824 (138,776)

Tct:i Uses 24,~,967 27,745.829 2,700,ffi2

8ling I3;iarQ $474,210 ($2,728.091) ($3.al2.301)

As shown in Table VII, current projections indicate that the employee insurance program will havea $2.7 million deficit in FY2000 without significant additional revenue or cost reductions.Projections are based on revenues and expenditures in January, February, and March to account forthe changes that took effect with the new plan year on January 1,2000 (i.e. higher prescription copayments). It should be noted that the additional $2.7 million only allows the trust to maintain onlya zero cash balance and does not account for the intended $1.5 million balance previously agreedto.

The County dramatically increased its contribution to the insurance program in FY2000 and askedemployees and retirees to contribute to the cost sharing by paYing more for themselves and theirdependents. Revenues are projected to be $440,000 less than anticipated in FY2000. The

12

102

County's contribution will decrease due to fewer employees covered by grants and CommunitySupervision and Correction. By the end of the fiscal year, the General Fund will contribute allfunds appropriated for insurance, regardless 0 factual enro llment figures.

County employee contributions are projected to be $500,000 less than anticipated during thebudget process. At first glance, this decrease appears to indicate that employees elected to notcover their dependents in the County's insurance program due to the increased cost of coverage.However, census information shows that dependent coverage has increased dramatically between1998 and 2000. Employees electing to cover their families have increased 38% during this period.

Insurance expenditures are projected to be $2.76 million over budgeted amounts for FY2000.These projections represent cash payments from the program to vendors. They do not try todistinguish between when services were received and when payments are made. This distinction isimmaterial for purposes of determining the funding shortfall for the current fiscal year. Thisprojection is intended to determine the additional funds needed for the trust to meet its financialobligations.

The overriding cost increases are in the areas of medical claims (excluding HMO premiums) andprescription drug costs. As mentioned above, the FY2000 budget assumed these costs wouldstabilize and only experience modest growth. In addition, the County's former benefit consultantspresented information that FY99 claims were extraordinary due to several large cases and the lackof stoploss coverage to protect the County from the high claims associated with these cases. Withthese extremes in mind, the Health Benefit Trust budget for FY2000 was established with modestincreases in medical and prescription drug costs and the addition of stoploss coverage.

Expenditures for medical claims have been reduced by the amount of refunds received fromimproper payments by NYLCare. To date, the County has received $235,500. This amount is farshort of the $750,000 projected during the budget discussions. The audit ofNYLCare cases iscomplete and no further refunds are expected.

On a smaller scale, it appears as if the cost of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) andexpanded mental health services were not included in the original FY2000 budget. These itemscombined account for $340,000 of the overall shortfall.

At this time, the Office of Budget and Evaluation is recommending transferring $2.4 million inadditional funds to the trust. While the fiscal year is halfway complete, the insurance plan year isonly three months old. The Public Employee Benefit Cooperative (PEBC) is completing the1999 year-end plan performance report for Dallas County and analyzing long-term strategies tomaximize the performance of the plan. It is expected that this report will be available in May2000.

13

103

Utilitv Cost - During FY99, the County initiated an Energy Improvement Program that involvedguaranteed savings from the contractor. The approved budget for FY2000 included 56,249,330 forutilities based on expected savings. Through the first six months of the fiscal year, 53,228,674, or51.7%

, had been expended. This amount was budgeted based on the full implementation of theenergy program by June 2000. The project is currently on schedule to meet this milestone and afull year's savings will be incorporated into the FY2001 budget. Currently, County-wide utilityexpenses appear to be materializing substantially as anticipated in the FY2000 adopted budget.

Other Costs -_All other expenditures are projected to result in an over-budget amount of 54.8million, of which $2.8 million are not directly offset by directly-related revenue. This amount isdetermined through department-by-department analysis as summarized on the spreadsheetcontained in Attachment A of this document. The most significant contributors to this amount arediscussed below:

Gasoline Cost - The first half of FY2000 saw an increase in the cost of gasoline of approximately50 cents per gallon over FY1999 amounts. The County's annual gasoline consumption isapproximately 750,000 gallons. The increase in gasoline is anticipated to cost the County $375,000 in FY2000. Based on decreases in vehicle maintenance expense, however, no budgettransfer is necessary to offset the additional gasoline expense.

Consulting Fees - Department 9910 Countywide line item Consulting Fees is used to fundpayments to outside attorneys that represent Dallas County in civil matters. This line item hasshown wide variations in the last five years (a low of$30,319 in FY96 to a high of$5l3,061 inFY97) depending on the quantity and complexity of cases that Dallas County hires outside firms tohandle. In FY2000, the case City of Orange v. Alabama Treasury was resolved and the law firmrepresenting Dallas County was paid $200,000. The FY2000 budget for Consulting Fees is$251,565. As a result of the City of Orange v. Alabama Treasury case the line item is projected inFY2000 to be $450,000 requiring a transfer of $200,000.

Workers Compensation - The FY2000 budget for workers compensation payments, like theemployee health insurance program budget, appears to have been unrealistically optimistic. Thebudgeted amount of $1.9 million is now projected to be exceeded by approximately $700,000.

The Personnel Department has provided information that medical costs increases alone canaccount for most of this increase, and that mandated cost of living increase for indemnity paymentsand administrative fee increases also account for a portion of the adjustment. As a result a transferof $700,000 is recommended.

Welfare Expenditures - Based on the first six months of data, welfare expenditures are projectedto be $3.3 million, 30% higher than FY99 actual expenditures. This projection indicates the needfor an additional $875,000 by year-end. The primary reason for higher welfare expenditures is anincrease in the number of clients being served.

In FY99, the department provided 16,355 service units from the County welfare program. Thisfigure represents the number of assistance payments made on behalf of individuals. Based on thefirst six months of FY2000, the department is projected to provide 20,400 service units, a 250/0

14

104

increase. The department attributes this volume increase to a heightened level of awareness ofservices associated with the heat wave initiative. Clients assisted through this program during thesummer months are returning for assistance in other areas. This volume increase is not the resultof a policy change related to eligibility. Individuals must still be disabled with no other source ofincome before receiving County assistance.

The largest assistance category is housing. This includes mortgage, rent and room and boardpayments. Projections indicate that the department will make an additional 2,000 housingassistance payments for clients in FY2000. This higher volume alone results in an additional$768,000 in expenditures. The Welfare Advisory Board did request a policy change to increasethe rental reimbursement rates in FY2000. Rates were adjusted with Commissioners Courtapproval in October 1999. However, the rate increase only accounts for approximately $40,000 inadditional costs to the County.

Table VIII

FY2000 Welfare Budget

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY2000 FY2000Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Projection

Emergency Food Assistance 54,106 50,708 62,991 106,430 131,100 142,874Emergency Medical Assistance 1,052 399 458 1,854 1,400 2,051Mortgage Assistance 174,838 138,447 143,367 170,558 182,300 267,215Transportation Assistance 14,481 20,576 19,207 20,685 20,400 25,910Rental Assistance 1,650,394 1,551,349 1,423,846 1,531,542 1,518,100 2,047,350Furnishing Assistance 6,310 5,999 5,407 2,670 6,200 6,200Room & Board 307,475 247,828 299,353 338,273 354,100 493,746Utility Assistance 454,723 354,064 339,334 384,605 229,900 332,493Total $2,663,380 $2,369,370 $2,293,963 $2,556,617 $2,443,500 $3,317,840

Vacancy Savings (Lag)- Dallas County budget's each operating department fully for each of theirauthorized positions. In order to reflect that not all positions will be filled for the entire year anegative appropriation is budgeted in Department 9920. For FY2000 this negative appropriationwas set at $5.6 million. A review of salary lag through the first half ofFY2000 shows that it isprojected to be $4.5 million or $1.1 million less than budgeted. A review of salary expenses showsthat in the first half ofFY99 departments spent 46.87% of their budgeted salaries compared to thefirst halfof FY2000 departments when spent 47.74% of their budgeted salaries. If this higher paceof salary expenditure continues in the second half of FY2000 expenditures related to salaries willbe over budget. There have been fewer employee terminations in the first quarter of FY2000(Management Report Volume I page 1.10) than in any of the previous five years. In general iffewer people are terminating from the County then there should be fewer vacancies and less salarylag.

Child Support Fund Transfer- The Office of Budget and Evaluation developed the FY2000 Budgetfor the Child Support Fund (Family Court Services and Child Support) assuming that there wouldbe a zero beginning balance (ending balance from FYI999). However, the Auditor's Officebeginning b~lance report shows that the Child Support fund started FY2000 with a negative

15

105

564,171 beginning balance. Since the Fund was balanced to a zero FY2000 ending balance theOffice of Budget and Evaluation has reviewed the revenues and expenditures and determined thatunless $40,275 is added to the fund it will end FY2000 with a negative balance. As a result, theOffice of Budget and Evaluation recommends that $40,275 be transferred from the General Fundto the Child Support Fund. Table IX details the projected status of the fund.

Table IXChild Support Fund

FY2000 FY2000Budget Projection Difference

Beginning Balance 0 (64,171) (64,17 ,

RevenuesContributions 1,274,340 1,276,300 1,960Interest 4,000 8,319 4,319Reimbursement 597,000 569,278 (27,722

Total Revenue 1-,875,340 1,853,897 ($21,443

Total Sources 1,875,340 1,789,726 ($85,614

ExpendituresChild Support 822,187 800,052 (22,135Fam i1y Court Services 1,053,153 1,029,949 (23,204Total Expenditures 1,875,340 1,830,001 ($45,339

Ending Balance 0 (40,275) ($40,275

Transfers- The listing in Appendix C provides a summary of the recommended transfers fromreserves. The Office of Budget and Evaluation is recommending that the remainder of UnallocatedReserves be used to fund this transfer, with the additional amounts from Emergency Reserves.This will have the effect of limiting the flexibility of the Court for the remainder of the year to onlyadding new expenditures when unanimous agreement exists, and will therefore create additionalpressure to delay new funding requests and/or find sources within budget.

PART V: GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE

As shown in Table I, the projected Ending Balance in the General Fund is $29.4 million, or almost$3 million less than expected. If this prediction proves to be accurate, this $3 million will add tothe difficulty of balancing the FY2001 budget within policy constraints.

16

106

PART VI: FIRST LOOK AT SUBSEQUENT YEAR BUDGETS

Appendix B presents the results of a projection of the next three fiscal years using the FY2000estimated results(as described in this interim report) and projecting fOl"\Vard under certainassumptions. In particular, the revenue section of the model assumes that the effective rate isadopted each year as the tax rate, and that accordingly, the only new revenue is the amountassociated with an assumed $3 billion in new construction. All other revenues are projected attheir current three-year growth trend, unless particular factors exist to suggest a different futurepattern.

The expenditure side of the model assumes virtually no growth in expenses. The 1 0;0 growth isgenerally representative of a scenario without compensation increases or new staff. This "startingpoint" model is roughly balanced in 2001 with surpluses in later years. When a more historicallyrealistic 3°:) growth rate of expenditures (approximately $9 million in new expenditures) ismodeled, the General Fund is out of balance by approximately $10 million in FY2001 although abalance is established in later years.

PART VII: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Overview-The County's five year Capital Improvement Plan included appropriations for FY 2000in five categories: (a)transportation ,(b) park and open space,(c) major buildings,(d) technology,and (e)permanent improvements. The first three categories are accounted for in the Major CapitalDevelopment Fund while the last two categories each have a dedicated fund. The followingparagraphs discuss each category and compare the planned and actual expenditures for FY 2000,using mid-year data.

Transportation-While adjustments to the transportation portion of the Major CapitalDevelopment Fund (MCDF) have been made with regard to the thoroughfare and TEA-21program, no changes have been made affecting FY2000. In FY2000, $300,000 was programmedfor the Thoroughfare Program. A funding decision will need to made by the CommissionersCourt, as described in Part III of this report, before the extent of the actual spending against thisappropriation will be known.

Parks and Open Space-For FY2000, $811,330 was appropriated for Parks and Open Space:$683,330 for land acquisition and $128,000 for planning and programming. While spending onacquisition has been slow this fiscal year to date, spend of this type tends to in large clumps. Atleast one acquisition in the City of Irving for $300,000 will occur this year. A second acquisitionin the City of Desoto estimated at $300,000 may occur this year. This leaves $83,330 inacquisition funds underutilized in FY2000. Additionally, the new engineer position approved in

17

107

the FY2000 budget was hired in early April after a lengthy search process. This hiring willincrease the rate of spending on Parks and Open Space. The late hiring will result in some salarylag savings in the fund of approximately $28,200. These savings along with underutilizedacquisition funds will result in $111,530 going toward the ending balance of the MCDF and willbe available for reprogramming in subsequent years.

l\tajor Buildings-Spending in the Major Buildings and Minor Buildings and Grounds categoriesof the MCDF has been slow to date, but is expected to increase as more contracts are let during thesecond half of the fiscal year. This is due primarily to the level of initial design work requiredbefore a contract is awarded. An additional hindrance has been the inability of Engineering andProject Management to hire the additional engineer approved in the FY2000 budget. Despite sixmonths of advertising in journals and on the internet no qualified applicants have vet applied forthe vacancy. The Public Works Department has voiced similar concerns about the difficulty ofhiring engineers in north Texas. It is recommended that the Personnel Department review thehiring range of this position in order to help solicit applicants for the position. Alternatively,Commissioners Court may wish to factor in this difficulty in the planning process and take a lessaggressive stance toward construction projects. This slower than expected progress on majorprojects will result in a larger than expected ending balance in the MCDF. These funds will bereappropriated during FY2001 or subsequent years based on revised building schedules. Acomparison of budgeted expenditures to actual expenditures follows.

Table X

Major Buildings Funded through the Major Capital Development Fund

ProjectCivil Courts RenovationsCSCD OfficesInstitute of ForensicSciencesSheriff Academy / GunRangeKays Jail ReplacementOld Red CourthouseInvestment BuildingSign Shop

Total

Underutilized Funding

FY2000 Adopted$ 250,000

400,000160,000

150,000

1,200,00050,00050,000

100,000

$ 2,360,000

$0

18

FY2000 Projected250,000361,334160,000

150,000

290,00050,00050,000

100,000

$ 1,411,334

$ 948,666

108

Technology-Given the expenses of Phase III of the Oracle Financials implementation, the MajorTechnology Fund is fully subscribed for FY2000 and is projected to have a negligible beginningbalance for FY2001. The only project that may not be fully expended this year is the Civil CourtsSystem Replacement project due to the length of time required to develop project specifications.A comparison of the adopted FY2000 Major Technology Fund budget and projected expendituresfollows. Of particular note, the beginning balance was estimated to be $900,000, while the actualbeginning balance was (2,606,724). At the time the beginning balance was calculated, OBE didnot anticipate that all of the Finance / HR Phase II expenses and the vast majority of Y2KMainframe Completion expenses would be recorded in FY99. Based on this and the slower thanexpected spending on the Civil Courts project, there is no shortfall projected for FY2000.

Table XI

Technology Projects Funded through the Major Technology Fund

FY2000 Adopted FY2000 ProjectedRevenueBeginning Balance $ 900,000 $ (2,606,724)Property Tax 5,090,610 5,090,610Transfer from MCDF 3,900,000 3,900,000Interest and Transfers 1,512,170 1,512,170Total $ 11,402,780 $ 7,896,056

ExpendituresCivil Courts System $ 1,060,000 $ 500,000ReplacementFinance / HR Phase II 1,400,000 °Finance / HR Phase III 5,900,000 5,900,000

Y2K Mainframe 1,400,000 203,998CompletionE-Commerce Expansion 1,100,200 1,100,200Desk-top Faxing 75,000 75,000Total $ 10,935,200 $ 7,779,198

Ending Balance 467,580 116,858

Permanent Improvements-For FY2000, $2,100,900 was budgeted for the PermanentImprovement Fund. Through six months, $717,125, or 34% of the budgeted amount, has beenspent. While 45 projects have been completed to date, they are mostly small projects, averagingonly $2,300 per project. Several major projects approved in FY2000 have yet to be undertakenincluding substantial roof replacement at the Health and Human Services Buildings and the Central

19

109

Kitchen. These projects will require oversight by the Engineering and Project ManagementDepartment, which is currently experiencing difficulty in hiring an engineer, as described above.While all projects planned for FY2000 are not expected to be completed, it is reasonable to assumethat spending in the second half of the fiscal year will be more aggressive than the first as largerprojects are begun and contracts are let. It is estimated that the Permanent Improvement Fund willend the fiscal year with unspent or unencumbered funding of 10% of the FY2000 appropriation.These funds will be reappropriated during the FY2001 budget process.

PART VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report presents preliminary results of the FY2000 fiscal year, based on six months of actualdata. Overall, both revenues and expenditures are expected to exceed budget, although theexpenditure increase will be larger than the revenue increase. It is expected that the carryover cashbalance for FY2001 will be approximately $29.4 million.

20

DALLAS COUNTYFY2000 REVENUE PROJECTION

Date: 14-APR-oO 13:09:37

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000Mar FY99 YTD Sep FY99 YTD 0/0 Collected FY2000 FY2000 Over/(Under) Mar FYOO YTO

REVENUE REVENUE March Budget Projection BUdget REVENUEAd Valorem & Property Tax

41110 Property Tax - Prior Yea 125,008,376.41 135,762,995.28 92% 146,783.282 146,783,282 0 143,759.97941210 Delinquent Property Tax 834.371.19 2,925.630.03 29% 3.303.000 3,303,000 0 122.56241310 P & I Property Tax Count -8,744.05 529,428.59 -2% 660.000 660,000 0 (5.850)41410 P & I Delinquent Tax 329.276.84 799.643.08 41% 990.000 990,000 0 523,03041510 Occupation Taxes 5.881.68 57,634.11 10% 58.000 58,000 0 31,510

Totals 126.169.162 140.075,331 151,794,282 151,794,282 0 144,431.231

Licenses, Permits & Registrations42110 Beer Wine Liquor License 196.334.10 398.370.57 49% 395.000 306,252 (88.748) 150.93442410 Bingo Fees 368,085.91 785.742.01 47% 780,000 800,516 20,516 375,007

3321 42510 Admission Race Track 43.262.27 139,631.68 31% 135,000 123,295 (11.705) 38,201Totals 607.682 1.323,744 1.310.000 1,230,0.64 (79,936) 564,142

» Fines and Forfeitures

"""""I 4320 43110 Contempt Fines 4,541.08 10,686.08 42% 9,400 18,397 8,997 7,818"""""- 43210 J. P. Court Fines 2.904.001.12 6,022.802.95 48% 6,409.000 6,149,886 (259,114) 2,965,276 Q

43310 Criminal Fines 885.914.25 1,498.293.04 59% 1.365.882 1,025,034 (340.848) 606.0844851 43410 Fines Child Safety 68.370.53 154.978.62 44% 160.000 163,997 3,997 72,349

43510 Forfeitures 184,772.70 478,330.38 39% 516.735 471,437 (45.298) 182,110Totals 4.047.600 8.165.091 8,461.017 7,828,751 (632.266) 3,833.638

Money and Property44230 Interest on Investments 3.188.004.64 7.202.885.00 44% 7,400.000 7,400,000 0 4.069,58244250 Interest Bond Forfeiture 12.729.57 24.815.12 51% 27.000 48,466 21,466 24,862

44310 Bond Perm, Insurance Cia 6,099.36 55.395.41 11% 10.000 277,851 267.851 30.59344410 District Clerk Investmen 153.607.19 239.016.61 64% 275.000 129,569 (145,431) 83,26944511 Buildings 1.051.815.46 1.977.746.02 53% 1.975.200 1,830,046 (145.154) 973,26544512 Cafeteria 67.579.60 141.426.53 48% 135,000 138,003 3.003 65.94444513 Rental Miscellaneous 21,481.81 38,750.74 55% 45.000 33,603 (11.397) 18,62844514 Parking 494,437.55 1,005.775.68 49% 1,000,000 1,134,562 134,562 557,74844515 Voting Machines 33,069.55 -81.258.45 -41% 245.000 245,000 0 45,83044540 Admissions Museums 6,107.48 6.063.48 101% 11.000 1,182 (9,818) 1,19044551 Sales Miscellaneous 21,346.06 49.990.38 43% 42.000 52,370 10.370 22.36244553 Sales of Equipment 82,492.15 109.667.63 75% 50,000 8,939 (41,061) 6,724

Prepared by: Office of BUdget and Evaluation Page 1 of 6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000


Date: 14-APR-Q0 13:09:37

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000Mar FY99 YTD Sep FY99 YTD % Collected FY2000 FY2000 Over/(Under) Mar FYOO YTO

REVENUE REVENUE March Budget Projection Budget REVENUE

44555 Sales of Property 28,323.00 38,032.70 74% 28,300 9,029 (19,271) 6,72444556 Sheriffs Sale of Proper 4,333.28 10,388.04 42% 7,000 11,806 4,806 4,925

Totals 5,171,427 10,818,695 11,250,500 11,320,426 69,926 5,911,647

Charges for Current Services -Gen. Gvl45110 Certificate of Title Fee 1,439,865.00 3,075,415.00 47% 3,100,000 3,353,525 253,525 1,570,07245120 Mixed Beverage Fees 3,593,715.10 7,636,745.57 47% 8,010,000 8,333,570 323,570 3,921,62845130 Tax Assessor Collector F 5,555,313.61 10,857,524.65 51% 11,425,000 12,658,271 1,233,271 6,476,67545140 County Judge Fees 4,808.00 9,882.00 49% 9,600 10,305 705 5,01445151 Treasurer - Service Fees 349,653.36 771,581.66 45% 783,800 813,420 29,620 368,61345160 Certified Copies Fees 121,376.31 400,581.47 30% 370,000 781,922 411,922 236,923

Totals 11,064,731 22,751,730 23,698,400 25,951,013 2.252,613 12,578,925

Charges for Current Services - Public SafetyI-'» 45220 Work Release Fees 220,482.14 473,299.31 47% 450,000 469,551 19,551 218,736 I-'

I45250 Constable Fees 3,006,848.33 6,417,251.01 47% 6,678,660 7,059,379 380.719 3,307,722 I-'

45320 Sheriff - Fees - Other 980,204.06 2,068,713.57 47% 2,308,551 2,064,495 (244,056) 978,205N 45330 Sheriff - Patrol Fees 257,992.52 580,870.37 44% 606,342 659,707 53,365 293,008

45340 Breath Alcohol - County 75,736.61 139.669.65 54% 140,000 95,442 (44,558) 51,75445350 State Arrest Fees - Coun 10,263.53 29,903.76 34% 30,000 44,210 14,210 15.174

Totals 4,551,527 9,709,708 10,213,553 10,392,784 179,231 4,864,598

Charges for Current Services- Judiciary45505 Appellate Court Fees 76,067.00 76,067.00 100% 79,048 79,048 0 79,048

45510 County Clerk Fees 4,239,524.06 9,393,703.05 45% 9,588,110 9,234,412 (353,698) 3,716,31845520 0 C Servicel Recording F 10,431.00 22,174.00 47% 20.000 19,255 (745) 9,058

45525 Court House Security Fee 406,940.00 1,128,261.77 36% 1,165,000 1,164,275 (725) 419,929

45530 District Clerk Fees 2,188,414.12 4,172,073.69 52% 4,515,000 4,522,135 7,135 2,372,035

45540 Civil Court Reporter Fee 301,102.00 751,982.20 40% 720,000 861,928 141,928 345,126

45550 Civil Penalties Fees 15,925.00 25,785.00 62% 20,000 4,615 (15,385) 2.85045560 J P Fees 556,302.49 1,198,752.96 46% 1,250,385 1,332,006 81,621 618,14145580 District Attorney Fees 295,770.93 639,434.19 46% 657,585 686,803 29,218 317,68145590 Jury Fees 105,747.37 211,998.69 50% 230,000 266,081 36,081 132,72445610 Pretrial Release Fees 151,595.00 280,207.00 54% 305,000 228,556 (76,444) 123,65145615 Interlock 380 100% 0 8,856 8,856 8,856

Prepared by: Office of Budget and Evaluation Page 20f6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000


Date: 14-APR-oO 13:09:37



45620 Probate JUdge Fees 6,236.00 13,553.00 46% 12,000 6,850 (5,150) 3,1523126 45630 Trial Fees 11,584.48 13,334.41 87% 12,000 1,617 (10,383) 1,4053133 45640 Estray Fees 5,677.50 11,777.50 48% 10,000 14,544 4,544 7,011

45650 Juvenile Probation Fees 75,800.27 140,850.25 54% 140,000 132,260 (7,740) 71,177Totals 8,447,117 18,080,335 18,724,128 18,563,240 (160,888) 8,228,162

Reimbursement for Current Services- Gen Gvt46020 Election Administrative 17,369.79 89,644.63 19% 115,000 115,000 0 88.98646050 911 Emergency Service 21,209.22 48,895.02 43% 40,000 114,061 74,061 49,47646060 Accounting Service Fees 9,131.26 18,622.98 49% 15,000 16,293 1,293 7,98946070 Data Service Fees 40,512.40 108,896.94 37% 140,000 96,745 (43,255) 35,99246110 Passport Pictures 72,654.86 146,764.24 50% 170,000 208,320 38,320 103,127

1210 46140 Public Access Fees 41,253.64 70,220.61 59% 85,000 101,857 16,857 59,83946170 Billing Administration F 760.97 3,523.26 22% 4,000 1,633 (2,367) 35346180 Service Charge 47,010.69 214,127.96 22% 215,000 215,000 0 179,007» Totals 249,902.83 700,695.64 784,000 868,908 84,908 524,769 ..........

I Reimbursement for Services - Public SafetyN

lH 46220 Community Service Admini 62,082.00 129,919.50 48% 125,000 128,241 3,241 61,28046230 Constables Commissions 24,785.54 57,264.70 43% 54,000 66,104 12,104 28,61146240 Bail Bond Application Fe 4,500.00 8,000.00 56% 8,000 12,444 4,444 7,00046251 INS Detainees 3,194,785.32 4513520.32 71% 6,100,000 7,593,092 1,493,092 3,199,706

3510 46252 Inmates - Federal 250,305.00 452,100.00 55% 400,000 497,908 97,908 259.98546253 Inmates - City of Dallas 2,684,703.96 5,369,407.92 50% 5,556,905 5,556,905 0 2.778.452

3510 46254 Inmates - Out of State L 1,454,899.01 2,635,231.18 55% 2,300,000 1,700,000 (600,000) 1.231,7643510 46255 Inmates - InState Lease 3,822.00 5,658.00 68% 20,000 450,000 430,000 03140 46256 Sheriff - Transportation 112,192.70 228,872.20 49% 95,000 76,805 (18,195) 37,6503312 46350 Professional Service Fee 1,404,281.15 2,834,894.15 50% 3,247,500 2,898,642 (348,858) 1,435.859

Totals 9,196,357 16,234,868 17,906,405 18,980,142 1,073,737 9,040,307

Reimbursement for Services - Judicial46530 District Clerk Subscribe 29,700.00 46,300.00 64% 40,000 27,125 (12,875) 17,40046540 Records Management Fee 163,575.58 312,678.11 52% 550,000 550,000 0 11,20346550 Refund Legal Notices 16,094.78 24,616.10 65% 25,000 4,548 (20,452) 2,97346560 Misdemeanor Traffic Fees 4,207.07 14,964.52 28% 15,000 38,636 23,636' 10.862

Prepared by: Office ot Budget and Evaluation Page 30t6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000


Date: 14-APR-OO 13:09:37

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year-=2000Mar FY99 YTD Sep FY99 YTD % Collected FY2000 FY2000 Over/(Under) Mar FYOO YTD


46580 County Court at Law Sala 316,464.74 775,103.69 41% 625,000 600,076 (24,924) 245,00346590 Masters Fees 3,350.00 5,850.00 57% 5,500 7,858 2,358 4,50046595 Mediation Fees 241,399.00 -20 100% 0 0 0 046615 D A Child Protective Ser 89,031.79 180,192.50 49% 175,000 150,889 (24,111) 74,553

5110 46640 Restitution - Attorney F 418,336.17 692,430.06 60% 700,000 511,631 (188,369) 309,10546660 Public Defender Restitut 51,691.72 87,394.24 59% 85,000 52,373 (32,627) 30,97746680 Physical Restitution Cen 2,640.00 4,880.00 54% 6,000 3,401 (2,599) 1,840

4011 46690 Food Stamp Fraud Prosecu 23,520.00 86,190.13 27% 85,000 70,671 (14,329) 19,285Totals 1,360,011 2,230,579 2,311,500 2,017,209 (294,291) 727,703

Reimbursement for Services - Health & Welfare 046730 Fees Psychological Testi 81,388.66 47,501.01 171% 50,000 5,282 (44,718) 9,05146740 Health - E.P.S.D.T. 7,016.80 12,775.33 55% 10,000 10,7t}0 700 5,87746745 Health - Medicaid-Juveni 4,088.08 100% 0 15,954 15,954 15,95446750 Health - Medicaid 71,310.77 97,702.68 73% (5,000) 46,298 51,298 33,792 l-o'

~» 46751 Health - Medicaid/Americ 0.00 0.00 0% 50,000 (50,000) 3,364 (.H46752 Health - Medicaid/Parkla 0.00 0.00 0% 50,000 50,000 0 418,46755 Health - Medicare 0.00 0 100% 0 0 0 0

+ 46760 Health - Service Program 84,958.06 202,416.59 42% 200,000 471,513 271,513 117,87846770 Parkland Community Healt 885,774.00 3,543,100.00 25% 4,656,600 4,350,300 (306,300) 046775 Parkland Health - Lab Wo 39,306.00 46,368.00 85% 50,000 0 (50,000) 046780 Parkland Jail Health 1,433,628.27 5,621,422.41 26% 5,606,300 6,862,000 1,255,700 0

5212 46790 Public Health Fees 165.00 264 63% 300 176 (124) 1105213 46810 Child Immunization Fees 19,852.00 14,767.00 134% 29,000 6,791 (22,209) 9,129

46820 Sexually Transmitted Dis 64,826.00 132810 49% 125,000 144,823 19,823 70,6903311 46825 Special Examinations Fee 78,750.00 138,250.00 57% 140,000 195,335 55,335 111,267

46830 T B Clinic Fees 33,239.48 70,461.40 47% 66,000 83,063 17,063 39,18446835 Vaccines- Foreign Travel 236,129.25 532,495.25 44% 540,000 621,412 81,412 275,55846840 Food Process Inspection 0.00 54,651.17 100% 54,600 54,600 0 0

5211 46860 Sewage License Fees 28,013.00 58,057.00 48% 54,000 93,156 39,156 44,949Totals 3,064,357 10,577,130 11,676,800 13,011,403 1,334,603 737,221

Intergovernmental Revenue - Gen Gvt.3240 47030 Interfund Transfers 247,872.00 396,697.26 62% 393,000 393,000 0 0

47040 Federal/State Financial 230,537.48 458,065.88 50% 385,000 766,877 381,877' 385,957

Prepared by: Office of Budget and Evaluation Page 4 of6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000


Date: 14-APR-oO 13:09:37



47045 Workers' Compo -Grants 0.00 0.00 0% 0 9,244 9.244 9,24447050 Aid to Dependent Childre 47.841.18 88.204.77 54% 70.000 68,828 (1,172) 37,33247110 Receipts In Lieu of Taxe 5.087.20 5.087.20 100% 5.087 18,832 13,745 18,832

1210 47120 Voter Registration Fees 75,380.23 105,270.56 72% 402,000 402,000 0 97,594Totals 606,718 1,053.326 1,255,087 1,658,781 403,694 548,960

Intergovernmental Revenue- Public Safety47220 S.CAA.P. Award 0.00 1,991,397.00 0% 0 0 0 0

Intergovernmental Revenue- Streets & Highway47421 From Road & Bridge - Fin 6,037,587.18 10,597,675.46 57% 10,567,500 10,567,500 0 4,240,09247422 From Road & Bridge - Oth 0.00 15,115,921.25 100% 15,777,845 15,777,845 0 10,428,96347424 From Road & Bridge - Tra 1,181,935.58 4,341,722.00 27% .4,017,806 4,017,806 0 4,017,80547480 Miscellaneous Transfers 178,253.75 6,849,014.67 3% 4,222,197 4,222,197 0 494,239

» Totals 7,397,777 36,904.333 34.585.348 34,585,348 0 19,181,099 .........., Intergovernmental Revenue- JUdiciary .a;...

lJl47510 Witness Reimbursement Fe 109.728.77 191,654.82 57% 185,000 140,271 (44,729) 80,31047520 State District Attorney 24.704.14 49,408.08 50% 74.000 74,000 0 047530 Title IV-E Reimbursement 237.920.25 360,906.25 66% 280,000 272,500 (7,500) 0

Totals 372,353 601,969 539,000 486,771 (52,229) 80,310

Intergovernmental Revenue- Health & Welfare47750 Social Security Recovery 40,800.00 0% 30,000 30,000 0 28,369

5330 47760 IV-E Child Exp-Reimb. EX 19,229.53 19,229.53 100% 50,000 52,800 2,800 047770 IV-E Administration Gene 320,392.30 591,041.52 54% 1,326,606 1,441,600 114,994 047780 IV-E Administration Gran 114,641.80 230,071.87 50% 536,458 961,100 424,642 0

Totals 454.264 881.143 1.943.064 2,485,500 542,436 28,369

Miscellaneous48010 Cash/Over Short -28.40 -70.130.16 0% 0 200 200 21748020 Income From Old Warrants 112,224.36 287,828.63 39% 0 259,395 259,395 101,138

3312 48030 Unclaimed Monies 28,174.28 29,445.37 96% 0 14,053 14,053 13,446Totals 140,370 247.144 0 273,647 273,647 114,801

Prepared by: Office of Budget and Evaluation Page 50f6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000

»•"

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000

Commissions48041 Telephone Commissions Lo48042 Telephone Commissions Lo

1080 48050 Refund Prior Expenditure48090 Indired Cost Reimbursem48120 Other Income48130 Sheriffs Gun Range Rece

3240 48210 Return Check ClearingTotals

Grand Totals

Fines and ForfeitureOther Revenue Less Property Tax


Date: 14-APR-oO 13:09:37

MarFY99YTD Sep FY99 YTD % Collected FY2000 FY2000 Over/(Under} Mar FYOO yrDREVENUE REVENUE March Budget Projection Budget REVENUE

2,182,975.23 3,965,575.12 55% 4,000,000 3,889,270 (110,730) 1,969,270325,101.80 736,304.99 44% 925,000 791,673 (133,327) 311,673324,366.58 329,941.77 98% 365,000 315,095 (49,905) 309,770199,899.59 525,806.37 38% 514,000 452,627 (61,373) 172,07879,430.26 339,716.48 23% 16,000 112,361 96,361 26,272

7,656.50 40,000 7,075 (32,925) 3,5386,706.96 0 100% 0 0 0 0

3,118,480 5,905,001 5,860,000 5,568,101 (291,899) 2,792,600

186,019,836 288,252,220 302,313,084 307,016,371 4,703,287 214,188,482

10,085,187 18,762,767 19,028,517 18,396,251 (632,266) 8,073,73049,765,487 129,414,122 131,490,285 136,825,838 5,335,553 61,683,521 ~

~

til

Prepared by: Office of Budget and Evaluation Page 6 of6 11 :11 AM04/21/2000

116

DALLAS_CODepartment Summary for Fund All Funds . Fiscal Year 2000 Budget

Current Period: MAR·FY-oODate: 10·APR-oO 11 :10:14

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000March Total FY2000 FYOO Approved Code Base Manual Total Exp (Over Budget)

Account Expenditures Act + Encum Appropriation Projection Adjustment Projection Under Budget

01010 Salaries - Official 531,873 3,192,685 6,499,968 AJ·R 6,383,921 0 6,383,921 116,04701020 Salaries - Assistant 12,376,742 73,812,843 154,608,126 AJ-R 148,073,297 0 148,073,297 6,534.82901030 Salaries· Bailiffs 26,871 162,957 440,426 AJ·R 324,183 0 324,183 116.24301040 Salaries • Court Reporters 302,563 1,753,834 3,742,016 AJ·R 3,569,211 0 3,569,211 172,80501050 Salaries· Overtime 606,093 3,152,632 2,110,239 AJ·R 6,789,190 0 6,789,190 (4,678.951 )01060 Salaries· Extra Help 379,972 1,960,947 4,467,032 AJ·R 4,240,781 100,000 4,340,781 126,25201070 Automobile Allowance 7,928 46,098 83,690 AJ·R 92,196 0 92,196 (8,506)

01080 Mileage Reimbursement 20,065 103,634 252,302 AJ·R 207,268 0 207,268 45,034

01090 Salary Lag 0 0 (5,798,227) A 0 0 0 (5.798,227)

01110 Social Security 1,063,113 6,158,393 13,093,281 AJ-R 12,957,614 0 12,957,614 135,667

01120 Sick Leave Payoff 13,581 127,139 171,180 A 254,278 0 254,278 (83,098)

01140 Insurance ·Employer 952,212 5,479,926 14,522,032 B 14,522,032 2,247,000 16,769,032 (2,247,000)

01150 Fringe Benefits Retirement-Employer 972,178 5,790,330 11,784,530 AJ-R 11,559,786 0 11,559,786 224,744

01160 Unemployment Insurance 0 100,640 400,000 AJ-C 201,280 (77,035) 124,245 275,755

01170 Child Care Subsidy 0 9,969 55,636 AJ-C 19,938 (3,553) 16,385 39,251

01190 Workers Compensation- County ~ 1 425419 1 890 OOQ ~ 2 85Q 838 (254 13;3) 2596705 (706705)

Total Salary & Fringe Benefits 17,663,771 103,277,446 208,322,231 212,045,812 2,012,279 214,058,091 (5,735,860)

Chang. From Previous Month

02011. Classified Advistising 8,710 43,333 66,500 AJ-C 86,666 4,131 90,797 (24,297)

02012 Advertisement for Bids 5,170 23,255 65,000 AJ-C 46,510 4,612 51,122 13,878

02013 Legal Notices 3,590 43,063 66,850 A 86,126 0 86.126 (19,276)

02030 Administrative Expense - Elections 0 (8.799) 0 AJ-C (17,598) 17,598 0 0

02040 Armored Car Service 14,956 80.174 162,012 A 160,348 0 160,348 1,664

02050 Conference/Staff Development Expens 878 14.152 26.860 B 26,860 0 26,860 0

02070 Delivery Service 466 11,066 19.000 A 22,132 0 22,132 (3,132)

02080 DU$s & Subscriptions 10,273 218,275 247,862 B 247,862 0 247,862 0

02090 Property Less than $500 58,987 362.891 367,471 B 367,471 0 367,471 0

02150 License & Permit Fees 450 5,171 13,000 A 10,342 0 10,342 2,658

02155 Notary/Bonds Fees 1,436 5,348 10,203 A 10,696 0 10,696 (493)

02160 Office Supplies 123,519 942,911 1,241,545 B 1,241,545 0 1,241,545 0

02170 Postage 104,214 815.854 1,407,069 B 1,407,069 0 1,407,069 0

02180 Printing /Imaging Expense 14,788 182,034 706,985 B 706,985 0 706,985 0

02190 Publications 0 191 0 A 382 0 382 (382)

02220 DDA - Savings To Taxpayers 0 0 80.564 A 0 0 0 80,564

02230 DDA - Spendable Balance 24,827 89.826 744,486 G 179,652 564.834 744,486 0

02310 Petit Jury 96.072 410,460 875.000 A 820.920 0 820,920 54,080

02320 Grand Jury 0 0 60,000 AJ-S 0 60,000 60.000 0

02330 Visiting Judges 15,711 47,454 113.100 AJ-G 94.908 12,765 107.673 5,427

02340 Visiting.Court Reporters 33.942 166.172 482,000 AJ-G 332,344 15.799 348,143 133,857

02350 Election Workers 0 90.543 152,840 AJ-C 181,086 (90.543) 90.543 62,297

02410 Substitute Court Reporters 93.655 473.383 640.400 AJ-G 946.766 26.141 972.907 (332,507)

02415 Contract Court Reporters 0 0 100.000 AJ-G 0 0 0 100,000

02430 Consulting Fees 17.876 403,499 251,565 AJ-R 806.998 (305.433) 501.565 (250,000)

02440 Classroom Training 220 4.859 19,095 A 9,718 0 9.718 9,377

02460 Training Fees 999 2,170 13.920 A 4,340 0 4,340 9,580

02510 Ammunition/Explosives 335 6,722 47,800 B 47,800 0 47,800 0

02520 Crime Scene Supplies 247 2.950 4,800 B 4,800 0 4,800 0

02530 Law Enforcement Badges 33 4.529 16.500 A 9.058 0 9,058 7,442

02540 Groceries 544,632 2.624.283 5.849.895 AJ-R 5,248.566 650,000 5,898.566 (48,671 )

02545 Household Utensils 15.017 348.665 502,120 B 502,120 0 502,120 0

02550 Detention Supplies 26,145 572,328 608,558 B 608,558 0 608,558 0

02575 Clothing & Bedding 26,585 72,808 170,300 A 145,616 0 145.616 24,684

02580 Reserve Deputy Bond 0 0 920 A 0 0 0 920

025851nforrnant Fees 2.000 2,000 0 A 4,000 0 4,000 (4,000)

02590 County Auto Maintenance 98,912 325,419 993,461 AJ-B 650,838 300,000 950,838 42,623

02620 Towing / Road Service 147 7,919 900 A 15,838 0 15,838 (14.938)

02630 Radio Parts & Supplies 6.113 37,200 125.510 B 125,510 0 125,510 0

Page 1 of 4

A-7

117

DALLAS CODepartment Summary for Fund All Funds . Fiscal Year 2000 Budget

Current Period: MAR·FY~ODate: 10·APR~O 11 :10:14

Fund=00120 (General Fund). Year=2000March Total FY2000 FYOO Approved Code Base Manual Total Exp (Over Budget)

Account Expenditures Act + Encum Appropriation Projection Adjustment Projection Under Budget02640 Maintenance/Labor on Building/Office 47,369 310,742 398,035 AJ·B 621,484 (223,449) 398,035 a02650 Special Equipment Maintenance 11,720 44,630 51,500 AJ·B 89,260 (11,000) 78,260 (26,760)02660 Computer Maintenance (Non Contract 0 500 4,600 A 1,000 0 1,000 3,60002670 Elevator Maintenance 178,838 798.441 1,342,170 AJ-B 1,596,882 (254,712) 1,342.170 002680 Building Material 235 2.043 0 A 4,086 0 4,086 (4,086)02690 Hardware &Electrical Supplies 31,368 162,455 326,610 A 324,910 0 324,910 1,70002710 Plumbing Supplies 12,562 100.332 139,500 AJ-B 200,664 (80,000) 120,664 18,83602720 Janitorial Supplies 68,846 341,470 787,786 AJ·R 682,940 50,000 732,940 54,84602730 Small Tools 3,939 7,553 24,450 A 15.106 0 15,106 9,34402740 Painting Supplies 9,310 57,747 94.222 B 94,222 0 94,222 002750 Welding Supplies 953 10,903 13,000 B 13,000 0 13,000 002760 Ground Maintenance 7,391 33.127 20.027 AJ-B 66.254 (27,357) 38.897 (18,870)02770 ExtertninationJFumigation 3,964 44,983 45.500 B 45.500 0 45.500 002810 Groceries-Other 0 0 450 A 0 0 0 45002825 Animal &Livestock Feed & Supplies 702 6.536 11,500 A 13.072 0 13.072 (1,572)02830 Animal Disposal 0 400 500 A 800 0 800 (300)02835 Autopsy Supplies 284 21.376 45,000 A 42,752 0 42,752 2,24802840 Laboratory Supplies 73,212 468,577 701,750 AJ-B 937,154 (106,000) 831,154 (129,404)02845 Chemicals 0 1,207 5,050 A 2,414 0 2,414 2.63602850 Breath Alcohol Testing Supplies 0 96 7,500 AJ-B 192 7,000 7.192 30802860 Cylinder Gases 1.030 8,987 13,500 A 17,974 0 17.974 (4,474)02870 Drafting JSurvey Supplies 271 5,502 8.500 A 11.004 0 11,004 (2,504)02880 Election Supplies 35.329 144,504 174,000 AJ-e 289,008 (111,858) 177,150 (3.150)02890 Voting Machine Supplies 872 10,835 40.040 A 21,670 0 21,670 18,37002920 Drug &Medical Supplies 71,922 528,802 1,071.321 A 1,057,604 0 1,057,604 13,71702930 Photo iSupplies 19,748 104,471 251,820 A 208,942 0 208.942 42,87802940 Laundry &Cleaning Supplies 1,042 6,267 46,250 A 12,534 0 12,534 33,71602950 Books .& Supplements 25,553 172,602 249,089 B 249,089 0 249.089 002960 Training Supplies 13.027 28,292 27.182 A 56.584 0 56.584 (29,402)02970 Uniforms 27.736 200,474 372,546 B 372,546 0 372.546 002975Payment Old Cancelled Warrants 138 138 15,391 A 276 0 276 15,11502980 Auto/Expense - Incidental 5.830 20,843 32,378 A 41.686 0 41,686 (9,308)02995 •PsycholOgical Services 1.877 11,914 10.200 A 23.828 0 23.828 (13.628)03002 Lumber 0 1,375 3,000 A 2,750 0 2,750 25003003 Fencing Material 0 0 750 B 750 0 750 003010 CementSacrete 0 1.000 1,000 A 2.000 0 2,000 (1,000)03030 Hazardous Waste Disposal 8,593 49,544 156,100 A 99.088 0 99.088 57,01203040 Trash 1 Litter Removal 794 256,581 420,300 AJ-B 513,162 (172,100) 341.062 79,23803050 Signage 0 3,604 20,731 A 7,208 0 7,208 13.52303070 Death/Burial Expense 7.400 43,830 77,100 A 87,660 0 87,660 (10.560)03090 ReportingVital Statistics 726 1,984 4,660 A 3,968 0 3,968 69203095·Fuel 0 0 9,200 A 0 0 0 9,20004010 Business Travel 11,792 133,572 480,925 AJ-R 267,144 150.000 417,144 63,78104110 Legislative Travel 1,498 7,653 30,000 A 15.306 0 15.306 14,69404210 Conference Travel 754 4.443 36,180 A 8.886 0 8.886 27,2940441ORel~tion Expense 0 0 15,000 A 0 0 0 15,00005020 Day Treatment Program 158,465 766,802 2,181,800 AJ-S 1.533,604 710.049 2.243.653 (61,853)05040 Residel"ltial Placement 510,837 2,739,790 6,663,300 AJ-S 5,479,580 1,516,777 6.996,357 (333,057)05050 Juvenile Groceries 19,581 157,542 211,400 A 315,084 (93,384) 221.700 (10,300)05060 Emergency Foster Care 1,608 37,067 208,100 AJ-S 74,134 35.959 110.093 98,00705070 Long-Term Foster Care 4,226 43,202 251,900 AJ-S 86,404 112,147 198,551 53.34905080 School/Recreation Expense 899 57,549 62,000 AJ-S 115,098 (55.298) 59.800 2.20005090 Non-CQurt Related Expense (1.214) (5,850) 0 AJ-S (11.700) 11.700 0 005110.Emergency Food Assistance 10,724 67,215 131.100 AJ-A 134.430 8,444 142,874 (11,774)

05120 Emergency Medical Assistance 334 1,093 1,400 AJ-A 2,186 (135) 2,051 (651)

05130 Mortgage Assistance 26.545 131,059 182,300 AJ-A 262,118 5.097 267.215 (84,915)

05140 TransPQrtation Assistance 328 29,959 78,397 AJ-A 59,918 83,397 143.315 (64,918)

05150 RentalA$sistance- Emergency 231,442 1.039,077 1.518.100 AJ-A 2,078,154 (30,804) 2,047.350 (529,250)

05160 Furnishings Assistance 0 5,466 6.200 AJ-A 10,932 (4,732) 6.200 0

Page 2 of 4

~ ..g

118DALLAS_CO

Department Summary for Fund All Funds . Fiscal Year 2000 BudgetCurrent Period: MAR·FY-oODate: 10·APR-G0 11:10:14

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000March Total FY2000 FYOO Approved Code Base Manual Total Exp (Over BUdget)

Account Expenditures Act + Encum Appropriation Projection Adjustment Projection Under Budget05170 Room & Board 42,414 237,985 354.100 AJ·A 475.970 17.776 493.746 (139.646)05180 Utilities Assistance 0 0 229.900 A 0 0 0 229.90005181 Utilities Assistance· Elderly 9.090 27.039 0 A 54,078 0 54.078 (54,078)05182 Utilities Assistance - Emergency 32.941 158,457 0 A 316.914 (134.741 ) 182,173 (182.173)05183 Utilities Assistance - Co Payment 8.878 48.121 0 A 96.242 0 96.242 (96,242)05190 Testing Expense 1.053 1.053 1.000 A 2.106 0 2.106 (1.106)05560 Sign Painting & Lettering 1.085 2,820 6,000 A 5,640 0 5.640 36005580 Medical Services 0 0 168.350 A 0 0 0 168.35005590 Other Professional Fees 2.023,433 7.645.639 6.602,421 AJ-R 6,602,421 (250.000) 6.352.421 250.00005610 Judical Region· Local Issue 0 113,540 121.252 AJ-G 121.252 (7,712) 113.540 7,71206020 Court Appointed Attomey • Misdemean 142,290 766.820 2,062,700 AJ-G 1.533,640 (17,452) 1,516.188 546.51206030 Court Appointed Attorney· Felony 534,587 2,545,412 5.634,700 AJ-G 5.090.824 249.838 5.340.662 294.03806040 Court Appointed Attorney· Penalty 168,213 482,644 831,600 AJ-G 965.288 108.808 1.074.096 (242,496)06050 Court Appointed Attorney - Appeals 134.513 589,500 1.558,000 AJ-G 1,179.000 20,906 1.199,906 358.09406060 Court Appointed Attorney - Investigator 22,897 104.581 225,900 AJ-G 209.162 4.224 213,386 12.51406070 Court Appointed Attorney -Delinquenc 176,267 953,209 2,436,900 AJ-G 1.906,418 134,804 2,041,222 395,67806080 Court Appointed Attorney· Child Welta 135.843 624,208 1.269,700 AJ-G 1.248.416 108,467 1.356.883 (87.183)06090 Court Appointed Advocates 1,980 19.338 34,400 AJ-G 38.676 14.893 53,569 (19.169)06095 Court Appointed Masters/Referees 3,977 12,219 33.000 A 24.438 0 24,438 8,56206110 Psychiatric Investigation 40,069 132,431 224,300 AJ-G 264,862 19,399 284.261 (59.961)0612Q Transcripts of Proceedings 117,176 391,224 812,500 AJ-G 782,448 48.785 831,233 (18,733)06130 Court Appointed Interpreter 34,427 163,588 282.600 AJ-G 327,176 10,449 337,625 (55.025)06140 Expert Testimony 11,192 42.007 106.300 AJ-G 84,014 2.835 86.849 19,45106150 Juror Housing & Meals 1,214 4.605 25,000 B 25,000 0 25,000 006160 Witness Fees 17,915 50,388 130.000 A 100.776 0 100,776 29.22406170 Trial Expense Other Court Costs 14,681 97,093 240.500 A 194,186 0 194,186 46.31406180 Expenses -Visiting Judges & CT Reper 13,795 63,839 116,300 AJ-G 127.678 12,739 140,417 (24,117)06510 Appraisal District Share 668,701 1,337.402 2.674.802 A 2.674.804 0 2.674.804 (2)06520 Maintenance Contracts 8,700 589,742 1,275.868 A 1,179,484 0 1,179,484 96,38406521 Computer/Peripheral Maint. Agreemen 0 2,110 0 A 4,220 0 4.220 (4.220)06522 Two-Way Radios 0 72.752 140.000 A 145.504 0 145.504 (5.504)06530 CPS Contracts 51,320 273,926 1,410.738 B 1,410,738 0 1,410.738 006540 Data Processing Contract 0 0 8.012.500 B 8,012.500 0 8.012.500 006550 EMS Service 19.275 164,392 87,300 B 87,300 0 87,300 006560 Fire Fighting 0 14,612 55.000 A 29,224 0 29,224 25.77606570 Janitorial Service -Contractual 40.529 1,250.058 1,470.000 AJ-B 1,470,000 (100.000) 1,370,000 100.00006580 Medical School Contract 0 93.919 187,840 A 187,838 0 187,838 206590 Mental Health Contracts 392,418 2.402.508 5.131,650 B 5,131,650 0 5,131.650 006610 Records Management Contracts 0 0 850 A 0 0 0 85006620 Other Contractual Services 9,380 31,000 338.000 AJ-B 62,000 200,000 262,000 76,000

07010 Building Rental 46,967 320.683 639,682 A 641,366 0 641.366 (1,684)

07020 Equipment Rental 76,066 540,522 643,204 B 643,204 0 643,204 007030 Other Rental 2,991 103,497 167,698 B 167,698 0 167,698 007040 Voting Machine Rental 1,025 13,575 0 AJ-e 27.150 (13,575) 13,575 (13,575)

07050 Truck Rental 1,516 17,791 110,000 A 35,582 0 35,582 74,418

07210 Telecommunications 24,295 54,282 1,530,607 B 1,530,607 0 1,530,607 0

07211 Telephones 160,054 689,543 83,840 B 83,840 0 83,840 0

07212 Long Distance 13,525 58,433 0 AJ-B 116,866 78.762 195,628 (195.628)

07213 Cellular Phones 19,985 100.379 210,091 A 200,758 0 200,758 9,333

07214 Pagers 7,609 48,219 48,466 B 48,466 0 48.466 0

07230 Utilities 548,531 3,228,849 6,264,030 B 6,264,030 0 6,264,030 0

07234 Cable Television 0 255 240 A 510 0 510 (270)

07540lnsuance 0 0 6,000 B 6,000 0 6,000 0

07541 General Liability 0 0 14,239 B 14.239 0 14,239 0

07542 Property Insurance 0 0 141,677 B 141,677 0 141,677 0

07560 Claims Against County 71,687 (143,556) 497,571 B 497,571 0 497,571 0

07570 Obsolete. Inventory Write Off 0 0 1,000 A 0 0 0 1.000

07580 Financial Service fees 0 0 1,860 A 0 0 0 1,860

07930 Transfer to Other Funds 810.169 2,638,966 3,517,450 B 3,517,450 0 3,517,450 0

Page 3 of 4

A-q

119DALLAS_CO

Department Summary for Fund All Funds Fiscal Year 2000 BudgetCurrent Period: MAR·FY-<>ODate: 10·APRoOO 11 :10:14

Fund=00120 (General Fund), Year=2000March Total FY2000 FYOO Approved Code Base Manual Total Exp (Over Budget)

Account Expenditures Act + Encum Appropria tion Projection Adjustment Projection Under Budget07940 Transfer to State 7,567 33,098 78,992 A 66,196 0 66.196 12,79607950 Local Match for Grants Q ~ 2938536 &l:e. 2 SJa 5J6 1.&.8.5.1 J 075 3a7 (136851 )

Total Operating Expenses 9.673,544 46,883,220 96,523,555 92,518,766 3,425.701 95,944,467 579,088Change From Previous Month

08130 Building Improvements 0 5,429 322,270 B 322,270 0 322,270 008132 Major Elevator Improvements 0 11,016 610,000 B 610,000 0 610,000 008135 In House Alterations 0 10,722 0 AJ-B 0 10,722 10.722 (10.722)08410 Furniture & Equipment 1,613 46,793 106,178 0 100,869 0 100.869 5.30908520 Telecommunication Equipment 951 16,217 426,050 B 426,050 0 426.050 008610 Special Equipment 103,375 610,905 894,979 AJ-R 850,230 800.000 1.650,230 (755.251 )

08620 Vehicles 375,534 1,439,514 1,546,275 AJ-R 1,468,961 77,314 1.546,275 (0)

08625 Trucks 0 0 477.925 AJ·R 454,029 23,896 477,925 008630 Computer Hardware 51.861 414.981 525,244 AJ·B 498,982 14.544 513,526 11.718

08640 Computer Software ~ ~ .1.2.1..m Q ~ ~ ~ &illTotal Capital Expenses 533,984 2,620,956 5,070,254 4.884,657 903,968 5,788,625 (718,371)

Change From Previous Month

Grand Total 27,871.299 152.781',622 309,916,040 309,449,235 6,341,948 315,791,183 (5,875,143)

Page 4 of 4

A -10

120

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND EVALUATION

THREE-YEAR REVENUE AND EXPENDITUREFORECAST

APRIL 25, 2000

PREPARED BY: Carlo Pacot - RevenueBrian Pokluda - Expenditures

A-II

121TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Three-Year Revenue / Expenditure Forecast (Table IA)

2 Three-Year Revenue / Expenditure Forecast (Table ill)

3 Revenue Assumptions

4 Revenue Trends (Table II)

5 Expenditure Assumptions

6 Expenditure Trends (Table III)

A -12.

122

TABLE IAThree-Year Financial Forecast 11°~ Expenditure Growth

($ Thousands)

Growth FY01 FY02 FY03FYOO Projection Rate* Projection Projection Projection

I General Fund Tax Rate (cents) 14.42 13.41 12.74 12.23Beginning Balance 37,162 N/A 29,387 29,081 38,690

Recurring RevenuesTaxes, Lie. & Registrations 153,024 157,047 160,869 164,538Fines & Forfeitures 7,829 8.99% 8,533 9,300 10,136Fees of Office 43,220 7.04% 46,264 49,522 53,009Contributions / Transfers 38,600 7.82% 41,620 44,875 48,386State Fees 12,303 4.89% 12,905 13,536 14,198Interest Earnings 7,578 0.07% 7,583 7,589 7,594Other Revenue Earned from Prop. 3,742 7.00% 4,004 4,284 4,584Reimbursement for Services 24,637 7.11% 26,388 28,263 30,271Miscellaneous 5,842 2.92% 6,013 6,189 6,370

otalRec Revenue and Beginning Bal. 333,937 5.73% 339,742 353,507 377,776

Non-Recurring RevenuesINS Detainees 7,400 6,000 6,000 6,000Federal Prisoners 600 600 600 600Out-of-State Jail Lease 1,700 ° ° °Other Texas County Jail Lease 541 1000 ° °Total Non-Recurring Revenues 10,241 7,600 6,600 6,600

Disencumbered Funds 1,000

Sources of Funds 345,178 347,342 360,107 384,376

ExpendituresRecurring Expenditures 300,058 1.00% 303,059 306,089 309,150Juvenile Placement 9,484 1.00% 9,579 9,675 9,771Utility Expense 6,249 0.50% 5,624 5,652 5,681

Total Expenditures 315,791 318,262 321,416 324,602

Ending Balance 29,387 N/A 29,081 38,690 59,774

Policy Target for Ending Balance IReserve 33,158 N/A 33,417 33,749 34,083

Amount Above I (Below) PolicyTarget (3,771) (4,337) 4,942 25,691

• Projected growth rate=the previous three year growth trend.

··Increase of revenue at the effective tax rate and $3 Billion annual new construction

A,3

123

TABLEIBThree-Year Financial Forecast I 30k Expenditure Growth

($ Thousands)

Growth FY01 FY02 FY03FYOO Projection Rate* Projection Projection Projection

I General Fund Tax Rate (cents) 14.42 13.41 12.74 12.23Beginning Balance 37,162 N/A 29,387 23,079 20,447

Recurring RevenuesTaxes, Lie. & Registrations 153,024 157,047 160,869 164,538Fines & Forfeitures 7,829 8.99% 8,533 9,300 10,136Fees of Office 43,220 7.04% 46,264 49,522 53,009Contri butions / Transfers 38,600 7.82% 41,620 44,875 48,386State Fees 12,303 4.89% 12,905 13,536 14,198Interest Earnings 7,578 0.07% 7,583 7,589 7,594Other Revenue Earned from Prop. 3,742 7.00% 4,004 4,284 4,584Reimbursement for Services . 24,637 7.11% 26,388 28,263 30,271Miscellaneous 5,842 2.92% 6,013 6,189 6,370

otal Rec Revenue and Beginning Bal. 333,937 5.73% 339,742 347,505 359,532

Non-Recurring RevenuesINS Detainees 7,400 6,000 6,000 6,000Federal Prisoners 600 600 600 600Out-of-State Jail Lease 1,700 0 0 0Other Texas County Jail Lease 541 1000 0 a

Total Non-Recurring Revenues 10,241 7,600 6,600 6,600

Disencumbered Funds 1,000

Sources of Fund 345,178 347,342 354,105 366,132

ExpendituresRecurring Expenditures 300,058 3.00% 309,060 318,332 327,881

Juvenile Placement 9,484 1.00% 9,579 9,675 9,771

Uti lity Expense 6,249 0.50% 5,624 5,652 5,681

Total Expenditures 315,791 324,263 333,658 343,333

Ending Balance 29,387 N/A 23,079 20,447 22,799

Policy Target for Ending Balance /Reserve 33,158 N/A 34,048 35,034 36,050

Amount Above / (Below) PolicyTarget (3,771) (10,968) (14,587) (13,251)

* Projected growth rate=the previous three year growth trend.

"Increase of revenue at the effective tax rate and $3 Billion annual new construction

A-Ii-2

124

REVE~UE ASSU~IPTIONS AND E~VIRON~IENTALFACTORS

Recurring RevenuesProperty taxes are projected using the following assumptions:

a. New construction will be at $3 billion per year; with tax rates set at the effective rate, increase inrevenue will come from new construction only.

b. Property values are expected to grow at 7 percent in 2001, 5 percent in 2002, and 4 percent in2003. As the tax rate is rolled back to the effective rate each year, the revenue from the previousyear's growth increases at a diminishing rate. Table below shows the projected tax rates andincreases in property tax revenues on the above assumptions:

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003Growth Rate 7% 5% 4%

EFF Rate/$100 Valuation 0.1442 0.134106 0.1274007 0.122304672

Annual New Construction 3,000,000,000

New Constr Tax Revenue 4,326,000 4,023,180 3,822,021 3,669,140

c. Other recurring revenues are projected using the growth trend in the last three years.

Non- Recurring RevenuesThe historically non-recurring revenues (such as state jail lease and federal inmatesreimbursements) are projected with no growth in the next five years assuming continued receipt ofsuch revenues. The exception to this method is out-of-state jail leases that will end in FY2000.

3

A-/5

125

TABLE II

Dallas County Revenue Trends($ Thousands)

AverageAnnual

Auditor GrowthActual Projected Rate

Revenue Sources FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO (3 Year)

Recurring RevenuesTaxes, lie. & Registrations 105,685 126,722 129,473 133,434 141,399 153,024 5.77%Fines & Forfeitures 3,177 3,917 5,027 7,140 8,165 7,829 8.99%Fees of Office 31,448 35,054 33,884 36,079 39,792 43,220 704%Contributions / Transfers 29,233 30,354 28,527 28,171 36,904 38,600 782%State Fees 8,799 9,325 9,643 10,569 10,712 12,303 4.89%Interest Earnings 6,303 6,441 7,394 7,501 7,203 7,578 0.07%Other Revenue Earned from Prop. 2,847 3,120 3,146 3,282 3,616 3,742 7.00%Reimbursement for Services 13,780 22,741 20,395 22,031 26,666 24,637 7.11%Miscellaneous 7,414 4,711 5,307 7,850 6,188 5,842 2.92%

Total Recurring Revenues 208,686 242,385 242,796 256,057 280,645 296,775 6.42%

Non-Recurring RevenuesINS Detainees 4,298 7,465 4,514 7,400Federal Prisoners 1n 741 452 600Out-of-State Jail Lease 4,072 5,238 6,175 2,635 1,700Texas Inmate Jail Lease 21,125 439 6 541

Total Non-Recurring Revenues 21,125 4,511 9,713 14,381 7,607 10,241

Grand Total 229,811 246,896 252,509 270,438 288,252 307,016

Tax Rate (cents) 20.24 21.61 21.00 20.10 19.72 19.60 -2%Taxable Value ($ billions) 76.08 79.49 83.62 90.02 97.70 106.60 8%

4

A -Ie,

126EXPE~DITURE ASSUMPTIONS AND ENVIRONI\'IENTAL FACTORS

The expenditure forecast assumes that most costs can be forecast in a linear fashion over the shortterm. These recurring costs rise in roughly the same proportion each year. Some expenditures,however, do not follow the general environmental trend and are more closely related to specifictrends. The assumptions used for each of these categories follows.

Recurring expendituresThese expenditures include personnel costs and general operating expenses. The OBE modelassumes that these expenses, including salary increases, will grow less aggressively than inprevious years. The large salary increases experienced in FY99 and the additional funding foremployee insurance in FY2000 are not expected to be recurring events. The OBE model assumesthat our recurring expenditures will grow at a rate of 1% or 3% per year given two cases run byOBE.

Juvenile PlacementThe number of juvenile placements is difficult to predict in the short term. The growth anddecline in placements has been erratic over the past several years. Over the long term, however,an upward trend is anticipated. The OBE model projects a 1% annual increase in these expensesthrough FY2005.

Utility ExpenseBeginning in FY99, the County underwent a major energy improvement program. The savings ofthis program are already impacting they FY2000 expenditures. The full impact of the savings willbe felt by FY2001. After FY200 1, the County's energy expense is expected to begin a slow yearlyincrease as utility rates rise over time. A. 5% annual increase is used after FY2001 for the OBEmodel.

5

A-J1

127

TABLE III

Dallas County Historical Expenditure Trends(in $ Thousands)

3- YearAverage

ProJ~ YearlyBudget Category FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYoo Growth Comments

The large salary Increases InFY99 and the additional fUnding

Recurring Expenditures 223,496 223,423 235,592 255,629 271,924 300,058 8.4% of employee Insurance inFY2000 are not expected to berecurnng events

While short term trends are

Juvenile Placement 9,781 7,561 8,250 8,187 7,640 9,484 56%difficult to predict, there is a longterm trend upward in the numberof placements made each year

Although the County WIll beuSing substantially less

Utility Expense 6,541 6,633 6,181 6,789 6,694 6,249 0,6%electnclty due to the EnergyImprovement program, theCounty's expenses are stilisubject to fuel cost Increases,

Subtotal Non-Llne.rExpenditures 16,322 14,194 14,430 14,97' 14,334 15,733

Expenditure Grand Total 239,819 237,617 250,022 270,605 288,251 315,791

6

A-IS

128APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS

GENERAL FUNDCounty TceaSULeL 10~Q

1020 Salary Assistant5590 Other Professional Fees

PerSQnneJLCjyiLSerYlc.a10-401160 Unemployement Insurance1170 Child Care Subsidy1190 Workers Compensation - County2011 Classified Advertising

Employee Health Center (1110)2920 Drug & Medical Supplies

Elections 12102350 Election Workers2880 Election Supplies

welfare Assistance (2070), 5110 Emergency Food Assistance

5130 Mortgage Assistance5140 Transportation Assistance5150 Rental Assistance5170 Room & Board5180 Utility Assistance

Constable precinct 1 32101080 Mileage Reimbursement

Sheriff Executive 31102160 Office Supplies2170 Postage

Sheriff General Services 31211120 Sick Leave Payoff

Sheriff Warrants 31301120 Sick Leave Payoff

Sheriff Fugitive 31311120 Sick Leave Payoff

Sheriff.Detention Services 31402160 Office Supplies

Sheriff North Tower 31411020 Salaries - Assistant1050 Salaries - Overtime1120 Sick Leave Payoff

Sheriff West Tower 31421020 Salaries - Assistant1050 Salaries - Overtime

Decrease Increase

1,1351,135

275,75538,951

706,70524,297

5,000

62,2973,150

37,70070,500

6,800542,100130,20087,700

8,000

3,5001,000

15,828

1,485

4,493

2,000

550,000900,166

2,014

475,000632,213

A-I'l

Net Dept.~_~c~ng_~ _

o

416,296

5,000

(59,147)

875,000

8,000

4,500

15,828

1,485

4,493

2,000

352,180

129APPENDIX C


GENERAL FUND Decrease Increase1120 Sick Leave Payoff -----2~954

Sheriff.Suz;anntla~A1020 Salaries - Assistant 400,0001050 Salaries - Overtime 507,2201120 Sick Leave Payoff 612740 Painting Supplies 1,500

Sheriff Allen 31451020 Salaries - Assistant 75,0001050 Salaries - Overtime 160,8401120 Sick Leave Payoff 15

Sheriff Decker 31461020 Salaries - Assistant 275,0001050 Salaries - Overtime 374,5611120 Sick Leave Payoff 99

Sheriff Central Intake 31471020 Salaries - Assistant 75,0001050 Salaries - Overtime 75,0001120 Sick Leave Payoff 1,0132550 Detention Supplies 20,0002640 Office Equipment Maintenance 20,000

Sheriff Classification and Release 31501020 Salaries - Assistant 30,0001050 Salaries - Overtime 30,0001120 Sick Leave Payoff 501

Sheriff Central Kitchen 31522540 Groceries 150,0002545 Household Utensils 15,0002720 Janitorial Supplies 15,000

Qrug Court PrQgram (4013)2410 Substitute Court Reporter 16,5006180 Expenses - Visiting Judge 10,000

Jury Services (4060)1020 Salaries - Assistant 94,4601030 Salaries - Bailiffs 94,4602170 Postage 15,000

A-ZO

Net Dept.Change

160,167

108,781

85,855

99,660

1,013

501

150,000

26,500

15,000

130APPENDIX C


Net Dept.GENERAL FUND Decrease Increase .__~hai'ge _CQurtCQS1Mi.s.c.ellaneous 4080

~-_.._-_ .._--

2330 Visiting Judge 9,8552340 Visiting Court Reporter 47,2762410 Substitute Court Reporters 67,0006020 CAA - Misdemeanor 50,0006040 CAA - Death Penalty 370,0006070 Court Appointed Attorneys 97,500 280,0006080 Court Appointed Attorneys 46,0006090 Court Appointed Advocates 4,0386110 Psychiatric Investigation 35,0006120 Transcript of Proceedings 40,0006130 Court Appointed Interpreter 64,8906180 Expenses - Visiting Judge 14,355

(565,914)68th Civil District Court 4120

2410 Substitute Court Reporters 2,0002,000

95th Civil District Court 41252410 Substitute Court Reporters 33,5921040 Salaries Court Reporter 33,592

0101st Civil District Court 4130

2090 Property less than $500 6258410 Furniture & Equipment 625

°160th Civil District Court 41452340 Visiting Court Reporters 1,8766180 Expenses - Visiting judge 2,000

3,876162nd Civil District Court 4150

2410 Substitute Court Reporters 5,0005,000

191 st Cjvil District Court 41552090 Property less than $500 3,8878410 Furniture & Equipment 3,8876180 Expenses - Visiting Judge 1,080

1,080193rd Civil District Court 4165

2330 Visiting JUdge 8556180 Expenses - Visiting Judge 1,275

2,130298th Civil District Court 4170

2090 Property less than $500 838838

Civil District Masters 41752160 Office Supplies 500

500

A-21

131APPENDIX C


GENERAL FUND254tb_Eamit¥J2istrict Court (4210)

2410 Substitute Court Reporters6070 Court Appointed Attorneys6110 Psychiatric Evaluations6130 Court Appointed Interpreter

255.1tl£amily District Court (4215)2410 Substitute Court Reporters6070 Court Appointed Attorneys

301 st Family District Court (4225)6130 Court Appointed Interpreter

3Q2nd Family District Court (4230)2410 Substitute Court Reporters6070 Court Appointed Attorneys6110 Psychiatric Evaluations

'3Q3rd Family District Court (4235)2410 Substitute Court Reporter6070 Court Appointed Attorneys

330th Family District Court (4240)2340 Visiting Court Reporters2410 Substitute Court Reporters6120 Transcript of Proceedings

IV-D Courts (4250)2340 Visiting Court Reporters6130 Court Appointed Interpreters

304th Juvenile District Court (4310)5590 Other Professional Fees6130 Court Appointed Interpreter

3Q5th Juvenile District Court (4320)5590 Other Professional Fees6070 Court Appointed Attorneys6080 Court Appointed Attorneys6130 Court Appointed Interpreters

Criminal District Court #1 44016040 CAA - Death Penalty

Criminal District Court #2 44022340 Visiting Court Reporter6040 CAA - Death Penalty

Criminal District Court #3 44036040 CAA - Death Penalty

Decrease

125,000

155,000

A-22

Net Dept.Increase __,~~~nge ..,-_.._-~._~,.,.__._._---

10,00017,50030,000

3,00060,500

9,500

(115,500)

3,3003,300

1,700

5,000(148,300)

12,00020,000

32,000

5,3008,300

40,00053,600

9,6004,700

14,300

72,3006,000

78,300

60,20060,00046,000

4,000170,200

50,00050,000

20,000140,000

160,000

20,00020,000

132APPENDIX C


GENERAL FUNDCriminaLDistrict Court #194th 4410

2340 Visiting Court Reporter

Cuminal District CmLrt~2651b 443.Q6040 CM - Death Penalty

Crlcninal District Court #291 st 44456040 CM - Death Penalty

Criminal District Magistrates 44606130 Court Appointed Interpreter

Staff Attorneys (4465)1020 Salaries - Assistant1150 Fringe Benefits Retirement

County Court at Law #1 45012160 Office Supplies2415 Contract Court Reporters2410 Substitute Court Reporters

County Court at Law #2 45022340 Visiting Court Reporters

Decrease

50,000

Increase

10,000

70,000

40,000

35,000

7,870550

482

50,000

500

Net Dept.__C~_ange _

10,000

70,000

40,000

35,000

8.420

482

500County Court at Law #3 4503

1040 Salaries Court Reporter1020 Salaries Assistant

County Court at Law #4 45042410 Substitute Court Reporter

County Court at Law #5 45052415 Contract Court Reporters2410 Substitute Court Reporters

County Criminal Court #3 46036020 CM- Misd.

County Criminal Court #5 46052330 Visiting Judges

County Criminal Court #7 46076040 CM - Death Penalty

Probate Court #1 47012090 Property less than $5002160 Office Supplies2160 Office Supplies

Probate Court #2 47021120 Sick Leave Payoff

67.49267.492

2,000

50,00050,000

50,000

9,000

50,000

930500930

1,640

A-23

°2,000

o

50,000

9,000

50,000

500

1,640

133APPENDIX C


A-2+

134APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED BUDGET AOJUSTMENTS

Net Dept.GENERAL FUND Decrease Increase ChangeInmate H.ealih Services (5217)

~._-----

1020 Salaries - Assistant 492,6001050 Salaries - Overtime 6,4001060 Salaries - Extra Help 30,6001110 Social Security 21,8001150 Fringe Benefits Retirement 16,6002090 Property Under $500 2,8002920 Drugs & Medical Supplies 7,0005580 Medical Services 168,3505590 Other Professional Fees 168,3508130 Building Improvements 45,0008610 Special Equipment 14,6008630 Computer Hardware 15,600 46,1008640 Computer Software 15,600

683,500Miscellaneous Countywide 9910

1120 Sick Leave Payoff 30,7781140 Insurance - Employer 2,247,0002012 Advertisment for Bids 13,8782430 Consulting Fees 200,000

2,402,344

GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,965,227 9,445,038 5,479,811

A-25

135APPENDIX C


GENERAL FUND

FWldi09._SQUfC~_S9110 Unallocated Reserve9120 Emergency Reserve

GENERAL FUND TOTAL

Decrease

575,0004,904,811

5,479,811

A-2G>

IncreaseNet Dept.

_~~t!!'1~~~_

136

May 2, 2000

MISCELLANEOUS

1) DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATION - requests pennission to accept thedonation of artwork being painted by honors art students from Cedar Hill HighSchool for the George Allen Sr. Courts Building and authorization to hang theartwork on floors 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the east walls near the elevators.

2) PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT - requests the immediate purchase of eight (8)Microsoft Access software licenses with manuals to replace their current non Y2Kcompatible database software program called "Professional Files." Microsoft Accesswill be used to assist in the day to day operations of posting jobs (requisition),detennining salaries, storing typing tests, job descriptions, civil service history andemployee infonnation for quick access. Unit cost for this software is $154 (softwarelicense) + $24 (manual) for a total cost of $178 or $1,424 for eight packages.Funding is available from Unallocated Reserve. Recommended by M.I.S. Directorand the Office of Budget and Evaluation.

3) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARIMENT - requests the transfer of $6,984 from GeneralFund, Public Works Department, Assistants' Salaries Account, FY2000 Budget,(00120.1022.01020.2000) to General Fund, Public Works Department, Extra HelpAccount, FY2000 Budget, (00120.1022.01060.2000) to create a temporaryengineering professional support position. Public Works currently has severalengineering vacancies which it has had difficulty filling. In order to prevent delayof projects, a twelve-week temporary position is requested in order to hire anengineering intern for the summer. The Personnel Department has estimated thatprofessional support meeting the requirements of Public Works would cost theCounty approximately $14.55 per hour. Recommended by the Office ofBudget andEvaluation.

137

TRAVEL REQUESTS

4) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - (revised dates only, previously approved August3, 1999) - John Harris - Basic Video School @ National intelligence Academy Coral Springs, FL - May 22-28, 2000 and August 6-12,2000: $4,423.44 from NorthTexas Auto Theft Task Force Grant FundlDepartment, Business Travel Account,FY99 Budget, (00466.05600/1998.04010.1999).

5) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - Selas Camarillo - Continuing EducationCourse "Surveying CEU" - Corpus Christi, TX - May 16-19, 2000: $384 fromGeneral Fund, Public Works Department, Training & Development Account,FY2000 Budget, (00120.2010.02050.2000).

6) DISTRICT CLERK - Jim Hamlin - Review Electronic Filing and Electronic Imaging- Houston, TX - May 2-4, 2000: $386 from General Fund, District Clerk Department,Business Travel Account, FY2000 Budget, (00120.4020.04010.2000 and$155 fromGeneral Fund, District Clerk Department, Auto Expense-Incidental Account, FY2000Budget, (00120.4020.02980.2000).

7) HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - requests:

a) Wilson Judd - Compis Data Managers Meeting .. Austin, TX - May 4-5, 2000at no cost to Dallas County.

b) Edward Bannister - Operation of BSL-3 Laboratory Conference - SanAntonio, TX - May 5-6, 2000 at no cost to Dallas County.

c) Thomas Rav - DOE Leadbased Paint Policy Training - Arlington, TX - May11, 2000: $50 (registration fee) from Grant Fund, DOE Department, TrainingFee Account, FY2000 Budget, (00466.8305.02460.2000).

d) Kevin Anthony - Section 8 Housing Quality Standards Training - Columbia,SC - June 4-8,2000: $2,443 from Grant Fund, Section 8 Department, TrainingFee Account, FY2000 Budget, (00466.08001.02460.2000).

138

e) Danny Williams - Section 8 Housing Quality Standards Training - Seattle,WA - July 12-14, 2000: $1,988 from Grant Fund, Section 8 Department,Training Fee Account, FY2000 Budget, (00466.08001.02460.2000).

EXCEPTION TO TRAVEL REQUESTSUNLESS SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO, ALL ITEMS PRESENTED

AS EXCEPTIONS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROVED

8) PROBATE COURT #3 (LOVING) - Economics Institutes for State Judges Course Lawrence, KS and Duck Key, FL - February 26-March 3, 2000 and March 18-25,2000: $729 from General Fund, Probate Ct. #3 Education Fund, FY1999 Budget,(00532.21667.1999).

9) HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - Tom Thomas, Rick Schene, and WilliamLongoria - TDH Strategic Planning Meeting - Austin, TX - April 27..;28, 2000 at nocost to Dallas County.

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

I) DEPARTMENTS: 41754180

ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCES:

PROPOSED ACTION:

Civil District Court MastersCivil Tax Court3 Lexis subscriptions$300Miscellaneous CourtCosts - Books & Supplements00120.417~.02080.2QOO (General Fund, CivilDistrict Masters, Dues & Subscription, FY2000)for $20000120.4180.02Q80.200Q (General Fund, CivilTqx Court, Dues & SubscriptiQns, FY2000) forUQ2The Civil District Masters and the Civil TaxMaster do not currently have access to electroniclegal information. These judges rely on thelibraries ofindividual judges and the County LawLibrary for their reference material.

2)

3)

4)

DEPART:rv1ENTS: 4609ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCES:

PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTMENT: 5213ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTMENT: 7114

ITEMS:

ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

139

Subscriptions to the on-line Lexis service willprovide them with reliable information at a lowerprice than providing traditional libraries.Recommended by the Office of Budget andEvaluation.

County Criminal Court #9 (Judge Anderson)Court Report recorder$2,966Unallocated Reserves00120.4609.08610.2000 (General Fund, CountyCriminal Court #9. Special Equipment. FY2000)County Criminal Court #11, Judge KeithAnderson, requests that the court reporterrecorder be replaced. The recorder was damaged

. during a water leak , and is a necessarycomponent of the court operations.Recommended by the Office of Budget andEvaluation.

Prevention HealthI ethemet computer cable$205Office Supplies00120.5213.08630.2000 (General Fund.Prevention Health. Computer Hardware.FY2000)This transfer is needed to purchase an ethernetcable for pt Floor Foreign Travel RM #141 tosupport a new cash register program that is to belinked with several servers. Recommended by theMIS Director.

Juvenile Department In-Home FamilyPreservation Program4 - cell phones, lighter adapters, carrying case, &rate plans$780In-Home Family Preservation Program Grant00466.0000.07213.2000.0000.00000.07114(Grant Fund, Cellular Phones. FY2000. In HomeFamily Preservation Program Grant)

5)

PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTlVfENT: 105.2510ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:

EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

PROPOSED ACTION:

140

The Juvenile Department requests (4) fourcellular phones for probation officers working inthe In-Home Family Preservation program.Program is grant funded. Recommended byCentral Communications and Services.

Road and Bridge District #12 - portable radios ($700 each)$1,400Road and Bridge District # 1, New ProgramContingency00105.251006522.2000 (Road and Bridge Fund,District #1, Two-way Radios, FY2000)Road and Bridge District #1 requests approval topurchase two portable radios to assist in traffic

. direction on construction projects. Recommendedby the Office of Budget and Evaluation.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS REQUESTS

Telecommunication M-0004049 - requests to install a new upgraded attendant console tothe SecuritylInfonnation booth at the George Allen Courts Building. Installation: $1250.00;no monthly service increase. Recommended.Note: Equipment will be prOVided sole source by Affiliated Telephone, Inc. our vendor ofrecord.

Fire Marshall M-0004047 - requests to make programing changes, add enter-com toextension 3010 to provide better efficiency. Installation: $63.00; no monthly serviceincrease. Recommended.

Dist.rict Court Administration M-0004040 - requests to replace three ofthe administrationsingle-line phones with multi-line phones for the two IV-D on the 4th floor of the GeorgeAllen Courts Building. Installation: $63.00; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

BudletOffice M-0004039 - requests to provide a single-line phone with voice-mail for newemployee. Installation: $63.00; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

141

Health & Human Services M-0004036 - requests to provide a single-line phone for theBio-terrorism program person. Installation: $63.00; no monthly service increase.Recommended.

Facilities ManaKement M-0004018 - requests to reprogram two phone-lines to allowphones to be answered in both locations. Installation: $130.00; no monthly service increase.Recommended.

Public Works M-0004037 - requests to install a new single-line phone. Installation:$63.00; no monthly service increase. Recommended.Funding for the above request is available from countywide Department 800, line item 432,Telephone Contingency.

Pagers

Health & Human Services M-0004011- requests to provide a pager for the Microbiologist.Monthly service increase: $2.88. Recommended.

Pagers are funded by the requesting department unless otherwise indicated.

••••••••••••