Texas House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations

JOHN OTTO SYLVESTER TURNER CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN Texas House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations

AGENDA SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARTICLES I, IV, & V

SYLVESTER TURNER, CHAIR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 8:00 A.M. CAPITOL EXTENSION, ROOM E2.030

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. CHAIR’S OPENING REMARKS

III. SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht

IV. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Presiding Judge Sharon Keller • Judge Barbara Hervey

V. 14 COURTS OF APPEALS • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Chief Justice Sherry Radack, 1st Court of Appeals, Houston & Chair of the Council of Chief Justices • Chief Justice Terrie Livingston, 2nd Court of Appeals, Fort Worth • Chief Justice Jeff Rose, 3rd Court of Appeals, Austin • Chief Justice Tom Gray, 10th Court of Appeals, Waco

VI. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Seana Willing, Executive Director

VII. OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Jennifer Quereau and Kevin Kromenacker, Analysts, Legislative Budget Board, Improve Data Collection and Reform State Truancy Laws to Enhance the Quality of Truancy Interventions • David Slayton, Administrative Director

VIII. TEXAS INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION • Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, and Chair of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission • Jim Bethke, Executive Director

IX. OFFICE OF CAPITAL WRITS • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Brad Levenson, Executive Director

X. OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Lisa C. McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney

XI. JUDICIARY SECTION, COMPTROLLER'S DEPARTMENT • Tina Beck, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Mike Reissig, Deputy Comptroller • Leonard Higgins, Judiciary Section Team Leader

TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE • Gregg Cox, Director, Special Prosecutions Division

SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT • Mark Edwards, Executive Director

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, 435TH DISTRICT COURT • Judge Michael T. Seiler • Phyllis Martin, County Auditor

XII. SPECIAL PROVISIONS - JUDICIARY • George Dziuk, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board

XIII. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION • John Newton, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Sherry Cook, Executive Director • Ed Swedberg, Deputy Executive Director

XIV. TEXAS COMMISSION ON FIRE PROTECTION • John Wielmaker, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Steve Tull, Presiding Officer of the Commission • Tim Rutland, Executive Director

XV. TEXAS COMMISSION ON JAIL STANDARDS • John Newton, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Brandon S. Wood, Executive Director • Rodney Valls, Staff Services Officer

XVI. TEXAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT • John Wielmaker, Analyst, Legislative Budget Board • Kim Vickers, Executive Director • Brian Roth, Chief Financial Officer

XVII. PUBLIC TESTIMONY

XVIII. ADJOURN

Section 1

Supreme Court of Texas Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-1 The Honorable Nathan Hecht, Chief Justice George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $28,336,783 $28,372,835 $36,052 0.1% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $28,336,783 $28,372,835 $36,052 0.1% General Federal Funds $3,295,872 $3,193,938 ($101,934) (3.1%) Revenue Other Funds Other $38,027,909 $33,511,778 ($4,516,131) (11.9%) 51.5% 43.6%

All Funds $69,660,564 $65,078,551 ($4,582,013) (6.6%)

Federal Funds FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % 4.9% Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 77.0 77.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this court (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 74.0% of the court's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 201 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Supreme Court of Texas 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $65.1 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS

REQUESTED $39.9 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 $21.5 APPROPRIATED REQUESTED 72.0 APPROPRIATED $34.9 $32.7 APPROPRIATED $32.7 APPROPRIATED $30.0

REQUESTED APPROPRIATED $16.5 $14.2 2015 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $14.2 2016 $13.8 2017

$31.2 $37.1 $32.5 $32.5 $32.5 $13.8 $14.2 $14.2 $14.2 $14.2 73.1 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: 1) All Funds expended amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2013 due to unexpended balance authority within the biennium from a combination of Other Funds and General Revenue. General Revenue amounts in fiscal year 2015 are also effected due to salary increases. 2) All Funds expended amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2014 due to unexpended balance authority across the biennium (from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014) in Other Funds and General Revenue Funds, one-time civil penalties revenue for Basic Civil Legal Services, and salary increases. 3) Similar to all appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Texas is exempted from Art. IX, Sec. 6.10, which limits the number of FTEs paid from appropriated funds to the amounts specified in the General Appropriations Act.

Agency 201 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Supreme Court of Texas Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $11,817,344 $11,740,747 ($76,597) (0.6%) Recommendations include:

(a) An increase of $36,052 to biennialize general state employee salary increases in the 2014-15 biennium, and (b) A decrease of $112,649 due to unexpended balances transferred from fiscal year 2013 into fiscal year 2014 through Rider 8, Appropriation: Supreme Court Support Fee, Unexpended Balance Authority Between Biennia. Total, Goal A, APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS $11,817,344 $11,740,747 ($76,597) (0.6%)

BASIC CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES B.1.1 $54,316,727 $49,913,245 ($4,403,482) (8.1%) Decrease reflects $854,417 in unexpended balances brought forward from fiscal year 2013 into fiscal year 2014 and one time windfall of civil penalties in the 2014- 15 biennium (see also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3). One-time amounts are not included in 2016-17 recommendations.

COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS B.1.2 $3,295,872 $3,193,938 ($101,934) (3.1%) Due to the Budget Control Act, Federal Funds were reduced as a result of sequestration.

MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION B.1.3 $230,621 $230,621 $0 0.0% Recommendations fund the Mutli-District Litigation strategy at 100 percent of the 2014-15 levels in All Funds. Funding provides court staff (court coordinator and court reporter, judge's salary paid from CPA Judiciary budget) and technology to handle multi-district litigation cases, such as asbestosis and silicosis related cases with funds used for one multi-district litigation case: asbestosis-related cases being litigated in Harris County. Total, Goal B, COURT PROGRAMS $57,843,220 $53,337,804 ($4,505,416) (7.8%)

Grand Total, All Strategies $69,660,564 $65,078,551 ($4,582,013) (6.6%)

Agency 201 2/9/2015 3 Section 3

Supreme Court of Texas Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Judicial Compensation Commission and Judicial Pay Raise: Recommendations continue $324,000 in General Revenue provided for judicial salary increases in the 2014–15 biennium for the Chief Justice and Justices of the Court. This increase is part of a 12 percent salary increase for judge and prosecutor positions linked to district judge pay totaling $34.8 million across the 2014–15 biennium.

For the 2016–17 biennium, the Judicial Compensation Commission is recommending a five percent increase in judicial salaries.

2. Targeted Salary Increases: Recommendations continue $289,000 in General Revenue provided for targeted salary increases to staff attorneys, the General Counsel, Clerk of the Court, and non-legal staff positions. Court staff received either the general state employee salary increase or the targeted salary increase.

3. Basic Civil Legal Services: In fiscal year 2014, the Court received one-time civil penalties totaling $6.2 million deposited to Judicial Fund No. 573. Of this amount, $4.2 million was awarded to the State of Texas due to the settlement between 43 states and GlaxoSmithKline for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Pursuant to Government Code §402.007, an amount not to exceed $50 million each biennium in civil penalties may be awarded to the Court. Recommendations for 2016–17 do not continue these one-time civil penalties.

4. Sexual Assault Program: In September 2008, a $5 fee for admission to certain sexually-oriented businesses became effective (see House Bill 1751, 80th Legislature, Regular Session). Collections are deposited into the General Revenue–Dedicated Sexual Assault Program Account No. 5010; however collections were previously limited due to a lawsuit between the state and sexually oriented businesses. The Supreme Court denied a petition from the Texas Entertainment Association seeking an appeal of a 3rd Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the state in November 2014. With the 3rd Court’s ruling standing, the admissions fee collections are projected to increase. The Comptroller anticipates $11.4 million per year in collections for the 2016–17 biennium. Recommendations do not include $5 million the court is requesting from this account to be used for basic civil legal services to victims of sexual assault (see also, Items Not Included in Recommendations – House #7).

5. Justice for Veterans Joint Initiative: The Supreme Court of Texas and Texas Veterans Commission have developed a new initiative titled “Justice for Veterans” to increase funding for Veterans Courts and to provide direct legal assistance to veterans and their families. As part of this initiative, the Court is requesting $4 million ($2 million each year) to be distributed as grants to legal aid organizations providing basic civil legal services to veterans and their families (see also, Items Not Included in Recommendations – House #6).

Sec 3a_Agency 201.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3

Supreme Court of Texas Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Disposition Rate 103.93% 100% 100% 100% 100% The disposition rate reflects the number of cases disposed of in any reporting period in relationship to the total number of cases filed or reinstated by the granting of a motion for rehearing during the reporting period.

• The Number of BCLS Grantees Provided State Funding 25 25 25 25 25 This performance measure is new for the 2016-17 biennium.

Sec3c Performance Measure Highlights_Agency 201

5 Section 3 All Funding Sources for Basic Civil Legal Services - House

Funds Within the GAA - Basic Civil Legal Services (Fiscal Year) Change from Change from 2014-15 2016 2017 2016-17 2014-15 to 2014-15 to 2013 2014 2015 Base Recommended Recommended Recommended 2016-17 ($) 2016-17 (%) General Revenue $ 8,783,783 $ 8,783,784 $ 8,783,783 $ 17,567,567 $ 8,783,783 $ 8,783,784 $ 17,567,567 $ - 0.0% Judicial Fund No. 573 $ 12,287,361 $ 18,076,321 $ 13,672,839 $ 31,749,160 $ 13,672,839 $ 13,672,839 $ 27,345,678 $ (4,403,482) -13.9% IAC with Attorney General (Crime Victims Compensation Fund No. 469) $ 2,494,161 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - 0.0%

Total State BCLS Contribution $ 23,565,305 $ 29,360,105 $ 24,956,622 $ 54,316,727 $ 24,956,622 $ 24,956,623 $ 49,913,245 $ (4,403,482) -13.9%

Funds Outside the GAA - Basic Civil Legal Services (Calendar Year) Change from Change from 2014-15 2016 2017 2016-17 2014-15 to 2014-15 to 2013 2014 2015 Base Estimated Estimated Projections 2016-17 ($) 2016-17 (%) Interest on Lawyers Trust Accouts (IOLTA) $ 4,212,130 $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 8,400,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 1,600,000 19.0% Legal Services Corporation and Other Federal Funding $ 39,221,321 $ 39,450,000 $ 39,450,000 $ 78,900,000 $ 39,450,000 $ 39,450,000 $ 78,900,000 $ - 0.0% Other (Donations and Grants from Foundations) $ 24,310,169 $ 24,400,000 $ 24,400,000 $ 48,800,000 $ 24,400,000 $ 24,400,000 $ 48,800,000 $ - 0.0%

Total BCLS Funding Outside GAA $ 67,743,620 $ 68,050,000 $ 68,050,000 $ 136,100,000 $ 68,850,000 $ 68,850,000 $ 137,700,000 $ 1,600,000 19.0%

Estimate of Total BCLS Funding from All Revenue Sources $ 91,308,925 $ 97,410,105 $ 93,006,622 $ 190,416,727 $ 93,806,622 $ 93,806,623 $ 187,613,245 $ (2,803,482) 5.2%

Source: Texas Access to Justice Foundation, Supreme Court

Sec 3b_Funds In and Outside the GAA_Agency 201.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 4 Supreme Court of Texas Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 201.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

Supreme Court of Texas Rider Highlights - House

5. Court Improvement Projects: Recommendations update the rider to reflect decreases in Federal Funds from $1.7 million to $1.6 million each year granted to the Court for the Court Improvement Project Strategy due to the Budget Control Act and sequestration. The amount allocated to administer the federal grant also decreased from $600,000 to $527,000 each fiscal year due to the Budget Control Act and sequestration.

Sec 5_Agency201.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 Supreme Court of Texas Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Court Exceptional Items - In Court Priority Order 1. General Revenue funding for legal staff salary increases for 13 staff attorneys from an average of $100,157 to $ 234,886 $ 234,886 $104,500 and 18 law clerk salaries from $51,612 to $55,000. 2. General Revenue funding for non-legal staff salary increases to raise court deputy clerk's salaries to comparable $ 268,414 $ 268,414 rates with other appellate court clerks.

3. Supreme Court Building and Justice Security $ 120,900 $ 120,900 a) $41,900 in General Revenue funding for video surveillance equipment for the Supreme Court building.

b) $20,000 in General Revenue funding for ultraviolet blocking film for court lobby windows.

c) $50,000 in General Revenue funding for installation of security doors.

d) $9,000 in General Revenue funding for personal home security for nine Supreme Court Justices. 4. General Revenue funding for travel reimbursement for individuals serving on Court-appointed committees. $ 80,000 $ 80,000 5. General Revenue funding for a contracted court reporter to transcribe six to eight Supreme Court Advisory $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Committee meetings each year. 6. General Revenue funding to provide direct legal assistance to an estimated 2,240 veterans and their immediate $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 families through grants to legal aid organizations each year. 7. General Revenue-Dedicated Sexual Assault Fund No. 5010 funding to provide basic civil legal services to $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 victims of sexual assault (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #4). Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 9,754,200 $ 9,754,200

Agency 201 2/9/2015 9 Section 7 Supreme Court of Texas Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Eliminate Law Clerk Program The reduction would eliminate the law clerk program (18 law clerks) and replace $868,032 $868,032 9.0 None 8% No (Appellate Court Operations Strategy) the program with nine junior staff attorneys. Reduction would impact the Court's case processing and would eliminate a method through which newly licensed attorneys can be mentored and trained to practice in Texas. 2 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions ($220,314) , two $711,828 $711,828 5.0 None 7% No Positions administrative positions ($95,600), and one deputy clerk ($40,000). Reduction (Appellate Court Operations Strategy) would impact Court services and reduce Court staff by 20%. 3 Reduce Operating Expenses The reduction would require the Court to cut operating expenses for consumable $75,641 $75,641 None 1% No (Appellate Court Operations Strategy) supplies and other operating expenses in membership dues, training and maintenance and equipment repairs. 4 Reduce Basic Civil Legal Services The reduction would impact grant funding to legal aid organizations providing basic $878,378 $878,378 None 5% No (Basic Civil Legal Services Strategy) civil legal services reducing the number of clients served. 5 Eliminate the Multi-District Litigation The reduction would eliminate the Multi-Disrict Litigation Program that provides $230,621 $230,621 None 100% No Program grants to counties to pay court personnel costs associated with large-party cases (Multi-District Litigation Strategy) that cross multiple jurisdictions.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $2,764,500 $2,764,500 14.0 $0

Agency 201 2/9/2015 10

The Supreme Court of Texas

CHIEF JUSTICE 201 West 14th Street Post Office Box 12248 Austin, TX 78711 CLERK NATHAN L. HECHT Telephone: 512/463-1312 Facsimile: 512/463-1365 BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

JUSTICES GENERAL COUNSEL NINA HESS HSU PAUL W. GREEN PHIL JOHNSON DON R. WILLETT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT EVA M. GUZMAN NADINE SCHNEIDER DEBRA H. LEHRMANN JEFFREY S. BOYD PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER JOHN P. DEVINE February 6, 2015 OSLER McCARTHY JEFFREY V. BROWN

Honorable John Otto Texas House of Representatives House Appropriations Committee State Capitol Austin, TX 78701

Dear Chairman Otto:

The Supreme Court of Texas appreciates the opportunity to respond to the House Recommendations for the 2016-2017 General Appropriations Act and to provide information about the effect the proposals will have on the Supreme Court’s core functions.

Supreme Court Operations

For the past four years, the Court has disposed of nearly all cases argued during the fiscal year. Only four argued cases remained pending on August 31, 2014, the lowest number since the Court began keeping this statistic more than twenty-five years ago, tying fiscal year 2011. The Court’s efficiency is aided by technological advancements as well as the dedicated assistance of its staff attorneys, law clerks, and clerical and administrative personnel. It is crucial to the Court’s work that it attracts and retains highly qualified people in all positions. Accordingly, the Court is requesting only modest additional funding to support its appellate court operations totaling $754,200 for the biennium.

Attorney and Staff Pay Increases (Exceptional Items 1 & 2)

The Supreme Court’s appellate court operations strategy, which totals just over $5.8 million per year, supports the core functions of the Court. Ninety-two percent of the Court’s appellate operations budget is dedicated to the most critical component of Court operations—staff salaries. The House Recommendations have omitted the Court’s first two exceptional item requests for $234,886 to increase attorney pay and $268,414 to increase staff pay in the next biennium. We urge reconsideration of that proposal.

The Court places a high value on recruiting and retaining qualified attorneys and staff. Attorneys play a critical role in all aspects of the Court’s work and contribute greatly to the jurisprudence of this State. Competition with the private sector and even other governmental entities, including the federal judiciary, has hindered the Court’s effort to attract and keep experienced staff attorneys.

The Court’s administrative staff and Clerk’s Office are equally vital to the operation and efficiency of the Court’s docket and administrative functions. The Clerk’s Office staff interacts with the public, dockets cases, processes filings, and assists attorneys practicing before the Court. The duties of the Court’s administrative staff include administering the transfer of cases between courts of appeals, assisting with judge assignments, reviewing and revising oral argument transcripts, managing each chamber’s docket, and managing the Court’s finances including processing basic civil legal services and multi-district litigation funding. Staff salaries must be increased to attract and retain qualified employees. In addition, many of the Court’s staff members are underpaid compared to their counterparts in other state agencies or other Texas appellate courts. Recruiting and retaining high-quality staff is crucial to the efficient and accurate disposition of cases before the Court.

Many other courts look to the Supreme Court for advice and guidance, and we hold ourselves and our staff to the highest standards. Accordingly, we seek to compensate our professionals and staff at fair and appropriate levels for the work that they do.

Security for Supreme Court (Exceptional Item 3)

The Court requests one time funding of $120,900 in FY16 to add security features to the Supreme Court building, which is vulnerable to intrusions by those unhappy with the Court's procedures or rulings. Law enforcement experts recommend controlling access to non-public, administrative areas through keycard systems and installing protective barriers for public access. Both are vital to a secure court environment for judges, court staff, and the public, as well as for the protection of sensitive documents. The Court requests funding to provide judges personal security for their own protection, funding for cameras and video surveillance throughout the building, and funding for security access doors in the Clerk’s offices.

Page 2

Funding for Committee Travel and Court Reporter for Supreme Court Advisory Committee (Exceptional Items 4 & 5)

The Supreme Court relies on Court-appointed committees to provide statewide input on matters important to all three branches of government. The Court’s committees include perspectives from across the state. But some individuals are reluctant or unable to serve because there is no funding available to reimburse travel and other expenses. The Court requests funding of $80,000 total for the biennium to ensure that diverse individuals from across the state are able to contribute to this important work.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee is one of the Court’s committees, consisting of lawyers, judge, academics, and court personnel from around the state who consider, study, and discuss proposed revisions to various rules and make recommendations to the Court concerning those revisions. The committee generally meets six to eight times per year. Transcripts from these meetings are an invaluable tool to track changes in judicial rules and understand the reasons for the revisions. For this reason, the Court requests $50,000 for the biennium to fund a court reporter at these meetings.

All of the Court’s requests related to appellate court operations total only $754,200 for the biennium. The Court is asking for only the funding it considers most crucial at this time and the Court is not seeking to add any additional staff during this biennium.

Grant Funding for Civil Legal Services for Veterans (Exceptional Item 6)

The Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Veterans Commission have partnered in a new initiative called Justice for Veterans to increase funding for direct legal assistance to veterans and their families and for veterans courts. On the civil side, General Assistance Grants from the Texas Veterans Commission’s Fund for Veterans Assistance are highly competitive and current funding levels only enable the Fund to award approximately 19% of the funding requested across all service categories.

The Supreme Court of Texas requests $2 million per year ($4 million total) to provide direct civil legal assistance to veterans and their immediate families as part of the Justice for Veterans Initiative. These funds would be used for grants to organizations providing legal aid, legal clinics, or other legal services.

Grant Funding for Victims of Sexual Assault (Exceptional Item 7)

In 2007, the Texas Legislature passed legislation that requires a $5-per-admitted customer tax for those entering defined sexually oriented businesses. The legislation dedicated funding to the Supreme Court of Texas, “to be transferred to the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, or a similar entity to provide victim-related legal services to victims of sexual assault, including legal assistance

Page 3 with protective orders, relocation-related matters, victims’ compensation, and actions to secure privacy protections available to victims under law.” The Supreme Court requests $5 million from these funds for distribution by the Texas Access to Justice Foundation for basic civil legal services to victims of sexual assault.

In addition to the exceptional items listed above, the Supreme Court supports the following items that are included in other agencies’ budget requests:

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS The appropriation for the National Center for State Courts dues is carried in the judiciary section of the Comptroller’s department. The Supreme Court supports the Comptroller’s request that the appropriation for these dues be 100% funded.

OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION The Supreme Court supports the requests of the Office of Court Administration.

JUDICIAL COMPENSATION The Supreme Court supports the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission to increase pay for the state’s judges.

You have difficult decisions ahead of you, and I commend you for all of your efforts to protect our overall financial strength while preserving essential functions for the third branch of the government. Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Sincerely,

Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice

Page 4 Section 1

Court of Criminal Appeals Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-3 The Honorable Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Federal Other Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change Funds 2.6% General General Revenue Funds $10,269,683 $10,269,683 $0 0.0% 0.9% Revenue GR Dedicated Funds $17,098,611 $17,100,385 $1,774 0.0% Funds Total GR-Related Funds $27,368,294 $27,370,068 $1,774 0.0% 36.2%

Federal Funds $244,157 $245,000 $843 0.3% GR Other $1,403,002 $735,502 ($667,500) (47.6%) Dedicated Funds 60.3% All Funds $29,015,453 $28,350,570 ($664,883) (2.3%)

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 69.0 69.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this court (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the court's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 211 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Court of Criminal Appeals 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $28.4 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS

APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 $15.6 REQUESTED APPROPRIATED $14.3 $14.4 $14.2 68.0 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED $14.7 $14.8 $14.7 $13.7 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $12.8 $13.5

$13.4 $14.1 $14.9 $14.1 $14.3 $12.7 $13.5 $13.8 $13.6 $13.8 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: 1) General Revenue and General Revenue-Dedicated Funds expended amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2015 due to unexpended balance authority within the biennium and salary increases. 2) Similar to all appellate courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals is exempted from Art. IX, Sec. 6.10, which limits the number of FTEs paid from appropriated funds to the amounts specified in the General Appropriations Act.

Agency 211 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Court of Criminal Appeals Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $11,005,185 $11,005,185 $0 0.0% Total, Goal A, APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS $11,005,185 $11,005,185 $0 0.0%

JUDICIAL EDUCATION B.1.1 $18,010,268 $17,345,385 ($664,883) (3.7%) Recommendations fund the Judicial Education strategy at $664,883 less than 2014-15 levels due to the following:

1. $843 increase in federal funding; 2. $1,774 increase due to biennialization of the general state employee salary increase in 2014-15; and 3. $667,500 decrease due to recommended elimination of Rider 6, Appropriation: Refunds of Unexpended Balances from Training Entities (see also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3 and #4 and Rider Highlights - House #3 and #6). Total, Goal B, JUDICIAL EDUCATION $18,010,268 $17,345,385 ($664,883) (3.7%)

Grand Total, All Strategies $29,015,453 $28,350,570 ($664,883) (2.3%)

Agency 211 2/9/2015 3 Section 3

Court of Criminal Appeals Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Judicial Compensation Commission & Judicial Pay Raise: Recommendations continue $324,000 in General Revenue provided for judicial salary increases in the 2014–15 biennium for the Presiding Judge and Judges of the court. This increase is part of a 12 percent salary increase for judge and prosecutor positions linked to district judge pay totaling $34.8 million across the 2014–15 biennium.

For the 2016–17 biennium, the Judicial Compensation Commission is recommending a 5 percent increase in judicial salaries.

2. Targeted Salary Increases: Recommendations continue $482,439 in General Revenue for targeted salary increases to the General Counsel, Clerk of the Court, staff attorneys, central staff attorneys, law clerks, and non-legal positions provided in the 2014–15 biennium. Court staff received either the general state employee salary increase or the targeted salary increase.

3. Unexpended Balance Authority: The agency requests unlimited unexpended balance authority for the Judicial Education strategy within the biennium and up to $200,000 between biennia through riders. Recommendations continue unexpended balance authority within the strategy through riders within the biennium up to $150,000 each year from funds allocated for administrative purposes. Recommendations include $150,000 in fiscal year 2016 and discontinue unexpended balance authority from the prior biennium. (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #2 and #3, and Rider Highlights - House #2 and #9)

4. Training Entity Refunds: Recommendations continue the requirement for the court to maintain procedures for training entities to refund unexpended and unencumbered state grant funds; however expanded authority is now provided for the court to allow training entities to retain and use those funds for training purposes with the court’s approval. Previous requirements anticipated and capped refunds at $667,500 in each year of the 2014–15 biennium from each preceding fiscal year. Unexpended balances from training entities have decreased since the 2012–13 biennium, accounting for slightly over half a percent of total Judicial Education expenditures in fiscal year 2014. The court anticipates the continued decrease of these balances in the 2016–17 biennium. Recommendations also expand reporting requirements for the court to include the amount and allocation of unexpended prior year grant funds held by training entities in its reports to the Legislature. (See also, Rider Highlights - House #3 and #6)

Sec 3a_Agency 211.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3

5. Judicial and Court Personnel Training Account Fund No. 540 Available Balances: Recommendations do not include a request for $2,030,000 in General Revenue–Dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540 received on January 29, 2015 for additional judicial education training events and associated travel expenses with conforming changes to Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education. Senate Bill 1, Eighty-second Legislature, 1st Called Session, 2011 (SB1) reclassified the Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540 from Other Funds to a General-Revenue Dedicated Account beginning in the 2012–13 biennium. Prior to the enactment of the legislation, statute required any account balances above $500,000 to be swept into the General Revenue Fund. This statutory language was eliminated in SB1 and, even though the account was re-created in the General Revenue Fund, the Comptroller determined the account to be ineligible to be used for general spending purposes. As such, it does not count toward the amount of General Revenue-related funds used to certify the General Appropriations Act. Balances in this account have accrued since the 2012–13 biennium due to appropriations each fiscal year being less than collected revenues. This request equals estimated fiscal year 2015 ending balances in the Comptroller of Public Account’s Biennial Revenue Estimate (See also, Rider Highlights #3 and Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #3).

6. Criminal Defense Attorney Staff Training: Not included in recommendations is a request for $230,400 in General Revenue–Dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540, $115,200 for each year of the 2016–17 biennium, to contract with a statewide professional association of criminal defense attorneys and other entities for the training of criminal defense attorney staff representing indigent defendants. Enactment of House Bill 1245, Eighty-third Legislature, 2013 resulted in an appropriation of $115,200 in General Revenue–Dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540 in fiscal year 2015 for these purposes; however, expenditures for this purpose were unintentionally excluded from 2014–15 reported amounts in the agency’s Legislative Appropriations Request which resulted in the amounts not being included in the recommendations (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #2).

Sec 3a_Agency 211.docx 2/9/2015

5 Section 4 Court of Criminal Appeals Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 211.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 5

Court of Criminal Appeals Rider Highlights - House

Recommendations for the court’s riders include the following:

1. Consolidation of all rider language directing judicial education appropriations for specific types of continuing legal education into amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education. 2. Retains the court’s authority to recapture unexpended grant funds from training entities and expands that authority to allow training entities to retain unexpended grant funds for training purposes with the Court’s approval. 3. Requires training entities report to the court the amount of unused prior year grant funds held and how these funds will be used. 4. Discontinues unexpended balance authority from funds allocated for administrative purposes between biennia.

Recommendations to individual riders include the following:

2. Judicial Education. 1. Transfers funding designations and authority for the continuing legal education of judges of county courts performing judicial functions to the amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education. 2. Adds clarifying language for the $200,000 available each fiscal year to the court for administrative and training purposes or other purposes at the discretion of the court. 3. Incorporates language granting the court up to $150,000 in unexpended balance authority within the biennium previously in former Rider 9, Appropriation: Unexpended Balance Authority Between Biennia and Within the Biennium for Judicial Education, Administrative Allocation. (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #3 and Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3).

3. (Amended) Continuing Education and Technical Assistance for Prosecutors and Criminal Defense Attorneys. 1. Title change to “Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education”. 2. Incorporates language from multiple riders directing appropriations for specific types of continuing legal education. 3. Incorporates language from former Rider 6, Appropriation: Refunds of Unexpended Balances from Training Entities, that requires the court to maintain procedures for training entities to refund unexpended state grant funds with expanded authority for the Court to determine that entities can retain funds and use them for approved training purposes. 4. Appropriates any refunded state grant funds from training entities each fiscal year for the same purpose.

5. Judicial and Court Personnel Training Report. Requires the court to include the amount and use of unexpended prior year grant funds held by training entities within a report provided twice each fiscal year to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board.

Sec 5_Agency211.docx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

Former 6. Appropriation: Refunds of Unexpended Balances from Training Entities. Recommendations delete this rider. Provisions governing refunds from training entities are retained in amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education. (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #4)

Former 7. Judicial and Court Personnel Training. Recommendations delete this rider because its provisions are included in amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education.

Former 8. Actual Innocence Training. Recommendations delete this rider because its provisions are included in amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education.

Former 9. Appropriation: Unexpended Balance Authority Between Biennia and Within the Biennium for Judicial Education, Administrative Allocation. Recommendations delete this rider because similar language granting unexpended balance authority for funds allocated for administrative purposes are included in Rider 2, Judicial Education. (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3 and Items Not Included in Recommendations – House #2 and #3)

Former 10. Public Defender Training. Recommendations delete this rider because its provisions are included in amended Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education.

Sec 5_Agency211.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 Court of Criminal Appeals Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Court Exceptional Items - In Court Priority Order 1. General Revenue funding to enhance appellate court operations and bring salaries more in line with comparable $ 1,294,654 $ 1,294,654 positions at the Supreme Court (includes 2.0 FTEs):

a. Legal staff salary increases ($435,625 each fiscal year) b. Non-legal staff salary increases ($69,000 each fiscal year) c. 2.0 FTEs for an additional staff attorney and Deputy Clerk ($140,157 each fiscal year) d. Computer and operating expenses for new employees ($5,090 in fiscal year 2016) 2. Legal Education for Staff of Criminal Defense Attorneys Representing Indigent Defendants $ 230,400 $ 230,400 a) General Revenue–Dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540 funding ($115,200 in both years of the biennium) to contract with a statewide professional association of criminal defense attorneys and other entities for the training of staff of criminal defense attorneys representing indigent defendants (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #6).

b) Increase authority in Rider 3 Judicial Education: Appropriation for Certain Types of Legal Education from $1,105,000 to $1,220,200 in fiscal year 2016 to align with amounts for fiscal year 2017. This funding would provide continuing legal education and technical assistance for criminal defense attorneys who regularly represent indigent defendants in criminal matters and their staff (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #6).

Agency 211 2/9/2015 9 Section 6 Court of Criminal Appeals Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds 3. General Revenue–Dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund No. 540 funding ($1,015,000 each $ 2,030,000 $ 2,030,000 fiscal year) for grants to judicial training entities for additional training events and to provide funding for associated travel expenses using available balances in this account. This request includes conforming changes to Rider 3, Judicial Education: Appropriations for Certain Types of Legal Education (See also, Righter Highlights - House #3 and Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #5).

4. Request for unexpended balance authority within the biennium in Strategy B.1.1 Judicial Education at the $ - $ - strategy level.

5. Request for an increase in unexpended balance authority across biennia and within the biennium for Strategy $ - $ - B.1.1 Judicial Education from $150,000 to $200,000.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 3,555,054 $ 3,555,054

Agency 211 2/9/2015 10 Section 7 Court of Criminal Appeals Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $946,324 $946,324 9.0 $0

Agency 211 2/9/2015 11

The Court requests the following exceptional item for the Judicial and Court Personnel Training (fund 540) for FY 2016-2017:

Exceptional Item 3:

$2,030,000 ($1,015,000 per year) appropriation increase to be funded from the estimated balance remaining at the end of FY 2015 according to the State Comptroller’s Biennial Revenue Estimate Report.

Since funding levels for Judicial and Court Personnel Training were reduced $2,854,722 during the budget cuts of the FY 2012-2013 biennium grantees have reported an inability to provide all necessary training events. Meanwhile, the cost of travel to training events has increased putting a strain on our ability to meet training needs. Participants have reported not being able to attend training events due to lack of funding, including those required to attend training events per their annual continuing education requirement.

Grantees will be required to provide the Court with justification for requesting and using these funds. The Court will review their requests and either approve them or return the funds to the State.

Section 1

The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Summary of Recommendations - House

Pages IV-7 through IV-22 The Honorable Sherry Radack George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING Chair, Council of Chief Justices BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Other Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change 7.9% General Revenue Funds $70,128,406 $70,166,048 $37,642 0.1% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $70,128,406 $70,166,048 $37,642 0.1% General Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Revenue Other $6,031,359 $5,981,882 ($49,477) (0.8%) Funds 92.1%

All Funds $76,159,765 $76,147,930 ($11,835) (0.0%)

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 408.9 413.7 4.8 1.2%

The bill pattern for these courts (2016-17 Recommended) represent an estimated percentage of the courts' estimated total available funds, detailed below: First Court of Appeals District, Houston 91.6% Eighth Court of Appeals District, El Paso 93.6% Second Court of Appeals District, Fort Worth 97.2% Ninth Court of Appeals District, Beaumont 94.5% Third Court of Appeals District, Austin 91.5% Tenth Court of Appeals District, Waco 97.9% Fourth Court of Appeals District, San Antonio 91.5% Eleventh Court of Appeals District, Eastland 95.3% Fifth Court of Appeals District, Dallas 95.0% Twelfth Court of Appeals District, Tyler 94.6% Sixth Court of Appeals District, Texarkana 94.8% Thirteenth Court of Appeals District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg 98.2% Seventh Court of Appeals District, Amarillo 94.4% Fourteenth Court of Appeals District, Houston 91.9%

Courts Of Appeals 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $76.1 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS REQUESTED REQUESTED $41.7 $41.8

REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED 433.0 433.0 $37.9 $37.9 REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $38.7 $38.8 APPROPRIATED 413.7 413.7 403.6

APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $33.4 $35.0 $35.0

APPROPRIATED $30.5

$34.0 $37.8 $38.4 $38.1 $38.1 $31.0 $34.7 $35.4 $35.1 $35.1 400.8 405.2 408.9 413.7 413.7 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: 1) General Revenue and General Revenue-Dedicated Funds expended amounts exceed appropriated amounts in 2013 and 2015 due to unexpended balance authority within the biennium and authorized salary increases. 2) Similar to all appellate courts, the Courts of Apeapls are exempted from Art. IX, Sec. 6.10, which limits the number of FTEs paid from appropriated funds to the amounts specified in the General Appropriations Act.

Courts Of Appeals 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

Metropolitan Courts First Court of Appeals District, Houston APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $8,556,974 $8,549,258 ($7,716) (0.1%) All Funds recommendations for the 14 Courts differ from 2014-15 levels due to: Fifth Court of Appeals District, Dallas 1) The biennialization of general state employee salary increases provided in the APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $11,657,137 $11,664,137 $7,000 0.1% 2014-15 biennium; and Fourteenth Court of Appeals District, Houston 2) Certain courts receiving additional Appropriated Receipts in 2014-15. APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $8,804,054 $8,806,078 $2,024 0.0% All Other Courts of Appeals Recommendations fund the courts at 100 percent of baseline General Revenue Second Court of Appeals District, Fort Worth funding levels plus $37,642 for the biennialization of general state employee APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $6,550,258 $6,542,909 ($7,349) (0.1%) salary increases provided in 2014 and 2015. Third Court of Appeals District, Austin APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $5,600,312 $5,603,128 $2,816 0.1% Fourth Court of Appeals District, San Antonio APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $6,570,647 $6,563,664 ($6,983) (0.1%) Sixth Court of Appeals District, Texarkana APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,036,877 $3,032,077 ($4,800) (0.2%) Seventh Court of Appeals District, Amarillo APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,778,834 $3,779,286 $452 0.0% Eighth Court of Appeals District, El Paso APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,094,849 $3,090,582 ($4,267) (0.1%) Ninth Court of Appeals District, Beaumont APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,770,107 $3,770,107 $0 0.0% Tenth Court of Appeals District, Waco APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,034,274 $3,039,062 $4,788 0.2% Eleventh Court of Appeals District, Eastland APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,041,448 $3,041,448 $0 0.0% Twelfth Court of Appeals District, Tyler APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $3,058,991 $3,061,191 $2,200 0.1% Thirteenth Court of Appeals District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS A.1.1 $5,605,003 $5,605,003 $0 0.0%

Total, LBB Recommendations $76,159,765 $76,147,930 ($11,835) (0.0%)

Courts Of Appeals 2/9/2015 3 Section 3a

The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Judicial Compensation Commission & Judicial Pay Raise: Recommendations continue $2.6 million in General Revenue for judicial salary increases in the 2014–15 biennium for the Chief Justice and Justices for each Court of Appeals. This increase is part of a 12 percent salary increase for judge and prosecutor positions linked to district judge pay totaling $34.8 million across the 2014–15 biennium.

These funds increased the salary for a Chief Justice of a Court of Appeals from $140,000 to $156,500 and for a Justice of a Court of Appeals from $137,500 to $154,000. For the 2016–17 biennium, the Judicial Compensation Commission is recommending a 5 percent increase in judicial salaries.

2. Targeted Salary Increases: Recommendations continue $4,052,516 in General Revenue provided for targeted salary increases to the Chief Staff Attorney, staff attorney positions, law clerks, and non-legal positions. Court staff received either the general state employee salary increase or the targeted salary increase.

3. Similar Funding for Same-Sized Courts Block Grant. The 14 Court of Appeals have submitted a unified request as an exceptional item for block grant funding repetitively over several biennia called Similar Funding for Same-Sized Courts. Previous block grant funding was split among the courts to provide targeted pay increases for staff attorneys, law clerks, and non-legal staff, and for the addition of new attorneys, and non-attorney staff. The following table reflects the requests and appropriations for this purpose over time.

For the 2016-17 biennium, the 14 Courts of Appeals have requested $6.4 million in block grant funding for Similar Funding for Same-Sized Courts, a 9.2 percent increase above 2014-15 spending levels. Recommendations do not include additional funds for the 2016-17 biennium. (See Section 3b for more information on the 2016–17 block grant request).

Similar Funding for Same-Sized Courts Block Grants (in Millions) 2008–09 2010–11 2012–13 2014–15 2016–17 Funding Request $4.7 $8.7 n/a $12.8 $6.4 Appropriated amounts $4.3 $3.8 n/a $6.4

Court of Appeals 2/9/2015

4 Section 3a

Government Code §22.211 requires the City of Waco to furnish and equip suitable rooms for the Court and justices without expense to the state. The court is housed on the top floor of the McClennan County Courthouse in Waco through an interlocal agreement between the City of Waco and McClennan County. The Court has been seeking to relocate to new facilities for many years due to space concerns and is working with both the City and County who are also considering their space needs.

For the 2014–15 biennium the Court was appropriated funding through the Similar Funding for Same Size Court block grant for court relocation purposes. The Court has included a similar request as part of the Fourteen Court’s Similar Funding for Same Size Court 2016–17 request. However, the Comptroller may not authorize expenditures for this purpose due to Government Code §22.211 requirements that Court facilities be provided without expense to the state.

The Court’s request includes unexpended balance authority across biennia to allow carry forward of funds designated for relocation in 2014–15 that may not be used for relocation due to delays in identifying potential new facilities.

4. Article IV, Special Provisions – Section 6: The 14 Courts jointly request eliminating Article 4 Special Provisions, Section 6, Appellate Court Salary Limits that establishes salary limits for staff attorneys hired by the 14 Courts of Appeals during the 2016–17 biennium. Recommendations continue Section 7, Appellate Court Salary Limits.

Court of Appeals 2/9/2015

5 Section 3b

The 14 Courts of Appeals Districts Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts Allocation of Block Grant Funds Exceptional Item 1 - House Requested Funding for 2016-17

Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts - Allocation to Categories Salary-Related Costs (Health and Retirement Other Operating Restored COA Justices LAR Salaries* Additional FTEs Contribution) Costs Total FTEs*** New FTEs 1 9 $ 740,238 $ 369,299 $ 360,000 $ 10,939 $ - $ 740,238 - 3.0 2 7 $ 634,278 $ 319,624 $ 120,000 $ 6,594 $ 188,060 $ 634,278 1.0 - 3 6 $ 429,576 $ 240,000 $ 170,000 $ 6,150 $ 13,426 $ 429,576 1.0 4** 7 $ 592,422 $ 284,428 $ 177,800 $ 6,933 $ 123,261 $ 592,422 - 2.0 5 13 $ 1,013,361 $ 752,756 $ - $ 11,291 $ 249,314 $ 1,013,361 - - 6 3 $ 244,162 $ 224,162 $ - $ 3,362 $ 16,638 $ 244,162 - - 7 4 $ 318,350 $ 112,698 $ 184,000 $ 4,450 $ 17,202 $ 318,350 - 1.0 8 3 $ 243,657 $ 76,155 $ 157,000 $ 3,497 $ 7,005 $ 243,657 1.0 - 9 4 $ 323,052 $ 318,278 $ - $ 4,774 $ - $ 323,052 - - 10 3 $ 245,178 $ - $ 107,510 $ 1,612 $ 136,056 $ 245,178 - 1.0 11 3 $ 248,190 $ 244,522 $ - $ 3,668 $ - $ 248,190 - - 12 3 $ 221,076 $ 47,809 $ 170,000 $ 3,267 $ - $ 221,076 - 1.0 13 6 $ 422,120 $ 136,437 $ 240,000 $ 5,647 $ 40,036 $ 422,120 - 2.0 14 9 $ 725,958 $ 355,230 $ 360,000 $ 10,728 $ - $ 725,958 - 3.0

$ 6,401,618 $ 3,481,398 $ 2,046,310 $ 82,912 $ 790,998 $ 6,401,618 2.0 14.0

Notes * The "Salaries" amount for the 2nd, 4th, and 14th Courts of Appeals includes funding to reclassify law clerks. ** The amount designated as salary increases ($284,428) for the 4th Court of Appeals, includes $132,700 needed to convert two law clerk positions to permanent staff attorney. The funds needed to facilitate the conversion is not a salary increase because the positions will be reclassified and filled by new employees. ***Restoration of FTE positions that were reduced in FY 2011.

Sec 3b_14 COAs Block Grant.xlsx 2/9/2015 8:52 AM 6 Section 4 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_14 Courts of Appeals 234.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

The 14 Courts of Appeals Districts Rider Highlights - House

NONE

Sec 5_14 Courts of Appeals.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Court Exceptional Items Metropolitan Courts First Court of Appeals District, Houston 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 3.0 FTEs) $ 740,238 $ 740,238 Fifth Court of Appeals District, Dallas 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 0.0 FTEs) $ 1,013,361 $ 1,013,361 Fourteenth Court of Appeals District, Houston 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 3.0 FTEs) $ 725,958 $ 725,958 All Other Courts of Appeals Second Court of Appeals District, Fort Worth 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) $ 634,278 $ 634,278 2. Funding for additional staff attorneys to manage caseload (3.0 FTEs) $ 567,710 $ 567,710 3. Request for Voice Over IP (VOIP) phone system and email server as $ 110,000 $ 110,000 part of court relocation expense. Third Court of Appeals District, Austin 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) $ 429,576 $ 429,576 2. Funding for additional staff attorneys to manage administrative law cases $ 336,000 $ 336,000 and to reduce case backlogs (includes 2.0 FTEs) Fourth Court of Appeals District, San Antonio 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 2.0 FTEs) $ 592,422 $ 592,422 Sixth Court of Appeals District, Texarkana 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 0.0 FTEs) $ 244,162 $ 244,162 Seventh Court of Appeals District, Amarillo 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) $ 318,350 $ 318,350 Eighth Court of Appeals District, El Paso 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) $ 243,657 $ 243,657

Courts Of Appeals 2/9/2015 9 Section 6 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Ninth Court of Appeals District, Beaumont 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 0.0 FTEs) $ 323,052 $ 323,052 Tenth Court of Appeals District, Waco 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) & Court Relocation $ 245,178 $ 245,178 Eleventh Court of Appeals District, Eastland 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 0.0 FTEs) $ 248,190 $ 248,190 Twelfth Court of Appeals District, Tyler 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includes 1.0 FTEs) $ 221,076 $ 221,076 Thirteenth Court of Appeals District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1. Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts (includues 2.0 FTEs) $ 422,120 $ 422,120

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 7,415,328 $ 7,415,328

Note: Total funding for the 14 Courts of Appeals for Exceptional Item 1, Similar Funding for Same-Size Courts is $6,401,618 with 16.0 FTEs.

Courts Of Appeals 2/9/2015 10 Section 7 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Court Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Intro Bill? Loss Program GR/GR-D Total 1st 1 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions representing 10% of the $721,892 $721,892 6.0 $0 9% No Positions Court's permanent legal staff. The reduction would also eliminate three administrative assistant positions and one deputy clerk position representing 33% of the Court's upper-level administrative staff. This would result in more time needed to process and decide appeals, would affect clearance rates, and contribute to higher case backlogs.

2nd 1 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions representing 15% of the $520,000 $520,000 4.0 $0 9% No Positions Court's permanent legal staff, two legal secretary positions representing 20% of the court's upper-level administrative staff, and one law clerk position representing 20% of the Court's legal staff. This would result in more time needed to process and decide appeals, would affect clearance rates, and contribute to higher case backlogs.

2nd 2 Reduce Consumables and Supplies The reduction would reduce consumables and travel costs. This woud impact $2,171 $2,171 $0 0% No employee training for legal and non-legal staff.

3rd 1 Reduce Legal Positions The reduction would result in the loss of three staff attorney positions representing $466,175 $466,175 3.0 $0 9% No 20% of the Court's legal staff. Reduction would impact clearance rates, increase the time for which appeals remained pending, and create case backlogs.

4th 1 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would result in the loss of one permanent staff attorney $275,542 $275,542 2.0 $0 5% No Positions, Reclassifications of Legal representing 7% of the Court's legal staff; the loss of one administrative position Positions, and Salary Reductions representing 8% of the court's administrative staff. The reduction would also include the reclassification of three permanent staff attorneys to Law Clerk II, with a corresponding reduction in salary; and a salary reduction of the other two remaining Law Clerk II positions. The reductions would contribute to a significant backlog in case dispositions and impact clearance rates.

4th 2 Reclassification of Staff Attorneys to The reduction would result in the reclassification of three permanent staff $278,601 $278,601 $0 5% No Law Clerks and Salary Reductions attorneys to Law Clerk II with a corresponding salary reduction; and salary reductions for the remaining two Law Clerk II positions. The impact would place Law Clerk salaries significantly below other entry level legal positions and would impact the Court's ability to recruit quality graduates.

Sec7b_Courts of Appeals.xlsx 2/9/2015 8:52 AM 11 Section 7 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Court Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Intro Bill? Loss Program GR/GR-D Total 5th 1 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would require the court to eliminate four staff attorney positions, one $948,512 $948,512 7.0 $0 9% No Positions legal secretary position, and two deputy clerk positions. This represents 12.12% of the court’s legal staff, 25% of the court’s administrative staff, and 28.57% of the court’s clerical staff. This would cause the court to fall below the 2:1 lawyer-to- judge ratio and would cause clearances rate to decrease below current standards. Reduced funding and subsequent staff reductions would also increase the number of cases pending after one year by more than 18%.

6th 1 Reduce Legal Staff Position The reduction would eliminate one staff attorney position representing 16% of $180,324 $180,324 1.0 $0 6% No legal staff. The reduction would reduce decrease court clearance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

6th 2 Salary Reductions The reduction would result in an across-the-board salary reduction of four percent. $70,584 $70,584 $0 2% No The reduction would impact the Court's ability to retain its experienced workforce.

7th 1 Reduce Legal Staff Positions The reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions. The reduction would $327,270 $327,270 2.0 $0 9% No decrease court clearance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

8th 1 Reduce Currency of Legal Reference The reduction would decrease law libraries/reference materials and online $5,300 $5,300 $0 0% No Materials and Access to Online Legal research assess. The impact would be a decrease in the efficiency of the court's Research Collections legal research.

8th 2 Reduce Legal Staff Positions Reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions or eliminate one staff $258,224 $258,224 2.0 $0 9% No attorney position and one part-time deputy clerk position, and force the reclassification of a full-time staff attorney position into a lower salaried attorney position and/or transfer to part-time status. The reduction would decrease court clearance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, contribute to case backlogs, and could lead to higher staff turnover.

9th 1 Reduce Legal Staff Positions Reduction would eliminate two staff attorney positions. The Court anticipates a $308,709 $308,709 2.0 $0 9% No 20% drop in the disposition of cases as a result.

Sec7b_Courts of Appeals.xlsx 2/9/2015 8:52 AM 12 Section 7 The 14 Court of Appeals Districts Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Court Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Intro Bill? Loss Program GR/GR-D Total 10th 1 Eliminate Court Relocation Plans and The reduction would eliminate funding for court relocation and reduce bailiff to half $133,135 $133,135 $0 5% No Reduce Bailiff Hours time coverage.

10th 2 Salary Reductions The reduction would result in a 3.8% across-the-board salary reduction, including $133,135 $133,135 $0 5% No the justices on the court, reduce deferrable expenses such as travel and continuing legal education training, and online legal reference material services.

11th 1 Reduce Currency of Legal Reference The reduction would reduce the frequency that the Court updates its law libraries $126,808 $126,808 $0 4% No Materials and Access to Online Legal and research materials and would reduce the court's subsciptions to online Research Collections research services. The Court anticipiates that this would reduce dispositions of appeal and the court's clearance rate and increase the number of cases remaining pending. 11th 2 Reduce Legal Staff Position The reduction would eliminate one staff attorney position. The reduction would $126,807 $126,807 1.0 $0 4% No reduce decrease court clearance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

12th 1 Reduce Legal Staff Position The reduction would eliminate one staff attorney position. The reduction would $259,916 $259,916 1.0 $0 9% No reduce decrease court clearance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

13th 1 Reduce Legal Staff Positions The reduction would eliminate three staff attorney positions. The impact would be $481,152 $481,152 3.0 $0 9% No a decrease below the two staff attorney to one justice ratio common throughout appellate courts. The impact would be a decrease in court clearance rates to 75%, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

14th 1 Reduce Legal and Non-Legal Staff The reduction would eliminate two permanent staff attorneys representing 10% of $724,738 $724,738 6.0 $0 9% No Positions the Court's permanent staff attorneys, three administrative assistant positions, and one deputy clerk representing 33% of the Court's upper-level administrative staff. Alternatively, the Court would implement across-the-board salary reductions that would drop salary levels below those of comparable positions. The reduction would decrease court clerance rates, increase the time needed to process appeals, and contribute to case backlogs.

Sec7b_Courts of Appeals.xlsx 2/9/2015 8:52 AM 13

Section 1

State Commission on Judicial Conduct Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-33 Seana Willing, Executive Director George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4%

Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% General Revenue Other $0 $0 $0 0.0% Funds 100.0% All Funds $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 242 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 State Commission on Judicial Conduct 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $1,922,012

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED $1,113,937 $1,111,437 $1,113,937 $1,111,437 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $948,169 APPROPRIATED $947,156 $948,169 APPROPRIATED $947,156 $947,156 $947,156

$975,932 $933,227 $982,006 $961,006 $961,006 $975,932 $933,227 $982,006 $961,006 $961,006 13.4 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Expended and budgeted amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2015 because of unexpended balance authority within the biennium and salary increases.

Agency 242 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 State Commission on Judicial Conduct Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT A.1.1 $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4% Recommendations reflect an increase of $6,779 in General Revenue due to biennialization of general state employee salary increases provided in the 2014- 15 biennium. Total, Goal A, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4%

Grand Total, All Strategies $1,915,233 $1,922,012 $6,779 0.4%

Agency 242 2/9/2015 3 Section 3

State Commission on Judicial Conduct Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

NONE

Sec 3a_Agency 242.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 4 State Commission on Judicial Conduct Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 242.xlsx 2/9/2015

5 Section 5

State Commission on Judicial Conduct Rider Highlights - House

Former 2. Unexpended Balances. Recommendations delete the rider to eliminate redundancy within the bill pattern. Recommendations continue to retain strategy-level unexpended balance authority within the biennium.

Sec 5_Agency242.docx 2/9/2015

6 Section 6 State Commission on Judicial Conduct Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. General Revenue funding for a managing attorney position (Attorney IV) and additional authority for 1.0 FTE. $ 204,900 $ 204,900 2. General Revenue funding to provide attorney salaries competitive with simliar positions in other agencies and $ 132,062 $ 132,062 appellate courts. 3. General Revenue funding for increased travel expenses for commission meetings. $ 6,400 $ 6,400

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 343,362 $ 343,362

Agency 242 2/9/2015 7 Section 7 State Commission on Judicial Conduct Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Consumables Reduce office supplies. $2,000 $2,000 $0 0.2% No 2 Staff Professional Development Reduce staff training and conference registration. $3,000 $3,000 $0 0.3% No 3 Membership Dues Eliminate paying of staff attorneys' bar dues. $3,000 $3,000 $0 0.3% No 4 Travel Reduce the number of commission meetings in Austin from six to four. $30,000 $30,000 $0 3.1% No 5 Eliminate Investigator and Administrative Eliminate one Investigator position and one Administrative Assitant position. This $151,431 $151,431 2.0 $0 15.8% No Assistant Positions reduction would negatively impact the Commission's ability to meet its core functions.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $189,431 $189,431 2.0 $0

Agency 242 2/9/2015 8

State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“SCJC”) Budget Presentation to House Appropriations 84th Legislature

The SCJC will continue to use the state funds appropriated to us in a fiscally responsible manner while striving to accomplish our core mission of protecting the public, promoting public confidence in the integrity, independence, competence, and impartiality of the judiciary, and encouraging judges to maintain high standards of conduct both on and off the bench. The SCJC is a small agency (14 FTEs) within the judicial branch and has historically operated with very limited resources. Approximately 90%1 of the general revenue appropriated to the agency each year goes towards salaries, wages and other personnel costs. In addition, $26,375 of the agency’s general revenue is restricted pursuant to Appropriation Riders, which prevents the agency from using those funds for any other purpose than that stated in the Riders. The SCJC has three funding priorities for the FY2016/2017 biennium. Exceptional items:

(1) Additional FTE with funding for a Managing Attorney Position --- The SCJC is in critical need of an additional attorney position to manage the legal staff; oversee the assignment, investigation and presentation of cases to SCJC board members; handle more complex legal work, including litigation in the appeal of sanctions; and assist the Executive Director with legal, administrative and legislative priorities. These duties are currently being handled by the Executive Director, along with her other legal, fiscal, and administrative responsibilities to the agency and its board. This additional FTE would report directly to the Executive Director and requires the expertise of a seasoned attorney with well-documented leadership and supervisory experience.

Amount over the biennium: $204,900

(2) Increase Attorney Salaries --- The SCJC currently employs 5 staff attorneys who share in the responsibility of, among other things, (a) handling a pending caseload of approximately 3502 cases, all of which require thorough and full investigations, legal research and analysis, and

1 90% of appropriated funds not restricted by Riders. 2 The SCJC currently has approximately 700 pending cases. Approximately 350 cases (50%) are being handled by SCJC staff attorneys as well as by the Executive Director in several instances. Another approximately 250 cases (35%) are being handled by three SCJC Investigators, with the assistance of the Executive Director. The remaining cases have been identified by SCJC staff attorneys as not warranting an investigation because they do not meet the minimum requirements to qualify as a complaint. It is anticipated that another approximately 500 cases will be filed by the end of FY 2015. 1

written and oral presentation to SCJC board members; (b) providing legal advice to SCJC board members; (c) handling litigation when judges appeal an SCJC sanction; (d) assisting special counsel at all stages of the formal proceeding process; (e) handling hundreds of ethics calls each month from judges, attorneys, and others; (f) handling ethics presentations at judicial training programs across the state throughout the year; and (g) responding to Rule 12 Requests for public information and requests for information from entities responsible for the appointment of judges to the bench and to committees and commissions. The judiciary and the public expect and deserve experienced and well-qualified attorneys to conduct investigations into judicial misconduct, sometimes at the highest levels of the Texas judiciary. The nature of the work performed is unique and the expertise required of an SCJC staff attorney demands that management hire and retain seasoned candidates with the type of practical legal experience that new attorneys generally have not attained in their first 5 years out of law school. Additionally, from past experience the SCJC knows that its ability to implement merit raise and other reward programs has greatly reduced the high turnover rates the agency experienced in FY 2000-FY 2003.

The SCJC needs tools and incentives to allow management to retain existing attorney staff and to attract prospective attorney staff by being able to offer more competitive starting salaries commensurate with the experience and expertise required for the unique work of an SCJC staff attorney. Specifically, and at a minimum, staff attorney compensation should be brought in line with that of staff attorney positions at the Texas appellate courts and at judicial conduct agencies in other states. Staff attorneys at the appellate courts earn a minimum of $80,000 per year as a starting salary. SCJC attorney salaries currently fall within the $64,000-$74,000 range, depending on experience and tenure. In an improving economic environment in Texas, the salary in structure that was put in place for SCJC attorney staff more than a decade ago will prove to be an ongoing obstacle to attracting and retaining quality staff.

Amount over the biennium: $66,031

(3) Increase Funding for Commissioner Travel---As travel costs, particularly lodging in downtown Austin continue to rise, the SCJC needs additional funding to ensure board members can be fully reimbursed for travel to Austin for six meetings per year. In the past several years, the maximum lodging rate allowed by the State for Austin has increased from $108 to $139 per night, and is expected to rise again in FY 2016-2017. The agency’s current travel budget is based on the old, lower $108 amount for lodging, requiring the agency to make up the difference from other funding strategies and potentially limit travel. The additional funding is necessary to ensure the volunteer members are fully reimbursed for travel expenses as allowed by law and to avoid potentially having to limit their travel, which would adversely impact the timely resolution of cases pending before the SCJC.

Amount over the biennium: $6,400

Section 1

Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-23 David Slayton, Administrative Director George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change Other General 7.1% Revenue General Revenue Funds $26,207,015 $28,285,751 $2,078,736 7.9% Funds GR Dedicated Funds $113,520,427 $104,079,979 ($9,440,448) (8.3%) 19.9% Total GR-Related Funds $139,727,442 $132,365,730 ($7,361,712) (5.3%)

Federal Funds $217,618 $6,634 ($210,984) (97.0%) Other $10,585,406 $10,077,582 ($507,824) (4.8%) GR Dedicated All Funds $150,530,466 $142,449,946 ($8,080,520) (5.4%) Funds 73.1%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 223.6 233.6 10.0 4.5%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $142.4 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS

REQUESTED REQUESTED 261.6 261.6

REQUESTED $198.8

REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED $192.7 223.6 223.6 $181.9 APPROPRIATED REQUESTED 207.6 $176.0

2015 2016 2017

APPROPRIATED $85.2 APPROPRIATED $80.1 APPROPRIATED $65.3 APPROPRIATED $60.2 APPROPRIATED $47.7 APPROPRIATED $43.3

$44.9 $81.4 $69.1 $72.0 $70.4 $39.6 $75.9 $63.9 $66.9 $65.4 199.9 209.7 223.6 233.6 233.6 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 212 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

COURT ADMINISTRATION A.1.1 $6,941,430 $6,718,100 ($223,330) (3.2%) Recommendations reflect:

1. a decrease of $40,000 in General Revenue funding due to removal of one-time appropriations for Rider 15, Study of Department of Public Safety Sting Operations. (See also, Rider Highlights - House Former 15)

2. an increase of $150,000 in General Revenue funding for OCA to conduct a study of court processes and data collection practices on failure to attend school and parent contributions to nonattendance cases. (See also, Performance Review and Report Highlights - House #3).

3. $55,080 increase in General Revenue funding due to biennialization of salary increases.

4. a decrease of $210,984 in Federal Funds due to anticipated reductions in a Dept of Justice National Instant Criminal Background Check Program for Mental Health Records.

5. a $71,978 reduction in Appropriated Receipts (Other Funds).

6. a $105,448 reduction in Interagency Contracts (Other Funds) with the Texas Supreme Court related to program funding reductions.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 3 Section 2 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY A.1.2 $36,744,224 $44,889,937 $8,145,713 22.2% Recommendations reflect:

1. a $8,551,853 increase in General Revenue-Dedicated Statewide Electronic Filing System Account No. 5157 funding to equal projected revenues to the account (See also, Select Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #2 and Items Not Included in Recommendations - House OCA #1).

2. a $133,015 reduction in Appropriated Receipts due to a decrease in third party reimbursements for IT-related items.

3. a $305,706 decrease in Interagency Contracts due to anticipated reductions in program funding through an interagency contract with the Texas Supreme Court.

4. a $32,581 increase in General Revenue funding due to biennialization of salary increases.

DOCKET EQUALIZATION A.1.3 $33,750 $33,750 $0 0.0% ASSIST ADMIN JUDICIAL REGIONS A.1.4 $415,359 $417,195 $1,836 0.4% Recommendations include a $1,319 increase in General Revenue due to biennialization of the 2014-15 state employee salary increase and a $517 increase in Appropriated Receipts.

Total, Goal A, PROCESSES AND INFORMATION $44,134,763 $52,058,982 $7,924,219 18.0%

CHILD SUPPORT COURTS PROGRAM B.1.1 $13,933,598 $14,096,402 $162,804 1.2% Recommendations reflect a $28,244 increase in General Revenue funding due to biennialization of salary increases and a $134,560 increase in Interagency Contracts (Other Funds) resulting from a Federal Funds match for salary increases through the Office of Attorney General.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 4 Section 2 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments CHILD PROTECTION COURTS PROGRAM B.1.2 $6,340,889 $8,161,804 $1,820,915 28.7% Recommendations reflect: 1. an increase of $1,814,908 in General Revenue funding for four new Child Protection Courts to fully fund 8.0 FTEs, one associate judge and one court coordinator per court, and 2.0 FTEs to provide support to the Child Protection Courts.

2. an increase of $28,337 in General Revenue funding due to biennialization of salary increases; and

3. a decrease of $22,330 in Interagency Contracts (Other Funds) due to elimination of programmatic funding supplied through an interagency contract with the Texas Supreme Court (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #5). Total, Goal B, SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS $20,274,487 $22,258,206 $1,983,719 9.8%

JUDICIAL BRANCH CERTIFICATION COMM C.1.1 $1,064,075 $1,067,918 $3,843 0.4% Recommendations reflect an increase of $8,267 in General Revenue funding due to biennialization of the salary increase and a decrease of $4,424 in Appropriated Receipts (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #4).

TEXAS.GOV C.1.2 $22,861 $22,861 $0 0.0% Total, Goal C, CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE $1,086,936 $1,090,779 $3,843 0.4%

TX INDIGENT DEFENSE COMM D.1.1 $85,034,280 $67,041,979 ($17,992,301) (21.2%) Recommendations reflect a 21.2 percent decrease from the 2014-15 spending level due to one-time available balances of $18 million from fiscal year 2013 appropriated to the Texas Indigent Defense Commission in the 2014-15 biennium upon restoration of estimated appropriation authority to General Revenue- Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 and a $7,699 increase for biennialization of salary increases provided in 2014 and 2015 (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #7, #8, and #9).

Total, Goal D, INDIGENT DEFENSE $85,034,280 $67,041,979 ($17,992,301) (21.2%)

Grand Total, All Strategies $150,530,466 $142,449,946 ($8,080,520) (5.4%)

Agency 212 2/9/2015 5 Section 3

Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. The Legislative Appropriations Request submitted reflects the appropriations requests of both the Office of Court Administration (OCA), Texas Judicial Council (OCA and TJC respectively), and the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC). TIDC is a standing committee of the Texas Judicial Council, and is administratively attached to the Office of Court Administration.

2. Electronic Case Filing: Recommendations include an additional $8.5 million in General Revenue–Dedicated Statewide Electronic Filing System Account No. 5157 funding in fiscal year 2017 above the 2014–15 biennium to meet revenue projections included in the Comptroller of Public Account’s Biennial Revenue Estimate (BRE) and continue an estimated appropriation authority for all balances and revenues to the account for the purposes authorized in Government Code Section 51.852 (See Also, Rider Highlights - House New #15 and Items Not Included in Recommendations – House OCA #1).

The Supreme Court of Texas’ mandate requiring the electronic filing of cases by attorneys in appellate, district, county-level, and statutory probate courts began on January 1, 2014 and will continue with staggered implementation through July 2016. House Bill 2302, Eighty-Third Legislature, Regular Session 2013, established civil filing fees on a per-case basis and an additional court cost for certain criminal convictions that are deposited into the General Revenue–Dedicated Statewide Electronic Filing System Account No. 5157 to fund the eFiling system. OCA uses these funds to pay a vendor to manage the system and assists courts in implementing the eFiling mandate.

Revenues collected from these filing fees and court cost totaled $11.1 million in fiscal year 2014 which did not meet projected revenues of $17.7 million primarily due to confusion over when collections should start and a decrease in civil case filings. The agency anticipates this decrease in civil case filings will continue into the 2016–17 biennium which will result in revenues of $14.4 million for each year of the 2016–17 biennium, a decrease of $4.1 million for each year of the biennium from the Comptroller’s $18.5 million in the BRE.

OCA requests approximately $6.4 million in General Revenue to cover vendor obligations for the 2014–15 biennium and $2 million for anticipated fiscal year 2016 vendor obligations, for a total of $8.4 million. The $6.4 million included in the request is contingent upon like funding not being included in a supplemental bill for fiscal year 2015. OCA has entered into discussions with the vendor to re-negotiate amounts due under the contract in light of these revenue projection changes. The agency does not anticipate a drop in service levels due to these changes and expects revenue collections in the 2016–17 biennium to cover the statewide efiling system costs realized each year with continued invoice reductions in future years.

3. Court Costs and Filing Fees Report: Pursuant to the enactment of House Bill 1908, Eighty-third Legislature, Regular Session, OCA published a report in September 2014 that inventoried all court costs and filings fees, identified the statutory basis for these court costs and fees, assessed fee and court costs necessity, and considered if fees and court costs were accomplishing their stated purpose. The report “Study of the Necessity of Certain Court Costs and Fees in Texas” (available on OCA’s website) provides recommendations to the Legislature that include repealing certain fees and court costs, reviewing fees and court costs with an unclear statutory purpose or that are used to fund programs outside the judiciary, and reviewing the practice of depositing these fees and costs into the General Fund rather than restricting funds to specified purposes.

Sec 3a_Agency 212.docx 2/9/2015

6 Section 3

4. Judicial Branch Certification Commission: Recommendations include consolidation of former Strategy C.1.1, Court Reporters Certification Board, and former Strategy C.1.3, Guardians and Process Servers, into a new Strategy C.1.1, Judicial Branch Certification Commission. Beginning September 1, 2014, the responsibilities of the Court Reporters Certification Board, the Guardianship Certification Board, and the Process Server Review Board were consolidated into the newly established Judicial Branch Certification Commission due to enactment of Senate Bill 966, Eighty- third Legislature, Regular Session, 2013. The Licensed Court Interpreter Program was also moved to this program from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Performance measures and riders relating to the previous separate commissions were updated to reference the Judicial Branch Certification Commission (See also, Rider Highlights - House #4, #10, and Former #14).

5. Child Protection Courts: Recommendations include $1.8 million in General Revenue with 10.0 FTEs for four child protection courts to meet increasing caseload demands. Funding is provided for the salaries of an associate judge and court coordinator/reporter for each court and 2.0 FTEs to support the Child Protection Court system. The agency has indicated these courts would be located in areas with large caseloads to promote faster case resolution.

6. Mileage Reimbursement for Specialty Courts Staff: Recommendations add a rider permitting certain specialty court staff to use personal vehicles for travel and exempts these staff from completing worksheets showing a comparison of mileage reimbursement for travel in a personal vehicle versus using a rental car. These court staff travel frequently, sometimes multiple times per week, and are required to provide mileage versus rental car comparisons after every trip. Post-payment audits by the Comptroller’s Office determined that the agency’s protocol was not inappropriate, however the agency is required to continue the comparison reporting without an exemption (See also, Rider Highlights - House #16).

7. Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) and Office of Capital Writs Exceptional Item: The Office of Capital Writs has requested to transition from 100 percent funding through the General Revenue–Dedicated No. 5073 Fair Defense Account to a 47 percent/53 percent General Revenue/General Revenue–Dedicated split. If the agency’s request for a method of finance swap were approved, this could result in an automatic increased appropriation of $993,942 in General Revenue-Dedicated No. 5073 Fair Defense Account funds due to current law provisions. For the 2014-15 biennium, TIDC, within the bill pattern of the Office of Court Administration, is appropriated all balances and amounts deposited into General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 not appropriated for the Office of Capital Writs through its estimated appropriation authority.

Recommendations do not include any increase related to this MOF swap request, but do continue TIDC’s estimated appropriation authority in the 2016–17 biennium (See also, Rider Highlights - House #8).

Sec 3a_Agency 212.docx 2/9/2015

7 Section 3

8. County and State Share of Indigent Defense Costs: The costs to provide indigent defense services are met through a combination of state and local funding, with counties absorbing a majority of these costs. TIDC has requested $98.4 million in General Revenue each year of the 2016–17 biennium to defray county court costs of providing mandatory indigent defense services (not included in Recommendations). The chart below shows a breakdown of indigent defense expenditures and budgeted amounts from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015 with projections for each year of the 2016–17 biennium. Fiscal years 2013 through 2017 amounts were provided by TIDC’s Legislative Appropriation Request. TIDC’s request would result in a 59 percent/41 percent state/county split in the share of indigent defense costs with counties absorbing $91.4 million and the state $131.9 million. (See also, Rider Highlights - House #8 and Items Not Included in Recommendations – House TIDC #3)

9. Texas Indigent Defense Commission Administrative Allocation: Not included in Recommendations is TIDC’s request for authority to increase the commission’s administrative allocation from $950,500 to $1,064,988 each year (a $114,488 annual increase or $228,976 for the 2016–17 biennium) with 1.0 fewer FTEs (See also, Rider Highlights - House #8 and Items Not Included in Recommendations – House TIDC #4).

Sec 3a_Agency 212.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 3

Office of Court Administration Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Number of New Monthly Court Activity Reports Processed 127,844 129,000 129,000 129,000 129,000 • Number of Licenses Renewed 2,581 2,348 2,733 2,440 2,857 • Child Support Courts Case Disposition Rate 98.5% 98.2% 100% 100% 100% • Number of Children Who Have Received a Final Order 5,573 5,547 5,500 6,050 6,050

Note: These key performance measures are new for the 2016-17 biennium.

Sec3c Performance Measure Highlights_Agency 201 2/9/2015

9 Section 4 Office of Court Administration Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session Improve Data Collection and Reform State Truancy Laws to Enhance the Quality of Truancy Interventions, p. 1 This report includes seven recommendations that would have an estimated net cost of $4.6 million in General Revenue Funds in the 2016-17 biennium. Other recommendations in this report would affect the budget's of the Texas Education Agency and the Trusteed Programs within the Office of the Governor. The recommendations would improve the legislature’s ability to compare the effectiveness of different programs and policies intended to reduce truancy across the state. Implementing reforms to certain court procedures would provide additional protections for children and families while maintaining the court’s ability to enforce state truancy laws. 1. Include a contingency rider in the introduced 2016–17 General Appropriations Bill to increase General Revenue appropriations to the Office of Court Administration (OCA) by $150,000 and require OCA to study and recommend improvements to court processes and data ($150,000) GR Contingency Rider 14, p. IV-28 on failure to attend school and parent contributing to nonattendance cases. This rider is contingent on failure to attend school remaining a misdemeanor.

Sec4_Agency 212.xlsx 2/9/2015

10 Section 5

Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Rider Highlights - House

2. Capital Budget. Recommendations continue capital budget authority from the prior biennium in the same amounts for the same purpose.

The Acquisition of Information Resource Technologies category is subdivided to reflect purchases for desktop and laptop computers. 4. Information Technology Equipment and Services. Recommendations update the rider to reference the Judicial Branch Certification that has replaced the agency’s previous separate certification governing boards (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

#4). 8. Texas Indigent Defense Commission. Recommendations update the rider with estimated increases in collections from court costs for Juror Pay from $7.0 million to $7.5 million each year of the 2016–17 biennium and remove redundant language within the rider related to unexpended balance authority (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #9 and Items Not Included in Recommendations -

House TIDC #4). 10. Appropriations Limited to Revenue Collections. Pursuant to the enactment of Senate Bill 966, Eighty-third Legislature, Regular Session, 2013, recommendations update rider to reference the Judicial Branch Certification Commission that has replaced the agency’s

previous separate certification governing boards (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #4). Former 14. Guardianship Examination Fees. Recommendations delete this rider because these fees are included with other revenues supporting the Judicial Branch Certification Commission pursuant to the enactment of Senate Bill 966, Eighty-third Legislature, Regular Session,

2013 (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #4). New 14. Study of School Attendance Related Cases. Recommendations add a rider appropriating $150,000 in General Revenue to conduct a study of court processes and data collection practices on failure to attend school and parent contributing to nonattendance cases (See

also, Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights – House #1). Former 15. Study of Department of Public Safety Sting Operations. Recommendations delete this rider because the required study will be

completed January 1, 2015. New 15. Statewide eFiling System Fund: Recommendations relocate and amend Article IX Sec. 18.23 (2014–15 GAA), Contingency for HB 2302 or SB 1146 (2014-15 GAA), to the agency’s bill pattern and rename the Rider “Statewide eFiling System Fund”. Recommendations continue appropriation of all balances and deposits to General Revenue–Dedicated Statewide Electronic Filing System Account No. 5157 to the agency and continues unexpended balance authority at the strategy level. (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #2

and Items Not Included in Recommendations - House OCA #3). Former 16. Contingency for HB 990: Sentencing Commission. Recommendations delete this rider. The Legislation was not enacted. New 16. Mileage Reimbursement for Specialty Courts Staff. Recommendations add a rider to the agency’s bill pattern allowing the agency to provide travel reimbursement at the state-approved rate for certain specialty court staff who travel regularly and exempts these staff from requirements to complete a comparison worksheet showing mileage reimbursement for travel in a personal vehicle versus use of a rental car. New 17. Additional Child Protection Courts. Recommendations add a rider allocating $912,854 in General Revenue in fiscal year 2016 and $902,054 in fiscal year 2017 for the purpose of establishing four new child protection courts and to provide support and assistance to child protection courts.

Sec 5_Agency212.docx 2/9/2015

11 Section 6 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Office of Court Administration (OCA) Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Support Statewide eFiling Implementation $2,236,708 $2,236,708 a) $8,474,708 million in General Revenue funding to cover the revenue shortfall from filing fees and court costs collected to meet costs associated with development and operations of the statewide eFiling system. This includes $6.4 million for obligations from the 2014-15 biennium contingent on like funding not being included in a supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015, and $2.0 million for fiscal year 2016 obligations.

b) $2,000,000 million in General Revenue funding for grants to less populous counties to support mandatory eFiling implementation.

c) Reduce General Revenue-Dedicated Statewide Electronic Filing System Account No. 5157 by $8,238,000 to $28.8 million, or $14,400,000 for each year of the 2016-17 biennium, as the agency does not expect revenues to meet recommended amounts. These amounts differ from the Comptroller's Biennial Revenue Estimate (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #2).

2. Support Core Services for the Judicial Branch $ 1,729,165 $ 1,729,165 a) $739,410 in General Revenue funding to provide staff merit salary increases.

b) $232,578 in General Revenue funding for increased funding to the administrative judicial regions for administrative staff salary increase supplements (one state employee and eight county employees).

c) $757,177 in General Revenue funding and additional authority for 5.0 FTEs for the following:

1.0 FTE to address Judicial Information workloads, 1.0 FTE for a researcher to support best practice dissemination to the courts, 1.0 FTE for a professional development coordinator to support conference planning and training, 1.0 FTE for additional personnel to support administrative functions, and 1.0 FTE for additional personnel to support accounting/budget monitoring functions.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 12 Section 6 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds 3. Strengthen Judicial Services to Families $2,229,170 $4,145,292 a) $1,570,920 in General Revenue funding and $1,416,122 through an interagency contract with the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for increasing child protection court associate judge salaries to 90 percent of a district judge's salary, or $126,000. The OAG would fund the interagency contract with its Federal Funds.

b) $68,000 in General Revenue funding and $132,000 through an interagency contract with the OAG for operational support to child support courts. The OAG would fund the interagency contract with its Federal Funds.

c) $389,030 in General Revenue funding and $302,000 through an interagency contract with the OAG for an increase to court coordinator and court reporter salaries.The OAG would fund the interagency contract with its Federal Funds.

d) $167,220 in General Revenue funding to retain a domestic violence resource attorney position and additional authority for 1.0 FTE funded through a grant that expired in 2013.

e) $34,000 in General Revenue funding and $66,000 in Federal Funding through an interagency contract with the OAG for child support court coordinator training.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 13 Section 6 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds 4. Provide Judicial Branch Technology Support $ 1,488,994 $ 1,488,994 a) $112,460 in General Revenue funding and capital budget authority for increased Microsoft Enterprise Agreement costs (software license renewals).

b) $1,188,270 in General Revenue funding and additional authority for 6.0 FTEs to provide regional technology support staff for child support courts, child protection courts, intermediate appellate courts, administrative judicial regions, and regional OCA staff.

c) $188,264 in General Revenue funding and additional authority for 1.0 FTE (Project Manager) to oversee technology projects led by the agency.

5. Replace Legacy Judicial Branch Technology $ 2,967,175 $ 2,967,175 a) $2,017,175 in General Revenue funding and capital budget authority to replace aging security technology and a legacy data analysis system used to monitor the four judicial professions regulated by the Judicial Branch Certification Commission.

b) $950,000 in General Revenue funding for a court data analysis and reporting system that includes business intelligence tools.

6. Enhance Judicial Services to the Elderly and Incapacitated $ 1,106,762 $ 1,106,762 General Revenue funding and additional authority for 6.0 FTEs to initiate a new pilot program to place Guardianship Compliance Specialists across the state that would review guardianship filings for the elderly and incapacitated to determine if guardians are following statutorily-required procedures. Request includes five compliance specialists overseen by one program manager.

7. Implement CAPPS for Article IV Courts and Agencies $ 803,438 $ 803,438 General Revenue funding and additional authority for 2.0 FTEs to provide coordination of the CAPPS transition and to assist courts and judicial agencies in this transition. Includes positions for a project manager and management analyst to oversee this support.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 14 Section 6 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Statewide Regional Public Defender Program for Capital Cases $ 6,200,000 $ 6,200,000 General Revenue–Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 funding and additional authority for 1.0 FTE to support Statewide Regional Public Defender Program for Capital Cases to support program development. 2. Multi-County Technology Grant Program $ 3,100,000 $ 3,100,000 General Revenue–Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 funding and additional authority for 1.0 FTE to support the Multi-County Technology Grant Program. 3. Close the Fair Defense Act Funding Group $ 196,800,000 $ 196,800,000 General Revenue funding to defray costs of providing mandatory indigent defense services by counties. Amount anticipates state ability to fund indigent defense costs at 59 percent with funding of exceptional item and includes authority for an additional 4.0 FTEs to support administration and monitoring of additional funds (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #8).

4. Administrative Allocation $ - $ - Request to increase TIDC's administrative allocation from $950,500 to $1,064,988 each year (a $114,488 increase) for a total of $228,976 for the 2016-17 biennium with 1.0 fewer FTE (See also, Rider Highlights - House #8 and Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House #9).

5. Exempt Position $ - $ - Request to remove the Executive Director of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission as an Exempt Position within Group 2.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $218,661,412 $220,577,534

Agency 212 2/9/2015 15 Section 7 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Elimination of 2.0 FTEs from the Elimination of 2.0 FTEs from the Collection Improvement Program, include 1.0 $297,365 $297,365 2.0 $0 5% No Collection Improvement Program and FTE from the CIP Audit Program. The reduction's impact would result in less reduced funding to the Language support to assist counties and cities in implementing the program and fewer audits Access Program and visits conducted. (Strategy A.1.1 Court Administration) Reduced funding to the Language Access Program. The reduction would reduce the agencies capacity to provide interpretation services in languages other than Spanish. 2 Elimination of 2.0 FTEs in OCA's IT Help Elimination of 2.0 FTEs in the Information Services division. The resulting impact $377,240 $377,240 2.0 $0 1% No Desk and Lowering of Payments to the would cut OCA's service desk in half, reducing the response time for service Statewide E-filing Contracted Vendor tickets and transferring a portion of these responsibilities to the server team. This (Strategy A.1.2 Information Technology) option includes the lowering of payments to the statewide E-filing contracted vendor. 3 Reduction of Docket Equalization Reduction of Docket Equalization funding. The reduction would result in the $1,688 $1,688 $0 5% No Funding agency reducing funding for travel costs associated with transfer cases. (Strategy A.1.3 Docket Equalization)

4 Reduction in Funding for Administrative Reduction in funding for this Strategy would result in counties absorbing additional $15,371 $15,371 $0 5% No Assistants to Regional Presiding Judges costs to provideg administrative assistants to Regional Presiding Judges. (Strategy A.1.4. Assistance to Administrative Judicial Regions)

5 Elimiation of 2.5 Child Support Courts Elimination of 2.5 child support courts and 5.0 FTEs. The reduction's impact $234,112 $234,112 5.0 $0 5% No & 5.0 FTEs depends on which courts are closed, but could result in child support cases not (Strategy B.1.1. Child Support Courts) being resolved within statutorily mandated, expedited timeframes. General revenue for this program is used to match federal funding, therefore funding cuts to this program also results in a corresponding reduction in federal funds. The 0.5 court reduction means the agency would operate the court for half a year before closing the court.

6 Elimination of One Child Protection Elimination of one child protection court and 2.0 FTEs. The reductions impact $315,371 $315,371 2.0 $0 5% No Court & 2.0 FTEs would reduce the number of child protection court hearings by 1,550 per year (Strategy B.1.2. Child Protection Courts) impacting 275 children.

Agency 212 2/9/2015 16 Section 7 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 7 Elimination of 1.0 FTE Elimination of 1.0 FTE within the Judicial Branch Certification Commission. The $52,127 $52,127 1.0 $0 5% No (Strategy C.1.1. Judicial Branch reductions impact would produce delays in processing applications for licensing, Certification Commission) renewal or registration and complaint resolution.

8 Reduction in Texas.gov Funding Appropriations to this Strategy are estimated and non-transferrable. Any revenues $1,143 $1,143 $0 5% No (Strategy C.1.2. TEXAS.GOV) collected for this function are appropriated to the agency to pass through to the provider. Any cuts to this Strategy would require transfers from other strategies to make up the difference.

9 Reduction in Funding to Counties to Reduction in funding to counties to support Constitutionally required indigent $4,250,651 $4,250,651 $0 6% No Provide Indigent Defense Services defense programs. The reduction's impact would be a transfer of programmatic (Strategy D.1.1. Texas Indigent Defense costs to county governments. Commission)

10 Elimination of 2.0 FTEs Elimination of 2.0 FTEs from Strategy A.1.1, Court Administration. $297,364 $297,364 2.0 $0 5% No (Strategy A.1.1. Court Administration)

11 Elimination of 2.0 FTEs Providing Reduction of 2.0 FTEs would eliminate business analyst/quality assurance $377,240 $377,240 $0 4% No Business Analysis and Quality positions from the application support team. This reduction's impact would Assurance increase the time between software release cycles and these FTEs responsibilites (Strategy A.1.2. Information Technology) would be transferred to the remaining application support team. Additionally, OCA would reduce payments to its contracted vendor for statewide E-filing operations.

12 Reduction of Docket Equalization Further reduction of Docket Equalization funding. The reduction would result in the $1,688 $1,688 $0 5% No Funding agency reducing funding for travel costs associated with transfer cases. (Strategy A.1.3 Docket Equalization)

13 Reduction in Funding for Administrative Reduction in funding for this Strategy would result in counties absorbing additional $15,372 $15,372 $0 5% No Assistants to Regional Presiding Judges costs to provide administrative assistants to Regional Presiding Judges. (Strategy A.1.4. Assistance to Administrative Judicial Regions)

Agency 212 2/9/2015 17 Section 7 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 14 Elimination of 2.5 Child Support Courts Elimination of another 2.5 child support courts and 5.0 FTEs. The reduction's $234,112 $234,112 5.0 $0 5% No & 5.0 FTEs impact depends on which courts are closed, but could result in child support cases (Strategy B.1.1. Child Support Courts) not being resolved within statutorily mandated, expedited timeframes. General revenue for this program is used to match federal funding, therefore funding cuts to this program also results in a corresponding reduction in federal funds. The 0.5 court reduction means the agency would operate the court for half a year before closing the court.

15 Elimination of One Child Protection Elimination of one child protection court and 2.0 FTEs. The reductions impact $315,804 $315,804 2.0 $0 5% No Court & 2.0 FTEs would reduce the number of child protection court hearings by 1,550 per year (Strategy B.1.2. Child Protection Courts) impacting 275 children.

16 Elimination of 1.0 FTE Elimination of an additional 1.0 FTE within the Judicial Branch Certification $52,127 $52,127 1.0 $0 5% No (Strategy C.1.1. Judicial Branch Commission. The reduction's impact would produce delays in processing Certification Commission) applications for licensing, renewal or registration and complaint resolution.

17 Reduction in Texas.gov Funding Appropriations to this Strategy are estimated and non-transferrable. Any revenues $1,143 $1,143 $0 5% No (Strategy C.1.2. TEXAS.GOV) collected for this function are appropriated to the agency to pass through to the provider. Any cuts to this Strategy would require transfers from other strategies to make up the difference.

18 Reduction in Funding to Counties to Reduction in funding to counties to support Constitutionally required indigent $4,250,650 $4,250,650 $0 6% No Provide Indigent Defense Services defense programs. The reduction's impact would be a transfer of programmatic (Strategy D.1.1. Texas Indigent Defense costs to county governments. Commission)

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $11,090,568 $11,090,568 22.0 $0

Agency 212 2/9/2015 18

Legislative Appropriations Request

Exceptional Items for Fiscal Years 2016 to 2017

House Version

Texas Indigent Defense Commission

The Honorable Sharon Keller, Chair – Presiding Judge Court of Criminal Appeals

James D. Bethke, Executive Director Who We Are What We Do Thirteen-member governing board administratively attached to the Office of Administer Court Administration. Jim Bethke is the Executive Director. The Commission Our Purpose has eleven full-time staff. Is to provide financial and technical support to counties to develop and maintain quality, cost-effective indigent OFFICERS: defense systems that meet the needs of local communities Honorable Sharon Keller Chair – Presiding Judge, and the requirements of the Constitution and state law. Court of Criminal Appeals Honorable Olen Underwood Vice-Chair – Presiding Judge, Our Grant Program 2nd Administrative Judicial Region of Texas In FY 2014 over $48 million awarded to Texas counties. EX OFFICIO MEMBERS: Formula grant awards totaled $37 million (254 Counties) Honorable Sharon Keller Austin, Presiding Judge, Discretionary grants totaled $11 million (22 Counties) Court of Criminal Appeals Honorable Nathan Hecht Austin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court Our Fiscal and Policy Honorable John Whitmire Houston, State Senator Honorable Royce West Dallas, State Senator Monitoring Program Honorable Roberto Alonzo Dallas, State Representative The Commission monitors each county that receives a Honorable Abel Herrero Robstown, State Representative grant to ensure state money is being properly spent and accounted for and to enforce compliance by the county MEMBERS APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR: with the conditions of the grant, as well as with state and Honorable Olen Underwood Conroe, Presiding Judge, local rules and regulations. 2nd Administrative Judicial Region of Texas Honorable Sherry Radack Houston, Chief Justice, First Court of Appeals Our Innocence Program Honorable Jon Burrows Temple, Bell County Judge Honorable B. Glen Whitley Hurst, Tarrant County Judge Since 2005, the Commission provides up to $100,000 Honorable Linda Rodriguez San Marcos, Hays County Court at Law #2 annually to University of Texas School of Law, Texas Tech Anthony Odiorne Burnet, Assistant Public Defender, Regional University School of Law, the Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and the University of Houston Law Center to Public Defender Office for Capital Cases operate innocence clinics. This funding has contributed Don Hase Arlington, Attorney, Ball & Hase towards 11 exonerations.

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 1 State Spending Compared with County Spending

Biennium County Spending County’s Share State Spending State’s Share Funding Gap* 2001 $91 Million 100% $0 0% $0 2002-2003 $223 Million 92% $19 Million 8% $42 million 2004-2005 $258 Million 91% $26 Million 9% $70 million 2006-2007 $279 Million 90% $32 Million 10% $95 million 2008-2009 $312 Million 86% $50 Million 14% $128 million 2010-2011 $332 Million 84% $62 Million 16% $148 million 2012-2013 $369 Million 87% $56 Million 13% $186 million

2014^ $187 Million^ 81%^ $43 Million^ 19%^ $95 million^

2002 to 2014 Indigent Defense Spending

State of Texas Counties *Funding Gap = Total Spending – State Spending – $288 Million County Spending in 2001 $1,960 Million

^2015 spending information not available. Will be reported by counties later this year.

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 2 Pre-Fair Defense Act through Present Prior to 2002 Present

No state funding or oversight Key process standards implemented

No reporting requirements on State provides some funding to support spending or caseloads indigent defense

No uniformity in local indigent Commission created to provide oversight defense appointment practices Counties now report indigent defense plan and No consistent standards regarding expense information to Commission attorney training and experience New attorney caseload and practice time Judges’ discretion to select reporting pursuant to HB 1318 (83rd Legislature) counsel, pay fees and determine who is indigent fueled appearance Attorney training and qualification of cronyism standards adopted

Inconsistent quality of death Death penalty appellate attorney penalty representation qualifications established

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 3 Grant Program Highlights

Regional Public Defender Office for Capital Cases Multi-County Indigent Defense Case Management System Rural Regional Public Defender Offices New Veterans Defender Programs New Programs Serving Mentally Ill Defendants First–in-the-Nation Client Choice Program

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 4 Challenges

Lack of long-term funding stability for successful programs Most counties lack electronic indigent defense case management systems Counties struggling with under-funded indigent defense mandates

Retaining quality administrative staff

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 5 Exceptional Item # 1: $6.2 Million for Statewide Regional Public Defender Office for Capital Cases (RPDO) • Lubbock County Serves 162 Counties • Operates in all nine (9) Administrative Judicial Regions • Recognized by National Association of Counties Achievement Award • Texas Association of Counties Best Practices Award

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 6 RPDO Evaluation Indicates Program is Successful

Meets State Bar Capital Defense Guidelines

Independence from Judicial Influence

More Prompt and More Frequent Capital Team Appointment

Better Non-Attorney Defense Team Services Greater Investment in Mitigation to Increase Plea Rates to Non-Death Sentences

Fewer Cases Ending in a Death Sentence Lower Average Cost-per-Case Value for Member Counties

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 7 Exceptional Item # 2: $3 Million to Support a Multi- County Indigent Defense Technology Grant Program

Bell 2011 Grant to develop indigent defense County case management system

2014 Grant to expand to 10 more counties in Tarrant partnership w/ Conference of Urban Counties’ County TechShare Program Funding requested to Strategy for adaption support continued in other counties to expansion of enhance efficiencies successful program and accountability

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 8 Exceptional Item # 3: $196.8 Million to Close the Fair Defense Act Funding Gap

Baseline = 2001 Cost in 2013

$91.4 million $217.1 million

GAP

137% Increased Increased in Cost

$27.4 million of state $125.7 million $98.3 million paid by funding or 22% of this counties or 78% of this “increased cost” “increased cost”

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 9 Request for .3% Reallocation to Administration

Small administrative staff in charge of major Over 36 % turnover during last biennium grant programs and compliance monitoring

Administrative Budget capped at $950 K Budget not kept pace with workload Request .3% ($114,488) reallocation DOES NOT INCREASE OR IMPACT OVERALL BUDGET With Reallocation Admin Support is 3.2%

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 10 RIDER REVISIONS

8 IV-27 Included above in Strategy D.1.1, Texas Indigent Defense Commission, is $950,500 1,064,988 including 12.0 11.0 FTEs in fiscal year 2014 2016 and $950,500 1,064,988 including 12.0 11.0 FTEs in fiscal year 20152017for the administration of the Commission. Except as otherwise provided relating to appropriations for the Office of Capital Writs, balances and amounts deposited into the General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 are appropriated above in Strategy D.1.1, Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC). Any balances and amounts deposited in excess of $48,449,904 33,517,140 in fiscal year 20142016 and $30,546,228 33,517,140 in fiscal year 2015 2017 are appropriated to the TIDC for the same purpose. Included in these estimates are amounts collected from court costs pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 102.0045, Fee for Jury Reimbursement to Counties (estimated to be $7,0500,000 in fiscal year 20142016 and $7,0500,000 in fiscal year 20152017). Any unexpended balances in the Fair Defense Account at the end of fiscal year 20142016 are appropriated for fiscal year 20152017 to the TIDC for the same purpose. The Texas Indigent Defense Commission shall have authority to make grants to counties from the Fair Defense Account (General Revenue-Dedicated Account No. 5073), with funds being disbursed by the Comptroller. No portion of the appropriation made by this section shall be used to offset the Office of Court Administration's administrative support provided to the Texas Indigent Defense Commission except by mutual agreement of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and the Office of Court Administration. Any unexpended balances in appropriations out of the Fair Defense Account at the end of fiscal year 20142016 are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 20152017 to the Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council for the same purpose.

This rider has been changed to reflect the FY 2014-152016-17 biennium. It also requests a change to the provision related to OCA administrative support costs. Over the last ten years, the indigent defense program has grown significantly, as has the administrative effort to support its activities. The proposed change allows the Commission to provide funding to OCA for administrative support upon mutual agreement an administrative increase to support the growth of the indigent defense program.

11 IV-28 Innocence Projects. Out of amounts appropriated above in Strategy D.1.1, Texas Indigent Defense Commission, $400,000 in each year of the biennium from the General Revenue- Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 shall be used by the Commission to contract with law schools at the University of Houston, the University of Texas, Texas Tech University, and Texas Southern University for innocence projects. It is the intent of the Legislature that the amount of each contract with each university shall be $100,000. Any unexpended balances in the $400,000 in funds designated for innocence projects as of August 31, 2015 6 are hereby appropriated to Strategy D.1.1, Texas Indigent Defense Commission for the same purpose for the fiscal year beginning September 1, 2015 6.

This rider has been changed to reflect the FY 2016-17 biennium.

Texas Indigent Defense Commission | 11 Section 1

Office of Capital Writs Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-29 Brad Levenson, Executive Director George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% GR Dedicated Funds $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0% Total GR-Related Funds $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0% GR Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Dedicated Other $0 $0 $0 0.0% Funds 100.0% All Funds $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 215 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Office of Capital Writs 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $2.2 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS REQUESTED $1.5 REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED $1.5 18.0 18.0 $1.4 REQUESTED $1.4

APPROPRIATED $1.1 APPROPRIATED $1.1 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED 13.0 $1.0 APPROPRIATED $1.0 APPROPRIATED $0.9 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $0.9 11.0 2015 2016 APPROPRIATED 9.0 2017

$0.9 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $0.9 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 9.0 11.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 215 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Office of Capital Writs Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

DEATH PENALTY REPRESENTATION A.1.1 $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0% Recommendations fund the agency at 105 percent of 2014-15 spending levels through General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 and include the following increases:

1. $7,793 to biennialize the 2014-15 general state employee salary increase; and 2. $48,337 each year ($96,674 total) to fully fund 13.0 FTEs (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3) Total, Goal A, DEATH PENALTY REPRESENTATION $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0%

Grand Total, All Strategies $2,106,979 $2,211,446 $104,467 5.0%

Agency 215 2/9/2015 3 Section 3

Office of Capital Writs Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Method of Finance Swap: The agency requests to transition from 100 percent funding through the General Revenue–Dedicated No. 5073 Fair Defense Account to a 47 percent/53 percent General Revenue/General Revenue–Dedicated split. This swap would result in a General Revenue increase of $993,942 in the 2016–17 biennium. It would not likely result in a savings to General Revenue–Dedicated No. 5073 Fair Defense Account, because the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (in the bill pattern of the Office of Court Administration) has estimated appropriation authority on balances in the account. Recommendations do not include this swap, and continue 100 percent funding through the General Revenue– Dedicated No. 5073 Fair Defense Account (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations – House #1).

2. Facility Space: The agency’s facilities were built to house nine FTEs. As the agency’s staff size has grown to 13.0 FTEs, the amount of space available to house these additional FTEs has decreased to a point where staff are currently housed in the file/copy room. The agency requests $96,563 in one-time funding to build out new space on the same floor within their present facility and for associated office equipment. This is not included in recommendations (see also, Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #3).

3. Biennialize Salaries and Wages for New Positions Provided in Fiscal Year 2015: Recommendations include biennialization of fiscal year 2015 appropriated amounts to restore salaries and wages to fiscal year 2015 levels each year of the 2016–17 biennium for 2.0 new FTEs that were authorized beginning in fiscal year 2015.

Sec 3a_Agency 215.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3

Office of Capital Writs Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • The Number of Appointments Accepted* 10 11 11 12 12

* This key performance measure is new for the 2016-17 biennium.

Sec3c Performance Measure Highlights_Agency 201 2/9/2015

5 Section 4 Office of Capital Writs Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 215.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 5

Office of Capital Writs Rider Highlights - House

NONE

Sec 5_Agency215.docx 2/9/2015

7 Section 6 Office of Capital Writs Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Request for reinstatement to the 2010-11 biennium funding split of General Revenue (47 percent or $ - $ - $993,942)/General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 (53 percent or $1.1 million). Agency is currently 100 percent funded through General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #1).

2. Request for General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 funding for additional appropriations $ 552,000 $ 552,000 and FTEs to meet increasing caseload demands.

Request includes the following 5.0 FTEs: 1. Attorney ($70,000 per year) 2. Attorney ($60,000 per year) 3. Investigator ($52,000 per year) 4. Investigator ($52,000 per year) 5. Paralegal ($42,000 per year)

3. Request for General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 funding to remodel a file room and $ 96,563 $ 96,563 provide additional office space, office furniture, computers, and telephones to meet work space needs (See also, Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #2).

4. Request for General Revenue-Dedicated Fair Defense Account No. 5073 funding for attorney and investigator $ 68,000 $ 68,000 salary increases for current staff to provide salaries that are competitive with similar positions in other agencies.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 716,563 $ 716,563

Agency 215 2/9/2015 8 Section 7 Office of Capital Writs Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Eliminate two FTEs (legal and non-legal The reduction would include the following: $208,687 $208,687 2.0 $0 9% No staff), reduce case-related travel, and 1. Reduced funding for expert witnesses used in preparation for and during reduce use of expert witnesses evidentiary hearings 2. Reduced funding for case-related travel 3. Elimination of 2.0 FTE positions (one staff attorney and one non-legal position)

The reduction's impact would mean fewer cases would be accepted by the agency which would negatively impact the agency's capacity to fulfill its core mission.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $208,687 $208,687 2.0 $0

Agency 215 2/9/2015 9 House Appropriations Hearing on Article IV February 18, 2015

1 WHAT IS THE OCW

• The Office of Capital Writs (“OCW”) was created by the 81st Legislature

• The OCW opened its doors on September 1, 2010

• The OCW represents death sentenced defendants in their state post-conviction litigation

2 OCW CASE APPOINTMENTS

• Every defendant who is sentenced to death in Texas has a statutory right to post-conviction representation

• The Legislature created the OCW for the purpose of undertaking those representations

• The OCW currently represents 37 clients in 16 counties across Texas

• The OCW is struggling to accept appointments based upon its restricted budget, shortage of staff, and increasing case load

3 OCW CASE APPOINTMENTS

$1.50 50 $1.40 45 40 $1.30 35 $1.20 30 $1.10 25 20 Millions $1.00 15 $0.90 10 $0.80 5 $0.70 0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 RequestedRequested

Appropriations Staff Cases Pending

4 WHAT THE OCW DOES

• Reinvestigate the capital case looking for constitutional error • Guilt/Innocence • Punishment/Sentencing • Travel to scene of crime and where defendant was raised (State, National, International) • Hire experts • Forensic • DNA • Mental Health • PTSD • Conduct evidentiary hearings • Prepare briefing to the trial courts and Court of Criminal Appeals

5 OCW Case Timetable

• Projected average time between OCW appointment and transfer of case to federal counsel: 45 to 48 months

6 Efficient Use of Existing Funding

• Staff: – OCW staff work uncompensated overtime on a weekly basis – Numerous fellowship attorneys funded within the confines of a budget meant for less FTEs – OCW hosts student clerks/interns resulting in significant hours of voluntary work (30 clerks resulting in over 6,000 hours of voluntary work equating to 150 weeks of free work)

• Expert Witnesses: – $25 to $50 reduction in hourly fee rates compared to rates charged by experts to non-OCW clients

• Travel Costs: – Limited overnight travel resulting in 15 plus hour days – Maximum use of the same rental car – Minimal per diem usage – 50% of allowable costs – Only hotels with free parking and free breakfast approved

7 OCW Caseload

50 45 40 35 30

25 Projected Cases 20 Cases Pending 15 10 5 0

* projected

8 Exceptional Items

• Growth Costs • Build out and furniture and computer costs

• Additional FTEs • (2 Attorneys, 2 investigators, 1 support staff)

• Salary Increases for Existing Staff

• Reinstatement of GR/GR Dedicated Split

9 Section 1

Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV-30 Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney George Dziuk, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change Other 5.6% General Revenue Funds $759,011 $763,583 $4,572 0.6% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $759,011 $763,583 $4,572 0.6%

Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other $45,000 $45,000 $0 0.0% General Revenue All Funds $804,011 $808,583 $4,572 0.6% Funds 94.4%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 213 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $808,583

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

REQUESTED REQUESTED $418,646 $419,407 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED $381,727 $396,790 $397,729 $396,146 $396,907 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $359,227 $374,290 $375,229

$404,509 $399,250 $404,761 $403,911 $404,672 $382,009 $376,750 $382,261 $381,411 $382,172 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Notes: (1) Expended amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2013 due to agency moving $22,782 in unexpended balances from 2012 into 2013. (2) Estimated and budgeted amounts exceed appropriated amounts in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 due to salary increase for general state employees.

Agency 213 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

REPRESENTATION BEFORE CCA A.1.1 $804,011 $808,583 $4,572 0.6% Recommendations reflect an increase of $4,572 in General Revenue to biennialize the general state employee salary increase provided in the 2014-15 biennium, and continues administrative consolidation with the Office of Court Administration (OCA). Under terms of the interagency contract, OCA provides administrative assistance for budget, human resources, purchasing, and reporting requirements. (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations - House #1) Total, Goal A, REPRESENTATION BEFORE CCA $804,011 $808,583 $4,572 0.6%

Grand Total, All Strategies $804,011 $808,583 $4,572 0.6%

Agency 213 2/9/2015 3 Section 3

Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

NONE

Sec 3a_Agency 213.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 4 Office of State Prosecuting Attorney Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 213.xlsx 2/9/2015

5 Section 5

Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Rider Highlights - House

NONE

Sec 5_Agency213.docx 2/9/2015

6 Section 6 Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. General Revenue funding to restore assistant state prosecuting attorney salaries to FY 2010–11 levels (increase $ 29,470 $ 29,470 of $9,735 each year) and increase contracted amounts with OCA for administrative support ($5,000 each year) to levels that meet OCA's costs to provide these services.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 29,470 $ 29,470

Agency 213 2/9/2015 7 Section 7 Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Reduce Legal Secretary Position in The reduction would eliminate the legal secretary position at the beginning of $35,976 $35,976 1.0 $0 5% No Fiscal Year 2017 Fiscal Year 2017. Impact of reduction would leave the agency without administrative support for the second year of the biennium. 2 Reduce Legal Secretary Position for the The reduction would eliminate the legal secretary position. Impact of reduction $35,976 $35,976 1.0 $0 5% No 2016-17 Biennium would leave the agency without administrative support for the biennium.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $71,952 $71,952 2.0 $0

Agency 213 2/9/2015 8

Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney

No materials provided. Section 1

Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Summary of Recommendations - House

Page IV - 34 Mike Reissig, Deputy Comptroller Tina Beck, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $173,774,941 $175,560,162 $1,785,221 1.0% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $173,774,941 $175,560,162 $1,785,221 1.0% Other 43.7% Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% General Other $130,467,167 $136,302,154 $5,834,987 4.5% Revenue Funds 56.3% All Funds $304,242,108 $311,862,316 $7,620,208 2.5%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 618.0 619.0 1.0 0.2%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 241 2/11/2015 1 Section 1 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $311.9 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS

REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED 619.0 619.0 612.0 616.0 618.0 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $155.8 $155.7 REQUESTED REQUESTED $150.9 $151.1 $87.9 $87.8 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $83.6 APPROPRIATED $83.6 $138.5

APPROPRIATED $69.8

2015 2016 2017

$137.7 $151.8 $152.4 $156.0 $155.9 $76.1 $89.3 $84.5 $87.8 $87.8 610.2 613.5 618.0 619.0 619.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

FY 2013 expended amounts of $76.1 million exceed appropriated amounts of $69.8 million, primarily due to the enactment of House Bill 1025 by the Eighty-third Legislature, which included supplemental appropriations of $8 million in General Revenue, primarily to address a revenue shortfall in the Judicial Fund No. 573 (Other Funds) for district judge salaries. This increase was offset by lapses across several strategies at the end of fiscal year 2013, primarily in the Juror Pay strategy (D.1.8).

Expended amounts in the 2014-15 biennium exceed appropriated amounts primarily because the judicial and prosecutor pay raise triggered additional costs under Art. IX, Sec. 17.05 Payroll Contribution for Group Health Insurance. Also, in FY 2014 there was an increase of $5.3 million from General Revenue, offset by a corresponding decrease from the Judicial Fund No. 573 (Other Funds) to address a revenue shortfall in appropriations from Fund 573 for district judge salary related payroll costs.

Agency 241 2/11/2015 2 Section 2 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

DISTRICT JUDGES A.1.1 $130,681,193 $131,287,859 $606,666 0.5% See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 1(a) and 1(e). VISITING JUDGES - REGIONS A.1.2 $10,577,706 $10,577,706 $0 0.0% VISITING JUDGES - APPELLATE A.1.3 $728,958 $728,958 $0 0.0% LOCAL ADMIN. JUDGE SUPPLEMENT A.1.4 $161,490 $161,490 $0 0.0% DISTRICT JUDGES: TRAVEL A.1.5 $676,400 $676,400 $0 0.0% JUDICIAL SALARY PER DIEM A.1.6 $366,313 $366,312 ($1) (0.0%) MDL SALARY AND BENEFITS A.1.7 $349,004 $349,004 $0 0.0% Total, Goal A, JUDICIAL SALARIES AND PAYMENTS $143,541,064 $144,147,729 $606,665 0.4%

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS: SALARIES B.1.1 $1,483,454 $1,483,454 $0 0.0% PROFESSIONAL PROSECUTORS: SALARIES B.1.2 $43,139,105 $43,139,104 ($1) (0.0%) FELONY PROSECUTORS: SALARIES B.1.3 $681,069 $681,070 $1 0.0% PROSECUTORS: SUBCHAPTER C B.1.4 $272,046 $272,046 $0 0.0% FELONY PROSECUTORS: TRAVEL B.1.5 $357,000 $357,000 $0 0.0% FELONY PROSECUTORS: EXPENSES B.1.6 $8,057,166 $8,057,166 $0 0.0% Total, Goal B, PROSECUTOR SALARIES AND PAYMENTS $53,989,840 $53,989,840 $0 0.0%

CONST. CO. JUDGE GR/573 SUPPLEMENT C.1.1 $4,310,000 $4,310,000 $0 0.0% CONST. CO. JUDGE 573 SUPPLEMENT C.1.2 $2,698,794 $2,698,794 $0 0.0% STATUTORY CO. JUDGE 573 SUPPLEMENT C.1.3 $39,643,990 $40,002,490 $358,500 0.9% See Selected and Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 1(b). Also, includes an increase of $50,500 redirected to Statutory County Judge Salary Supplements for the reduction of one-time start-up costs in the 2014-15 biennium for the new 1st Multicounty Court at Law service Nolan, Fisher, and Mitchell Counties.

STATUTORY PROBATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENT C.1.4 $2,739,571 $2,739,572 $1 0.0% 1ST MULTICOUNTY COURT AT LAW C.1.5 $244,500 $194,000 ($50,500) (20.7%) See Selected and Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 4. Total, Goal C, CO.-LEVEL JUDGES SALARY SUPPLEMENTS $49,636,855 $49,944,856 $308,001 0.6%

ASST. PROSECUTOR LONGEVITY PAY D.1.1 $8,769,700 $8,769,700 $0 0.0% COUNTY ATTORNEY SUPPLEMENT D.1.2 $12,206,668 $12,206,668 $0 0.0% WITNESS EXPENSES D.1.3 $2,802,500 $2,802,500 $0 0.0% PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT, TRAVIS CO. D.1.4 $0 $6,608,930 $6,608,930 100.0% See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 3. SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT, WALKER CO D.1.5 $10,047,145 $10,143,755 $96,610 1.0% See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 1(c).

Agency 241 2/11/2015 3 Section 2 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments DEATH PENALTY REPRESENTATION D.1.6 $50,000 $50,000 $0 0.0% NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS D.1.7 $910,755 $910,756 $1 0.0% JUROR PAY D.1.8 $21,763,400 $21,763,400 $0 0.0% INDIGENT INMATE DEFENSE D.1.9 $60,000 $60,000 $0 0.0% MONTGOMERY CO - 435TH DIST CT STAFF D.1.10 $464,181 $464,182 $1 0.0% Total, Goal D, SPECIAL PROGRAMS $57,074,349 $63,779,891 $6,705,542 11.7%

Grand Total, All Strategies $304,242,108 $311,862,316 $7,620,208 2.5%

Agency 241 2/11/2015 4 Section 3

Judiciary Section, Comptroller’s Department Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. 2016-17 Recommendations

2016-17 recommendations begin with the agency’s 2016-17 baseline request and incorporate the following adjustments:

a. Annualize Funding for New District Courts: an increase of $606,667 in All Funds ($345,800 from General Revenue and $260,867 from the Judicial Fund No. 573 – Other Funds) to annualize costs for two new courts, and fund an additional court that will be established September 1, 2015 (including 1.0 FTE). The Eighty-third Legislature enacted legislation that established two new district courts in fiscal year 2015 (the 442nd Judicial District in Denton County and the 443rd Judicial District in Ellis County) and one new district court in fiscal year 2016 (the 450th Judicial District in Travis County).

b. Annualize Funding for Statutory County Judge Salary Supplements: an increase of $308,000 in All Funds ($16,940 from General Revenue and $274,120 from the Judicial Fund No. 573 – Other Funds) to annualize costs for three new courts. The Eighty-third Legislature, Regular Session, enacted House Bill 3153, which established a new statutory county court in January 2014 (Atascosa County), another court in January 2015 (Jim Wells County), and a third court in September 2015 (the County Court at Law No. 9 in Travis County).

c. Office Lease Payments for the Civil Division – Special Prosecution Unit: an increase of $96,610 from General Revenue to fund the costs of renting office space in a privately owned building to house the 16 county employees in the Civil Division. In the first week of September 2014, Civil Division staff of the Special Prosecution Unit (SPU) had to be evacuated from the Walker County building where the division was located. The building had begun to collapse into a sinkhole. Walker County had no other available space to house these employees in a county-owned building, and the SPU had no available funds in its existing budget to make rent payments for private space.

d. Restore Estimated Appropriation Authority for the Witness Expenses Strategy (D.1.3): The Judiciary Section has an appropriation to reimburse counties for the travel expenses of witnesses called in criminal proceedings who reside outside of the county where the trial takes place. Prior to the 2012-13 biennium, the Judiciary Section had estimated appropriation authority for this strategy. This authority was suspended in the 2012-13 General Appropriations Act due to the statewide budget climate. The Judiciary Section reports that due to inflationary increases in travel costs, the $1.4 million appropriated each fiscal year for these purposes is no longer sufficient to cover costs. Recommendations include reinstating estimated appropriation authority for this strategy.

e. Incorporate a Method of Finance Swap to Replace General Revenue with the Judicial Fund No. 573: an increase of $5.3 million in the Judicial Fund No. 573, offset by a decrease of the same amount from General Revenue in the 2016-17 biennium compared to 2014-15 spending levels for District Judge Salaries (A.1.1). Revenue shortfalls in the Judicial Fund resulted in the Judiciary Section making an additional draw from General Revenue in fiscal year 2014 to cover benefits proportionate by pay requirements. Although recommendations in 2016-17 reflect the expectation that Judicial Fund collections will be sufficient to fund related payroll costs, the Judiciary Section will continue to need estimated appropriation authority from General Revenue to cover any ongoing shortfall.

Sec 3a_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

5 Section 3

2. Judicial Compensation

The Eighty-third Legislature appropriated an increase of $34.8 million in General Revenue Funds from the biennial 2012-13 spending levels for a 12 percent judicial pay raise for judges and prosecutors whose salaries are statutorily linked to the state salary of a district judge. Recommendations maintain funding levels for the increase in the 2016-17 biennium.

In its report to the Eighty-fourth Legislature, the Judicial Compensation Commission recommended a 5 percent pay increase in the 2016-17 biennium. Salaries linked to district judge pay are shown below:

SALARY SCHEDULE FOR POSITIONS LINKED TO THE STATE SALARY OF A DISTRICT JUDGE

Position State Salary State Salary Judicial Compensation 8/31/2013 9/1/2013 Commission Proposed State Salary 9/1/2015 District Judge $125,000 $140,000 $147,000 Statutory County Judge $75,000 $84,000 $88,200 Professional Prosecutors $125,000 $140,000 $147,000 District Attorneys $100,000 $112,000 $117,600 Jackson County Criminal District $100,000 $112,000 $117,600 Attorney and Fayette County Attorney County Attorney Supplement $20,833 to $62,500 $23,333 to $70,000 $24,500 to $73,500

The Judicial Compensation Commission made a few additional recommendations regarding judicial compensation in its November 2014 report.

Sec 3a_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

6 Section 3

3. Public Integrity Unit

2016-17 recommendations include a contingency appropriation of $6.6 million in General Revenue ($4.1 million from General Revenue Fund No. 1 and $2.5 million from General Revenue – Insurance Companies Maintenance Tax and Insurance Department Fees) available upon legislation being enacted by the Eighty-fourth Legislature to reform the system of investigation and prosecuting crimes related to state government, including insurance and tax fraud. See Rider Highlight - House No. 10.

Funding for the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office for the 2014-15 biennium was vetoed by the Governor ($7.6 million in All Funds). House recommendations include the PIU’s funding level of $6.6 million from General Revenue to reinstate funding for the General State Investigations Division and the Insurance Fraud Division. PIU-requested amounts would provide for 30 county FTEs.

The Travis County District Attorney established the PIU in 1978 to specialize in the investigation and prosecution of crimes related to state government. Cases include fraud and financial crimes targeting various state programs, as well as state employee or official criminal wrongdoing – public corruption cases –provided that the offense or an element of the offense occurred in Travis County. The PIU does not have statewide venue over complaints involving criminal wrongdoing by public officials or state employees for offenses occurring outside of Travis County.

Whether the Prosecution of Public Corruption Cases May be Moved to Another Entity. Past Legislatures have explored whether the duties of prosecuting public corruption cases can be removed from Travis County to another office, such as the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Constitutional and statutory provisions prevent the OAG from having original jurisdiction to prosecute any criminal case –including public corruption cases –unless the local prosecutor invites the OAG to assist in prosecution. This is known as the doctrine of the “right of local prosecution.” Accordingly, under current constitutional provisions, Travis County will continue to have original criminal jurisdiction over public corruption cases alleged to have occurred in Travis County. In the past, the PIU has indicated that the office is not likely to request the OAG’s assistance in the prosecution of offenses against public administration. Future legislation giving original criminal jurisdiction to the OAG may be challenged on the grounds of being an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine that would require a constitutional amendment.

Venue in Insurance Fraud and Motor Fuels Tax Fraud Cases. In contrast to the original jurisdiction of the General State Division, in 1989 the Legislature enacted legislation giving Travis County statewide venue over offenses involving fraud in the insurance industry and motor fuels tax collections. These cases may be prosecuted in the local county or in Travis County, regardless of where they are committed in the state, primarily because an element of the offense is considered to have occurred in Travis County upon the filing of fraudulent tax or insurance record. Under current statutory provisions, a county encountering difficulty in prosecuting a complex financial insurance or fraud case that formerly would have been prosecuted by the PIU could ask the OAG for assistance in the prosecution.

Impact of Vetoed Funding in the 2014-15 Biennium. Because Travis County continues to have original jurisdiction over crimes occurring in Travis County relating to state government, the insurance industry, and tax collections, the Travis County Commissioner’s court provided funding to the PIU in fiscal year 2014 that allowed the PIU to retain 15 of 35 formerly state-funded employees ($1.7 million). The District Attorney supplemented this amount with one-time balances from the DA’s forfeited property account to temporarily retain another 8.5 FTEs ($730,000). By the end of the 2014-15 biennium, one-time balances from the forfeited property account are expected to be depleted.

Sec 3a_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

7 Section 3

The vetoed funding in the 2014-15 biennium had different impacts on caseloads in the PIU’s three divisions:

a. General State Government Investigations Division. As of August 31, 2013, PIU had 235 cases pending in this division. Of this amount, 33 were cigarette/tobacco or sales tax fraud cases pending wherein the alleged offense occurred in another county. Those cases were returned to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Comptroller (CPA), which delivered those cases to the respective counties.

Because Travis County has original jurisdiction over offenses involving state government occurring in Travis County, the PIU continued to receive an estimated 180 criminal complaints in fiscal year 2014 and projects receiving a like amount in fiscal year 2015. Should state appropriations be reinstated to supplement county funding, the PIU anticipates being able to initiate an additional 115 investigations into reported wrongdoing or criminal activity in the 2016-17 biennium compared to the number of estimated and projected investigations in the 2014-15 biennium (250).

In the event the Eighty-fourth Legislature decides not to reinstate funding for the General State Division, Travis County would continue to be responsible for allocating sufficient county resources to prosecute offenses relating to state government occurring in Travis County. Because the seat of state government is located within the county, Travis County would also continue to have a proportionately higher number of cases related to offenses involving state government, compared to other counties.

b. Insurance Fraud Division. As of August 31, 2013, PIU had 22 insurance fraud cases pending wherein the alleged offense occurred in another county. Those cases were returned to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI), which delivered the cases to the respective counties. TDI referred 2 cases to PIU in fiscal year 2014, because of offenses occurring in Travis County. However, another 71 cases were referred statewide to other prosecutors in 33 counties. TDI reports that even before the veto it routinely referred cases to other prosecutors to avoid witnesses and victims having to travel to Austin.

If funding for the Insurance Fraud Division is not reinstated, Travis County and counties statewide would continue to be responsible for funding prosecutions related to offenses occurring in their respective counties.

c. Motor Fuels Tax Fraud Division. As of August 31, 2013, PIU had 11 motor fuels fraud cases pending wherein the alleged offense occurred in another county. Those cases were returned to the CPA, which delivered those cases to the respective counties. In fiscal year 2014, the CID referred 22 cases to PIU, because of offenses occurring in Travis County. Another 99 cases were referred statewide to other prosecutors in 36 counties.

Note that PIU has not requested that funding be reinstated to this division. Instead, the PIU proposes expanding its General State Division to handle all tax fraud cases, not just motor fuels tax fraud cases. If funding for this purpose is not reinstated, Travis County and counties statewide would continue to be responsible for funding prosecutions related to tax fraud offenses occurring in their respective counties.

Sec 3a_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

8 Section 3

Contingency Funds. The following table reflects historical spending levels, appropriations, and House Bill 1 recommended funding levels in the 2016-17 biennium for the functions of the Public Integrity Unit.

Public Integrity Unit - Spending Levels, Appropriated Levels and Recommended Funding in 2016-17

Expended Appropriated HB 1 Recommendations 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17 Public Integrity Unit - Strategy D.1.4 General State Investigations Division $ 2,387,895 $ 3,177,345 NA General State Cases, Including Motor NA NA $ 4,094,780 Fuels Tax Fraud Insurance Fraud Division $ 2,148,148 $ 2,421,245 $ 2,514,150 Motor Fuels Tax Fraud Division $ 1,503,612 $ 1,974,836 NA $ 6,039,655 $ 7,573,426 $ 6,608,930 FTEs (County Employees) 35.0 35.0 30.0 Comments on Funding in 2016-17 House-recommended appropriations are provided contingent on the enactment of legislation reforming the investigation and prosecution of cases involving fraud or financial crimes against state government, including insurance fraud and tax fraud cases.

Historically the General State Investigations division would have handled all other tax fraud cases that were not related to motor fuels tax fraud. Recognizing that the use of State Highway Fund No. 6 money for purposes other than construction of roads is controversial, the PIU consolidated these duties and asked for General Revenue, instead.

4. Nolan, Fisher, and Mitchell Counties 1st Multicounty Court at Law

2016-17 recommendations maintain FY 2015 funding levels in the 2016-17 biennium, at $97,000 per fiscal year ($84,000 + $13,000) in a new Strategy, C.1.5, 1st Multicounty Court at Law. See Rider Highlights No. 9.The Eighty-third Legislature enacted legislation which abolished a county court at law serving Nolan County and created a new multicounty court at law serving Nolan, Fisher, and Mitchell counties (House Bill 3153). The Legislative Budget Board authorized the Judiciary Section to provide Nolan, Fisher, and Mitchell counties start-up costs of $63,500 in fiscal year 2014 and ongoing costs $13,000 in fiscal year 2015 for court personnel and operating expenses, in addition to the $84,000 paid each fiscal year for the judge’s salary supplement.

Sec 3a_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

9 Section 4 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 241.xlsx 2/11/2015

10 Section 5

Judiciary Section, Comptroller’s Department Rider Highlights - House

3. (former) Public Integrity Unit: Appropriation Source, Unexpended Balances, and Performance Reporting. Recommendations delete the rider. (See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 3.)

3. (new) Special Prosecution Unit: Appropriation Source, Unexpended Balances, and Performance Reporting. Recommendations update the rider to reflect increased funding levels. (See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 1(c).)

9. (new) Nolan, Fisher, and Mitchell Counties – 1st Multicounty Court at Law. Recommendations add a new rider to clarify that out of amounts appropriated, an amount not to exceed $13,000 each fiscal year is provided to supplement local costs for court personnel and other court operating expenses. (See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 4.)

10. (new) Contingency for Public Integrity Unit Appropriations. Recommendations provide a contingency appropriation of $6.6 million in General Revenue ($4.1 million from General Revenue Fund No. 1 and $2.5 million from General Revenue – Insurance Companies Maintenance Tax and Insurance Department Fees) available upon legislation being enacted by the Eighty-fourth Legislature to reform the system of investigation and prosecuting crimes related to state government, including insurance and tax fraud. See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issue - House No. 3.

Sec 5 Rider_Judiciary Section.docx 2/11/2015

11 Section 6 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Grantee Exceptional Items Dedicated All Funds Special Prosecution Unit, Walker County $ 575,756 $ 679,934 The Special Prosecution Unit (SPU), headquartered in Walker County is requesting General Revenue funding to cover increased benefits costs and pay raises for the Criminal ($114,704), Civil ($289,826), and Juvenile ($73,562) divisions. The SPU is also requesting $80,000 to replace vehicles for the Civil Division. Finally, the SPU is requesting $17,664 to better compensate the employees of the Walker County Auditor's office who administer the state funds appropriated to the SPU. In addition to its General Revenue request, the SPU is requesting funding from Criminal Justice Grants (Other Funds) to cover increased benefits costs ($62,162), and insurance costs for 5 employees eligible to retire in the Criminal Division ($42,016).

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 575,756 $ 679,934

Agency 241 2/11/2015 12 Section 7 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total

In accordance with legislative appropriations request guidelines from the Legislative Budget Board, each strategy of the Judiciary Section with General Revenue and/or General Revenue - Dedicated funding was reduced by ten percent. No prioritization was made with regard to reductions. The Comptroller's Judiciary Section defers to the will of the legislature to decrease the statutorily set salaries, benefits and salary supplements of elected officials as well as decrease the funding of all other judicial programs. 1 District Judges - Salaries $6,117,044 $6,117,044 46.0 10% No 2 Visiting Judges - Regions $1,016,372 $1,016,372 10% No 3 Visiting Judges - Appellate $72,896 $72,896 10% No 4 Local Admin Judge Supplement $16,148 $16,148 10% No 5 District Judges: Travel $67,640 $67,640 10% No 6 Judicial Salary Per Diem $36,632 $36,632 10% No 7 MDL Salary and Benefits $31,900 $31,900 10% No 8 District Attorneys: Salaries $70,484 $70,484 0.5 10% No 9 Professional Prosecutors: Salaries $2,034,144 $2,034,144 14.0 10% No 10 Felony Prosecutors: Salaries $34,500 $34,500 0.3 10% No 11 Prosecutors: SubChapter C $27,204 $27,204 10% No 12 Felony Prosecutors: Travel $35,700 $35,700 10% No 13 Felony Prosecutors: Expenses $805,716 $805,716 10% No 14 Const. Co Judge GR/573 Supplement $216,000 $216,000 10% No 15 County Attorney: Supplement $564,076 $564,076 10% No 16 Witness Expenses $280,252 $280,252 10% No 17 Special Prosecution Unit, Walker Co. $711,084 $711,084 10% No 18 Dealth Penalty Representation $5,000 $5,000 10% No 19 National Center For State Courts $91,076 $91,076 10% No 20 Juror Pay $2,176,340 $2,176,340 10% No 21 Indigent Inmate Defense $6,000 $6,000 10% No 22 Montgomery Co - 435th Dist. Ct. $46,420 $46,420 10% No

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $14,462,628 $14,462,628 60.8 $0

Agency 241 2/11/2015 13 Section 7 Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Agency 10% Reduction Options by Category of Reduction

Across the Board Reductions 100.0%

Agency 241 2/11/2015 14

Comptroller's Judiciary Section

No materials provided.

Travis County District Attorney's Office

No materials provided.

Montgomery County 435th District Court

No materials provided. Section 3

Page IV-41 George Dziuk, LBB Analyst Special Provisions - Judiciary Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Appellate Court Salary Limits: Recommendations continue this rider provision in new Section 6, Appellate Court Salary Limits, to maintain comparability in salaries between the 14 Courts of Appeals and to distinguish salary increases given specifically to the courts for attorney salaries from across-the-board increases for all state employees. Attorney salary limits apply to hires and promotions that occur during the 2016–17 biennium. The 14 Courts of Appeals have requested deletion of this provision. Similarly, the Eighty-second Legislature continued this provision despite the same request from the courts to delete it (See also, Items Not Included in Recommendations – House #1 and Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House #3 in the 14 Courts of Appeals Districts packet).

Sec 3a_Agency S04.docx 2/9/2015

1 Section 5

Special Provisions - Judiciary Section Highlights - House

Former Appropriation: Unexpended Balances Between Fiscal Years within the Biennium. Recommendations delete this rider due to redundancy Sec. 5 and possible conflicts within Article IV. Recommendations continue to retain unexpended balance authority within the biennium through Appellate Court Operations strategies and specific riders in the bill patterns for the 16 appellate courts.

Former Appropriation for Judicial Compensation. Recommendations delete this rider because appropriations for this provision are incorporated into Sec. 11 the applicable bill patterns of the affected courts, agencies, and benefits programs.

Sec 5_AgencyS04.docx 2/9/2015

2 Section 6 Special Provisions - Judiciary Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Court Exceptional Items - In Court Priority Order 1. Request by the 14 Courts of Appeals to delete new Section 6, Appellate Court Salary Limits. $ - $ -

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ - $ -

Agency 213 2/9/2015 3 Section 1

Alcoholic Beverage Commission Summary of Recommendations - House

Page V-1 Sherry Cook, Executive Director John Newton, LBB Analyst

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % RECOMMENDED FUNDING Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change BY METHOD OF FINANCING General Revenue Funds $92,648,026 $93,878,161 $1,230,135 1.3% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Federal Funds Total GR-Related Funds $92,648,026 $93,878,161 $1,230,135 1.3% Other 0.6% 0.1%

Federal Funds $470,488 $600,000 $129,512 27.5% Other $127,094 $70,000 ($57,094) (44.9%)

All Funds $93,245,608 $94,548,161 $1,302,553 1.4%

General FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Revenue Budgeted Recommended Change Change Funds FTEs 646.8 615.0 (31.8) (4.9%) 99.3%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 458 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Alcoholic Beverage Commission 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $94.5 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED 663.8 663.8 REQUESTED 646.8 646.8 REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED $54.0 $53.5 $54.0 $53.5 631.8

APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $44.5 $43.8 $44.5 $43.8

APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $42.5 $42.0

2015 2016 2017

$39.7 $46.3 $47.0 $47.5 $47.0 $38.5 $45.7 $46.9 $47.2 $46.7 570.2 589.1 646.8 615.0 615.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 458 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Alcoholic Beverage Commission Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

ENFORCEMENT A.1.1 $49,656,673 $51,238,764 $1,582,091 3.2% Recommendations include a $129,512 Federal Funds increase to reflect current Federal Funds estimates for the 2016-17 biennium. Recommendations also include a $26,000 Appropriated Receipts increase to reflect agency estimated receipts in the 2016-17 biennium.

Total, Goal A, REGULATE DISTRIBUTION $49,656,673 $51,238,764 $1,582,091 3.2%

LICENSING AND INVESTIGATION B.1.1 $9,052,560 $9,102,958 $50,398 0.6% Total, Goal B, LICENSING AND INVESTIGATION $9,052,560 $9,102,958 $50,398 0.6%

COMPLIANCE MONITORING C.1.1 $12,296,267 $12,405,321 $109,054 0.9% PORTS OF ENTRY C.2.1 $10,813,772 $10,674,500 ($139,272) (1.3%) Total, Goal C, COLLECT FEES AND TAXES $23,110,039 $23,079,821 ($30,218) (0.1%)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION D.1.1 $5,100,251 $5,249,269 $149,018 2.9% Recommendations include a $100,000 General Revenue increase to reflect a one- time appropriation in 2014-15 to the Grayson Community College Viticulture and Enology Program. Recommendations also include a $4,000 Appropriated Receipts increase to reflect agency estimated receipts in the 2016-17 biennium.

INFORMATION RESOURCES D.1.2 $5,211,594 $4,769,833 ($441,761) (8.5%) Recommendations include a $484,435 General Revenue reduction which reflects current Data Center Services estimates from the Department of Information Resources. OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES D.1.3 $1,114,491 $1,107,516 ($6,975) (0.6%) Total, Goal D, INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION $11,426,336 $11,126,618 ($299,718) (2.6%)

Grand Total, All Strategies $93,245,608 $94,548,161 $1,302,553 1.4% Recommendations include a $314,276 General Revenue increase across the agency's strategies to biennialize the state employee salary increase made by the Eighty-third Legislature. Recommendations also include a $1,300,294 General Revenue increase across strategies for the Schedule C salary increase made by the Eighty-third Legislature.

Agency 458 2/9/2015 3 Section 3a

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues – House

1. Full-time Equivalent Reduction. Recommendations reduce the full-time equivalents (FTEs) by 31.8 positions. TABC’s FTE cap was 631.8 in fiscal year 2013 and 646.8 in fiscal year 2014. The TABC actual FTE average for fiscal year 2013 was 570.2 and in fiscal year 2014 was 589.1. The agency reported that it was operating well below FTE caps as the result of a shortfall in operating expenses. The FTE reduction in House Bill 1, As Introduced serves to right-size the agency’s FTE cap with its current operating budget. The agency is requesting an exceptional item for authority for 17 of the 31.8 FTEs. TABC is also requesting funding in salary and operating costs to address the shortfall (see Section 6 for details).

2. Data Center Services. Recommendations reduce General Revenue by $0.5 million to reflect current data center services estimates for fiscal years 2016–17.

3. Grayson County College Funding. Recommendations increase General Revenue by $0.1 million for fiscal years 2016–17 to reinstate TABC funding that was reduced for fiscal years 2014–15 as the result of a one-time reduction in order to fund the Grayson Community College Viticulture and Enology Program. House Bill 1, As Introduced, includes 2016–17 appropriations within Article III specifically for the Grayson Community College Viticulture and Enology Program.

4. Organized Criminal Activity and Financial Criminal Activity Intervention. House Bill 1, As Introduced, includes a new rider that requires TABC to report annually to the Legislative Budget Board involvement and expenditures related to the agency’s intervention in organized criminal activity, including human trafficking, and financial criminal activity. In recent years, TABC has become more involved in a variety of criminal activity outside of alcoholic beverage related violations. This represents a significant shift in the agency’s mission. Agency staff report that this increased involvement is the result of the prevalence of organized criminal activity and financial criminal activity in the businesses TABC inspects and audits. TABC created two new functions within the agency: the Special Investigations Unit, which focuses on Organized Criminal Activity (human trafficking, drug trafficking), and the Financial Crimes Unit, which focuses on financial criminal activity (fraud, money laundering). Commissioned peace officers, which TABC employs, have statutory authority to arrest (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 14.03) and the agency has statutory authority in various sections of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code to administratively sanction businesses that engage in criminal activity.

Sec3a_Agency 458.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3b

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission FTE Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended Full-Time-Equivalent Positions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cap 631.8 646.8 646.8 615.0 615.0 Actual/Budgeted 570.2 589.1 646.8 NA NA

Schedule of Exempt Positions (Cap) Executive Director, Group 5 $122,500 $135,000 $135,000 $135,000 $135,000

The Presiding Officer of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission is requesting an increase in authority for the agency’s Executive Director Exempt Position from $135,000 to $159,018 per fiscal year, but no change in the Classification Group and no additional appropriations. This additional authority would represent a salary increase of $24,018 (or 17.8 percent). This Exempt Position received a $12,500 salary increase in the Eighty-third Legislature.

The State Auditor's Office Report, Executive Compensation at State Agencies (Report No. 14-705, August 2014), indicates a market average salary of $166,399 for the Executive Director position at the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and does not recommend changing the Group 5 classification for the position.

The Presiding Officer is also requesting that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission be added to the list of agencies in Article IX, Section 3.04, which provides authority to increase the Executive Director's salary within the Classification Group with approval from the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board.

Sec3b_Agency 458.xlsx 2/9/2015

5 Section 3c

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Percentage of Licensed Establishments 86.08% 78.36% 80% 80% 80% Inspected Annually

Measure Explanation: Measures the percentage of licensed establishments inspected annually. Relatively steady performance.

• Number of Inspections Conducted by 74,305 88,033 75,200 80,000 80,000 Enforcement Agents

Measure Explanation: Measures the number of inspections conducted on businesses that serve alcohol each fiscal year. Increase in 2014 reflects increase in number of enforcement agents due to the agency opening a new training academy and an increase in inspections of "at risk" retailers.

• Number of Licenses/Permits Issued 60,988 74,282 61,396 74,282 60,580

Measure Explanation: Measures the number of licenses or permits Issued to businesses that sell or distribute alcoholic beverages. Number fluctuates each fiscal year due to renewal requirements.

• Number of Audits Conducted by Field 1,641 1,492 1,450 1,500 1,500 Auditors

Measure Explanation: The number of audits and other analyses conducted by Field Auditors each fiscal year. Higher than targeted performance in 2013 and 2014. Recommendations increase targets for 2016 and 2017.

Sec3c_Agency 458.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 4 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 458.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

Alcoholic Beverage Commission Rider Highlights - House

12. (revised) Texas Wine Marketing Assistance Program. Recommendations amend this rider to clarify that the statutorily required fund transfer from TABC to the Texas Department of Agriculture will be made through an Interagency Contract.

13. (delete) Capital Budget Expenditures from Federal and Other Funding Sources. Recommendations delete this rider which provides an exemption to capital budget limitations as specified in Article IX of the General Appropriations Act.

13. (new) Organized Criminal Activity and Financial Criminal Activity Intervention. Recommendations include a new rider requiring the agency to report expenditures related to organized criminal activity and financial criminal activity.

14. (delete) Informational and Educational Purposes. Recommendations delete this rider as the agency has statutory authority for this activity and the rider is unnecessary.

Sec5_Agency 458.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 Alcoholic Beverage Commission Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Civilian Employee Hiring / Retention Plan - Salary increases for non-supervisory positions in Classified Positions $ 3,503,232 $ 3,503,232 Schedules A and B, to address employee turnover and retention. Provides for an average 10% increase in fiscal year 2016, with the applied increases sustained in fiscal year 2017. 2. Increase authority for 17 additional FTEs related to House Bill 1 reduction. $ - $ - 3. Funding to address the agency reported operational shortfall that creates an inability to fill positions as salary $ 1,721,670 $ 1,721,670 funding is instead used for operating expenses.

4. Economic Programs (breakdown of the $948,647 is noted below): $ 948,647 $ 948,647 a) $282,199 for 3 Field Auditors for the agency's Marketing Investigation Unit; b) $81,448 for 1 administrative support staff for the agency's Label Approval function; and c) $585,000 for automation of the agency's paper-based excise tax processing system. 5. Public Safety Programs (breakdown of the $2,305,606 is noted below): $ 2,305,606 $ 2,305,606 a) $336,474 for 2 Field Enforcement Agents for the agency's Enforcement function; b) $1,489,132 for 183 mobile radios to replace outdated radio equipment for law enforcement personnel and to meet new Federal Communications Commission requirements and standards; and c) $480,000 for 20 replacement vehicles. 6. Organized Criminal Activity -- 6 Field Special Investigation Agents. $ 1,184,618 $ 1,184,618 7. Information Technology Improvements (breakdown of the $633,758 is noted below): $ 633,758 $ 633,758 a) $144,758 for 1 Security Specialist; and b) $489,000 for security improvements to maintain confidential data and reduce cybersecurity threats. 8. Centralized Accounting and Payroll/Personnel System (CAPPS) -- Migration to the Comptroller's accounting $ 238,244 $ 238,244 system. Includes one FTE for migration functions. After the migration, the FTE would be used for information technology maintenance.

Agency 458 2/9/2015 9 Section 6 Alcoholic Beverage Commission Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds 9. Executive Director Compensation -- The Presiding Officer of TABC is requesting an increase in authority for the $ - $ - agency’s Executive Director Exempt Position from $135,000 to $159,018 per fiscal year, but no change in the Classification Group and no additional appropriations. The Presiding Officer is also requesting that TABC be added to the list of agencies in Article IX, Section 3.04, which provides authority to increase the Executive Director's salary within the Classification Group with approval from the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 10,535,775 $ 10,535,775

Agency 458 2/9/2015 10 Section 7 Alcoholic Beverage Commission Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Reduction of Staff and Office Closures This level of funding would require closure of ten offices primarily in the eastern $4,404,754 $4,404,754 39.0 $0 5% No (5 percent) half of the state, resulting in a decrease in customer service and longer commutes for consumers. The number of inspections conducted by enforcement agents and auditors would decline from a combined total of 103,200 to 94,166. The number of audits and analyses conducted by field auditors would also drop from approximately 1,500 to 1,266. This reduction would force the agency to curtail all educational programs except those targeting police officers, agency licensees, and civic groups. Estimated program attendance would drop from 85,300 persons to 74,650.

2 Reduction of Staff (2.5 percent) This action would create significant staffing shortages, reduce the number of agent $2,202,376 $2,202,376 24.0 $0 3% No and auditor inspections to 88,476, reduce the number of audits conducted by agency personnel auditors to 1,125 and reduce the outputs associated with the agency’s public education programs by 20 percent. The loss of additional auditor positions would force agents to assume a greater portion of the regulatory enforcement duties.

3 Reduction of Staff (2.5 percent) Approximately 40-50 percent of the agency’s field auditors would be eliminated $2,202,376 $2,202,376 25.0 $0 3% No and the number of TABC enforcement agents would be reduced by 35 positions. Agency personnel would be able to perform 83,178 inspections and 896 audits. The agency’s ability to develop and deliver educational programs to the public, its licensees and permittees, and police officers and local officials would be reduced to approximately 58,800 persons.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $8,809,506 $8,809,506 88.0 $0

Agency 458 2/9/2015 11 Section 7 Alcoholic Beverage Commission Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Agency 10% Reduction Options by Category of Reduction

Programs - Service Reductions (FTEs-Layoffs) 100.0%

Agency 458 2/9/2015 12 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Legislative Appropriations Request Sherry Cook, Executive Director

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 1 Revenue Collections Compared to Appropriations FY 2016‐17 GAA Rider 7 requires TABC to collect revenue from fees, surcharges & fines to cover appropriations

With the exceptional items funded (E), Total Base & Except E $133,848,631 TABC remains under GAA (C) mandates Items Request leaving $4.1M in GR

LBB D Recommended $123,312,856

Fees, Surcharges & $137,983,688 C Fines (GAA Rider 7)

B Total Excise Tax Collected $430,430,449

$568,414,137 Total Revenue Excise Tax, Fees, Surcharges & Fines A

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 2 the the

the

Biennial the for

from

provides

that

change

which no 2017 Total

authority approval

$5,074,751 $4,135,057 but in ‐

3.04,

with requesting

year,

also 41,896 39,552 81,448

2016 FY increase Section

$73,254 $71,504 $144,758

Group is

$708,234 $476,384 $1,184,618

fiscal

FY an IX,

per

Officer

FTE) $105,967 $132,277 $238,244 Article

(1 in

requesting Classification

$159,018

the Presiding

(CAPPS)

Entry agencies

The

of of

within

$135,000 Costs $932,540 $789,130 $1,721,670

Agents list

System Commission

Ports

Restore $221,274 $263,161 $484,435 salary 4 Enforcement $206,012 $130,462 $336,474

the

from

to for

17 $52,777,016 $52,121,355 $104,898,371 ‐ Request

appropriations. Commission 16

Beverage

#4 $657,876 $290,771 $948,647 #5 $916,394 $1,389,212 $2,305,606 #7 $315,254 $318,504 $633,758 Board.

Position Auditors,

Plan $1,749,561 $1,753,671 $3,503,232 added Enforcement Director's

Funding 17 $76,301,921 $61,681,767 $137,983,688

‐ MIU $135,980 $146,219 $282,199

Item Item Item

16 Additional

Agents Field for

Field

Payroll/Personnel

Budget 17 $9,209,808 ‐

5 17 $14,315,097 $14,635,163 $28,950,260 FY ‐ 4 Alcoholic

Exempt

additional

‐

Radios) 470,382 1,018,750 1,489,132 Authorized/Operating

Request 16

16 Improvements and Executive Retention

the

FTEs $0 $0 $0 / Additional

Acquisitions FY

APX Beverage FY FTEs Agents

of ‐ ‐

the

and Items $5,385,826 $5,149,949 $10,535,775

17 $67,092,113 $66,756,518 $133,848,631 Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Commission 17 Activity Director

Officers,

Additional

‐ Revenue

Compensation $0 $0 $0

$24,000) 240,000 240,000 480,000

Legislative

for

‐ Hiring

Revenue Investigation Processors, Costs 16

Mobile

Appropriations Base $47,169,916 $46,708,245 $93,878,161 Officer the Group

FY Automation 480,000 105,000 585,000

Total, Total, Total, Accounting Technology

Reserve

Programs

increase (20

Specialist

Support

Criminal Programs (183 Director 17

and Tax

Adjustment Beverage to

Special Executive ‐ Approval Auditors Enforcement

to General Indirect Cost Estimated Exceptional

Authority

Licensing Compliance Alcoholic Employee

Safety

Revenue

Presiding

Field Excise Radios Vehicles

Security 242,000 247,000 489,000 Hardware/Software Tax TABC TABC TABC TABC Estimated TABC

Centralized Field 2016 1Label 3Field 2Field 6 1Security

Information

Economic Executive The agency’s Classification Alcoholic authority Governor

Technical 4 Funding Organized Public

Restore

Civilian

Legislative FY Texas Total, Total, Total, Total, Total, V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Total, General I. II. IV. III.

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 3 I. Civilian Employee Hiring/Retention Plan ‐ $3,503,232

Hire and retain highly qualified employees that can work in a high growth and complex environment

• Current civilian pay is 14‐20% less than other state agencies • Growing number of entities entering this industry requires additional services • Complexity of AB Code requires highly qualified and trained employees • Employees and family members are prohibited from outside employment with TABC licensees • Turnover rates for some classifications as high as 50% over the last 3 years • 19.2% of employees are eligible to retire in next 2 years

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 4 II. Restore Authority for 17 FTEs ‐ $0 III. Funding to Support 17 FTEs Authorized/Operating Costs ‐ $1,721,670 The right‐sizing approach adds transparency to budget process, however it cut currently occupied positions

4 Field Licensing Processors LBB 'Right Size' $311,644 5 Field Auditors LBB 'Right Size' $470,332 4 Ports of Entry (POE) ‐ Tax Compliance Officers LBB 'Right Size' $266,746 4 Field Enforcement Agents LBB ‘Right Size’ $ 672,948

• 4 Existing licensing employees put entities into business • 5 Existing audit employees ensure licensed businesses remain compliant • 4 Existing Ports of Entry Tax Compliance Officers assure revenue continues to the State • 4 Existing field enforcement agents critical to continue public safety efforts

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5 IV. Economic Programs ‐ $948,647

Keep good industry members in business through voluntary compliance

3 Field Auditors Additional for Marketing Investigation Unit (MIU) $282,199 Growth Areas FY 2009 FY 2014 FY 2016 1 Label Approval Processor $81,448 (Actual) (Actual) (Projected) Excise Tax Automation $585,000 Gallons Alcohol Sold 685 MGAL 696 MGAL 701 MGAL Population 24.8M 26.6M 27.4M • MIU will level the playing field in Licensed Locations 42,997 48,200 48,406 response to increasing number and Licenses & Permits 101,714 120,230 128,119 In‐State Producers 232 547 686 complexity of marketing and tier Brewpubs 23 73 107 violations Brewers/Manufacturers 14 86 100 • Fair competition within the alcoholic Wineries 184 326 393 beverage industry Distilleries 11 62 86 Label Applications 12,383 19,248 19,500 • Historical case settlements in the past 12 Alcohol Excise Tax Revenue $191M $205.6M $212.8M months POE Revenue $3.4M $4.7M $5.2M • Expedient label approval reduces time to Total TABC Revenues* $266.8M $290.9M $289.7M Authorized Employees (FTEs) 699.0 646.8 615.0 market for new products • Growth in label approval since FY 2009 is Ratios more than 59% Population per FTE 35,479 41,126 44,553 Licensed Locations per FTE 61.5 74.5 80.4 • Automation reduces processing costs to Licenses & Permits per FTE 145.5 185.9 208.3 taxpayers while generating more than $400M in revenue each biennium

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 6 V. Public Safety Programs – $2,305,606

Keep Texas communities safe Enforcement Administrative Cases 2 Field Enforcement Agents FY 2010 - FY 2015 Additional Enforcement $336,474 3,000 92% 95% 2,500 2,592 2,563 90% 2,483 2,442 Radios (183 Mobile APX Radios) $1,489,132 2,000 2,206 85% 1,929 Vehicles(20 @ $24,000) $480,000 1,500 86% 82% 80% 1,000 81% 79% 79% 500 75% 0 70%

Additional agents critical to Related Safety Public % • FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015* Administrative Cases Filed Cases Administrative

continue public safety efforts *FY 2015 values estimated based on September 1 - January 15 results. • Legacy radios that are no longer Adm. Cases % Public Safety Related compatible with FCC requirements • Aged vehicle fleet exceeds Administrative Public Safety Offenders By Years in Business at the Time of Comptroller‐established standard Offense CY 2010 - CY 2014

With almost 50K retail licensed locations selling 6,000 4,138 2,728 alcohol, it has never been more important to ensure 4,000 2,198 1,004 our communities remain safe by promoting voluntary 2,000 644 381 394 0 compliance. When that fails, enforcement authority is 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26+

Public Safety Offenders Public Safety Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs necessary to remove threats from our communities. Years in Business at Time of Offense

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 7 VI. Organized Criminal Activity ‐ $1,184,618

Investigating and deterring organized criminal activity in licensed locations

6 Field Agents for the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) $1,184,618 Ongoing SIU Investigations by Office • Increasing number of organized As of February 1, 2015 criminal activity investigations and cases in licensed locations Arlington 24 • Current SIU Workload: 13.3 open cases San Antonio 31 per agent

El Paso • Agents have each closed an additional 19

2.9 cases on average since the start of McAllen, 24 the fiscal year

Houston • Average time required to close an SIU Austin 27 8 investigation = 227 days (7.6 months) • Most SIU investigations initiated since the start of the fiscal year are a result of TABC inspections

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 8 VII. Information Technology Improvements ‐ $633,758 VIII. Centralized Accounting and Payroll/Personnel System (CAPPS) ‐ $238,244 IX. Executive Director Compensation ‐ $0 Information Technology Improvements • Information security improvements 1 Security Specialist $144,758 are required to continue to secure Security Improvements $489,000 TABC licensee data from compromise CAPPS (1 FTE & Implementation Costs) $238,244 • Security specialist needed to mitigate security deficiencies in addition to Executive Director Compensation $0 future security threats • Lack of resources to support agency migration to CPA’s CAPPS system in TABC IT Security Maturity Model FY16 • Increase the Executive Director’s compensation from $135K to $159K and/or give authority to add the position to the list of agencies in Article IX, Section 3.04, that allows the Commission’s Board to approve compensation increases with proper authority

Gartner report, Security Assessment Report for TABC – Baseline IT Environment, dated April 21, 2013.

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 9 TABC Regulatory Environment Complexity High Complexity, Low Growth High Complexity, High Growth . Hire Higher Skilled Workers . Hire Higher Skilled . More Training Workers High . Higher Retention Legal . More Training . Fewer Number of FTEs . Higher Retention Inter‐tier Relationships . Less Automation . Greater Number of FTEs Ownership Structures TABC FTEs . More Automation Local Option Elections Investigations Regulatory Breadth of Permits/Licenses FTEs Emerging Business Practices Environment Organized Criminal Activity Enforcement

Retention, Automation Hiring, Hiring, Retention, FTEs Retention Retention Excise Tax Audit & Labels Education Licensing Ability of Current TABC Retention Regulatory Functions to Handle Complexity and Growth Ports of (Arrows Show What is Needed to Attain . Hire Lower Skilled Workers Required Ability) Entry . Less Training . Lower Retention . Hire Lower Skilled Workers . Greater Number of FTEs . Less Training . More Automation . Lower Retention . Fewer Number of FTEs Low Complexity, High Growth . Less Automation Population Low Low Complexity, Low Growth Volume of Alcohol Sold Excise Taxes Collected Number of Permits/Licenses Number of Locations Low Number of Label Approvals High Growth 2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 10 Revenue Collections Compared to Appropriations FY 2016‐17 GAA Rider 7 requires TABC to collect revenue from fees, surcharges & fines to cover appropriations

With the exceptional items funded (E), Total Base & Except E $133,848,631 TABC remains under GAA (C) mandates Items Request leaving $4.1M in GR

LBB D Recommended $123,312,856

Fees, Surcharges & $137,983,688 C Fines (GAA Rider 7)

B Total Excise Tax Collected $430,430,449

Total Revenue Excise Tax, Fees, Surcharges & Fines $568,414,137 A

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 11 Questions?

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 12 Supplemental Information Appendix 1 Contact Information Page 14 Appendix 2 Organizational Chart Page 15 Appendix 3 Exceptional Item Justification “At‐A‐Glance” Page 16 Appendix 4 Three‐Tier System Page 17 Appendix 5 Wet/Dry Map Page 18 Appendix 6 Regulatory & Enforcement Oversight Page 19 Appendix 7 Days Required to Issue Application Page 20 Appendix 8 Public Safety Page 21 Appendix 9‐11 Vacancies Page 22 Appendix 12 Seaport Revenue Page 25 Appendix 13 Challenges Page 26

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 13 Appendix 1 ‐ Contacts • Sherry Cook, Executive Director 512‐206‐3434 [email protected] • Ed Swedberg, Deputy Executive Director 512‐206‐3217 [email protected] • Robert Saenz, Chief of Field Operations 512‐206‐3401 [email protected] • Shelby Eskew, Chief Financial Officer 512‐206‐3244 [email protected] • Mariann H. Morelock, Director of Communications & Governmental Relations 512‐206‐3347 [email protected]

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 14 Appendix 2 ‐ Organizational Chart Commission Commissioners Executive Jose Cuevas, Chair Line of Business Steven Weinberg Ida Clement Steen Support

Legal General Counsel Executive Director Internal Audit Judith Kennison Emily Helm Sherry Cook Monday Rufus

Governmental Deputy Professional Relations Executive Director Responsibility Mariann Morelock Ed Swedberg Andyy Pena Business Services Field Operations Licensing Shelby Eskew Robert Saenz Amy Harrison Human Resources Audit & Loretta Doty Enforcement Tax & Marketing Investigations Earl Pearson Thomas Graham Dexter Jones Info Resources Jay Webster Ports of Entry Education & Karen Smithwick Prevention Training Mindy Carroll Albert Rodriguez

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 15 Appendix 3 ‐ Challenges Addressed by FY 2016‐17 LAR Exceptional Items 1. Civilian Employee $3,503,232 Challenges Hiring/Retention Plan • Complexity of Alcoholic Challenges Beverage Code Requires Highly 2. Restore Authority for 17 FTEs $0 • Increasing Number of Licensed Qualified and Trained Locations Employees 3. Funding to Support 17 FTEs $1,721,670 • Protect Public Safety by • Current Civilian Pay is 14‐20% Enforcing the Alcoholic Less than Other State Agencies Authorized/Operating Costs Beverage Code • Turnover Rates for some • Reduction in classifications as high as 50% 4. Economic Programs $948,647 Workforce • Employees and Family • Additional 4 FTEs • Unsupportable and Members are Prohibited from Incompatible Radios Outside Employment with 5. Public Safety Programs $2,305,606 • Aged Vehicle Fleet, Exceeding TABC Licensees • Additional 2 FTEs Comptroller‐Established Standard by 20% • Radios Challenges • Vehicles • Volume with almost 50K Challenges Licensed Locations & 128K 6. Organized Criminal Activity $1,184,618 • Increasing number of Licensees • Additional 6 FTEs Organized Criminal Activity • 127% Growth within the Investigations & Cases in Manufacturing Tier 7. Information Technology $633,758 Licensed Locations • 59% Increase of Product into Improvements the State • Fair Competition within the • Additional FTE Challenges Alcoholic Beverage Industry • Information Security • Complexity of Corporate 8. Centralized Accounting / $238,244 Improvements are Needed to Structures & the Three Tier Payroll / Personnel System Continue to Secure TABC System • Additional FTE Licensee Data from • Increasing Number and Compromise Complexity of Marketing 9. Executive Director $0 • Lack of Resources to Support Practice and Tier Violations Agency Planned Migration to • Diverse Interest Throughout Compensation as Requested CPA’s Centralized Accounting/ the Industry by Presiding Officer Payroll/Personnel System Program in FY17

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 16 Beer/Ale Appendix 4 ‐ Texas Three‐Tier System Wine Spirits Manufacturing KEY

Large Brewers Distilleries & Manufacturers Brewpubs

Distributing Small Brewers & Ale, Wine and Brewpubs can sell Manufacturers Wineries Distilled Spirits to distributors. Wholesalers Beer Distributors Those who sell only their own brew can sell to retailers. Local Distributors

On‐Premise Sales Retailing to Visitors Package Stores Brewpubs Wineries Off‐Premise On‐Premise Shipping Distilleries Beer/Ale/Wine Restaurants, Direct to On‐ and Off‐Premise Stores Bars, Venues & Consumers Sales to Visitors Private Clubs

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 17 Appendix 5 –Wet/Dry Map

Elections can be held by city, county, November 2014 or justice precinct on 10 issues: 51 Counties Totally Wet for All Sales 10 Totally Dry Counties 1. The sale of beer for off‐premise consumption only. 2. The sale of beer on and off premise. 3. The sale of beer and wine for off‐ premise consumption only. 4. The sale of beer and wine on and off premise. 5. The sale of all alcoholic beverages for off‐premise consumption only. 6. The sale of all alcoholic beverage except mixed beverages. 7. The sale of all alcoholic beverages including mixed beverages. 8. The sale of mixed beverages. 9. The sale of mixed beverages in restaurants only. 10.The sale of wine on the premises of a holder of a winery permit.

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 18 Appendix 6

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 19 Appendix 7

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 20 Appendix 8 ‐ Public Safety

Priority Inspections as a Percentage of Priority Retailers as a Percentage of All Retail Inspections All Retailers 60% 18% 17% 53% 16% 16% 15% 50% 14% 14% 13% 41% 40% 13% 40% 35% 36% 12% 10% 30% 27% 8% 20% 6% 4% 10% 2% 0% 0% FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Number of Priority Retailers Percent of Inspections where Public FY 2009 - FY 2014 Safety Offenses Are Found FY 2009 - FY 2014 8,000 7,984 7,819 7,830 7,407 7.0% 6.2% 7,037 7,011 6.0% 5.9% 7,000 5.0% 4.4% 4.5% 4.2% 4.6% 4.0% 3.1% 3.7% 6,000 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.9% 5,000 1.0% 0.0% FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 4,000 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Priority Retailers All Other Retailers

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 21 Appendix 9 ‐ TABC Vacancies & Hiring in Progress CY 2014 by Month 70 64.5 62 60.5 58 58.5 60 55 51.5 49.5 51 50 44 41.5 43 40 38 37.5 32 30.5 31 30 27 21.5 19 19 19 20 21 20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Vacancies at End of Month Hiring in Progress

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 22 Appendix 10 ‐ CPO Vacancies & Hiring in Progress CY 2014 by Month 30 27 26 25 24 24 25 23 20 20 20 19 16 15 15 13 14 13 15 13 11 10 6 55 5 4 2 00 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Vacant Positions Hiring in Progress

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 23 Appendix 11 ‐ Civilian Vacancies & Hiring in Progress CY 2014 by Month 45 40.5 40 38 37.5 35 33 31.5 32 31.5 31 29.5 30 30 29 28.5 25.5 25 22 22.5 20 21 20 17 17 17 16 15.5 15 15 14 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Vacant Positions Hiring in Progress

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 24 Appendix 12 ‐ Seaport Revenue Projections FY 2014 ‐ FY 2017

$1,000,000

$812,200 $816,955 $784,353 $800,000

$600,000 $503,055 $479,424 $500,019

$400,000 $332,369

$215,985 $195,438 $204,615 $205,721 $200,000

$70,425 $109,491 $107,566 $108,180 $0 $45,959 FY 2014 (Actual) FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Administrative Fee Alcohol Taxes Cigarette Taxes Total Revenues

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 25 Appendix 13 ‐ Challenges

2/19/2015 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 26 Section 1

Commission on Fire Protection Summary of Recommendations - House

Page: V-23 Tim Rutland, Executive Director John Wielmaker, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % GR Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change Dedicated Other General Revenue Funds $3,831,149 $3,860,384 $29,235 0.8% Funds 2.6% GR Dedicated Funds $35,000 $35,000 $0 0.0% 0.9% Total GR-Related Funds $3,866,149 $3,895,384 $29,235 0.8%

Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other $90,000 $105,000 $15,000 16.7%

All Funds $3,956,149 $4,000,384 $44,235 1.1%

General Revenue Funds 96.5% FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 31.0 31.0 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 411 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Commission on Fire Protection 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $4.0 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED 31.0 33.0 33.0 REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $2.2 $2.2 31.0 31.0

APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $1.9 $2.1 $2.1 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $1.9 $1.9

2015 2016 2017

$2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 28.4 27.7 31.0 31.0 31.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 411 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Commission on Fire Protection Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

FIRE SAFETY INFO & EDUC PROGRAMS A.1.1 $234,466 $235,870 $1,404 0.6% Total, Goal A, EDUCATION & ASSISTANCE $234,466 $235,870 $1,404 0.6%

CERTIFY & REGULATE FIRE SERVICE B.1.1 $2,036,179 $2,064,744 $28,565 1.4% Total, Goal B, FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS $2,036,179 $2,064,744 $28,565 1.4%

INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION C.1.1 $1,685,504 $1,699,770 $14,266 0.8% Total, Goal C, INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION $1,685,504 $1,699,770 $14,266 0.8%

Grand Total, All Strategies $3,956,149 $4,000,384 $44,235 1.1% Recommendations include an increase of $44,235 in All Funds due to: A) $29,235 increase in General Revenue for biennializing the state employees salary increase adjustment made in the 2014-15 biennium; and B) $15,000 increase in estimated Appropriated Receipts (B.1.1.). The Appropriated Receipts are generated from the agency's issuance of non- mandatory International Fire Service Accreditation Congress certification seals, and demand for these seals is expected to continue to increase.

Agency 411 2/9/2015 3 Section 3a

Texas Commission on Fire Protection Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Appropriations Limited to Revenue Collections: Recommendations eliminate the requirement that the agency collect $3.0 million in revenue over operating expenses and other direct and indirect costs. Rider 2, Appropriations Limited to Revenue Collections, previously required the agency to use fee revenue to cover the agency’s appropriations and that the agency generate an additional sum-certain amount of $3.0 million. The agency requested in its legislative appropriations request that the $3.0 million requirement be struck from the rider due to fluctuations in revenue from testing fees, certification issuance fees, and fines. House Bill 1 eliminates the requirement, which is a $3.0 million cost to General Revenue.

Recommendations also include deleting parts a. and b. and separating sections (1), (2), and (3) into separate riders. This rider’s parts a. and b. described a Contingency Requiring Statutory Change as the result of recommended administrative attachment to the Department of Insurance (TDI) during the Eighty-third Legislature, but the bill was not enacted.

2. Agency Self Study on Possible Administrative Attachment to Another Agency: Recommendations do not include the administrative attachment of Texas Commission on Fire Protection (TCFP) to another agency since agency operations have improved noticeably since the Eighty- third Legislature, largely attributable to new agency administration. After the actions of the Eighty-third Legislature maintained the agencies independent structure, and House Bill 3660 (a bill that would require TCFP to conduct a study and prepare a report on administrative attachment) was not enacted, the agency voluntarily sought the input of various stakeholder groups to decide whether to conduct the study referenced in House Bill 3660. The agency decided to undergo an internal study with the objectives of determining if administrative attachment to another state agency could reduce the costs associated with TCFP, improve the provision of agency services, and lower the fees set and collected by the agency.

The study participants included TCFP staff, representatives of fire protection stakeholder groups (Texas State Association of Fire Fighters, Texas Fire Chief’s Association, State Firemen’s and Fire Marshals’ Association, and State Association of Fire and Emergency Districts), and two board members. The study concluded “… administrative attachment would likely not serve to meet the stated objectives.”

3. Reimbursement of Fire Fighter Advisory Committee Members: The nine advisory committee members are currently not reimbursed for travel expenses to attend quarterly meetings. TCFP has requested $50,000 over the biennium for this purpose. If adopted, this provision would require a conforming rider authorizing the reimbursement of advisory members’ travel expenses. (See Items Not Included in Recommendations – House, item 2)

Sec3a_Agency 411.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3b

Texas Commission on Fire Protection FTE Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended Full-Time-Equivalent Positions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cap 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 Actual/Budgeted 28.4 27.7 31.0 NA NA

Schedule of Exempt Positions (Cap) Executive Director, Group 3 $92,600 $92,600 $92,600 $92,600 $92,600

The agency is not requesting any changes to its Exempt Position. The State Auditor's Office Report, Executive Compensation at State Agencies (Report No. 14-705, August 2014) indicates a market average salary of $124,850 for the Executive Director position at the Texas Commission on Fire Protection and does not recommend changing the Group 3 classification for the position.

Sec3b_Agency 411.xlsx 2/9/2015

5 Section 3c

Texas Commission on Fire Protection Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Number of Fire Service Personnel 28,855 29,730 31,200 31,400 31,600 Renewing Certificates

The number of certified individuals who held certificates previously and renewed their certificate(s) during the current reporting period. Desire to renew fire service competency certificates remains strong and due to growth within the fire service community, is expected to increase over time.

• Number of New Certifications Issued to 13,470 10,906 10,500 10,500 10,500 Individuals

Number of new certifications issued for the first time to individuals in Texas. Fiscal year 2013 experienced a significant increase in certificates issued due to three certifications introduced that did not require an exam to obtain. An exam is now required for these certifications, which is expected to result in a return to normal levels of certificate issuance.

• Number of Inspections of Regulated Entities 717 971 1,075 1,100 1,120

Number of inspections of regulated entities by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection. Growth is occurring within the fire service community, including expansion of existing fire departments, creation of new ones, and transition of some volunteer departments to becoming paid or partly paid subjects those departments to regulation by TCFP.

Sec3c_Agency 411.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 4 Texas Commission on Fire Protection Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 411.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

Texas Commission on Fire Protection Rider Highlights - House

2. (former) Contingency Requiring Statutory Change: Texas Commission on Fire Protection Administration. Recommendations amend this rider to delete references to a contingency requiring statutory change (administrative attachment to Texas Department of Insurance), to make (1), (2), and (3) separate riders, and delete the rider language requiring the agency to generate $3.0 million in general revenue through the collection of fees. (See Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues #1)

Sec5_Agency 411.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 Commission on Fire Protection Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Two temporary computer programming FTEs for IT Initiative which includes migration to new database and $ 296,908 $ 296,908 improved interface of web-based tools. 2. Reimbursement for advisory committee members' travel costs, would require related rider authorizing the $ 50,000 $ 50,000 reimbursement of these nine advisory committee members if adopted.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 346,908 $ 346,908

Agency 411 2/9/2015 9 Section 7 Commission on Fire Protection Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Strategy Intro Bill? Loss * GR/GR-D Total 1 Programs - Service Reductions (FTEs- The commission will reduce $380,212 in general revenue expenses within Strategy $380,212 $380,212 4.0 undetermined A.1.1. 43.5% No Layoffs) A.1.1, Fire Safety Information & Educational Programs ($102,516), Strategy B.1.1, B.1.1. 8.9% Certify and Regulate Fire Departments and Personnel ($183,476), and Strategy C.1.1. 5.5% C.1.1, Indirect Administration ($94,220), over fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The reduction will come mainly through loss of personnel by way of a hiring freeze, attrition, or reduction in force. Additional reductions would also be implemented in travel expenses, operating costs, and consumables to attain the 10 percent reduction.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $380,212 $380,212 4.0 $0 * TCFP did not quantify revenue loss related to a 10 percent reduction, stating it is difficult to predict but that service activities relating to fire protection personnel testing and certification would be significantly delayed.

Agency 411 2/9/2015 10 Section 7 Commission on Fire Protection Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Agency 10% Reduction Options by Category of Reduction

Programs - Service Reductions (FTEs-Layoffs) 100.0%

Agency 411 2/9/2015 11 HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supporting Information for 84th Legislature, Regular Session Texas Commission on Fire Protection

Continued growth in Commission on Fire Protection regulatory responsibilities

32000

31000

30000 Steady increase in the number of persons holding one or more TCFP 29000 certifications. 28000 Many hold multiple certifications. 90% associated with fire depts 27000 10% individual certificate holders 26000 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

PERSONS CERTIFIED BY TCFP

260

240 Continued interest in professional development statewide. 220 Training entities may be: --Fire departments --Community colleges 200 --Private training providers FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Number of TCFP-Certified Training Facilities

Number of TCFP Compliance Inspections by FY

1400 Growth in state translates to 1200 more regulatory duties. 1000 Six compliance officers statewide. 800 Inspections performed every two 600 years or as needed. 400 200 0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Page 1 of 3

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supporting Information for 84th Legislature, Regular Session Texas Commission on Fire Protection

Exceptional Item: Temporary FTE’s for IT Initiative  Expedite completion of data management system transition  A PRIORITY FOR THE AGENCY  Requested for term of biennium only  Current challenges: o Must use existing staff for both maintenance and development o Development methodology adds to difficulty

Current status of project:

TCFP Data System Transition

Basic Customer Interface Revised as other modules activated Basic Staff Interface Revised as other modules activated Certification Renewal Module Training Submission Module Online Testing Module Certification Application Module Injury Reporting Module Compliance Officer Interface Library Customer Interface Budget/Finance Module

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Completion

Exceptional Item: Reimbursement for Advisory Committee Members  Committee required by statute: §419.023, TGC: The commission shall establish a fire fighter advisory committee to assist the commission in matters relating to fire protection personnel, volunteer fire fighters, fire departments, and volunteer fire departments. The committee shall be composed of nine members appointed by the commission. §419.0082, TGC: In adopting or amending a rule … the commission shall seek the input of the fire fighter advisory committee. The commission shall permit the advisory committee to review and comment on any proposed rule … before the rule is adopted.  Committee composition mandated by statute  Some members travel several hundred miles to attend meetings

Page 2 of 3

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supporting Information for 84th Legislature, Regular Session Texas Commission on Fire Protection

Rider Revisions and Additions Request: Relief from Revenue Collection Rider  Rider added by 82nd Legislature  Necessitated a 142% increase in primary fee amounts, from $35 to $85  Substantial impact on fire departments, which are required to pay renewal fees for employees  Potential negative impact on exam/certification revenue, as most certifications issued are voluntary

The fee increase substantially impacted fire protection entities, which generate a major part of TCFP revenue. Exam and certification revenue could also be impacted if interest in voluntary certifications is reduced.

TCFP Revenue Sources, FY2014 (approximate)

19% Certification Renewal Exams Certificate Issuance 59% 17% Other

Most TCFP certifications issued are voluntary (professional development), not required by law or rule. 68% of certificates issued in FY2014 were voluntary/professional development credentials.

16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 Mandatory Certifications 6000 Total Certifications Issued 4000 2000 0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Page 3 of 3

Section 1

Commission on Jail Standards Summary of Recommendations - House

Page V-26 Brandon Wood, Executive Director John Newton, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $1,837,273 $1,906,818 $69,545 3.8% Other 0.2% GR Dedicated Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Total GR-Related Funds $1,837,273 $1,906,818 $69,545 3.8%

Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other $4,500 $4,500 $0 0.0%

All Funds $1,841,773 $1,911,318 $69,545 3.8% General Revenue Funds 99.8%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 15.4 17.0 1.6 10.4%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 409 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Commission on Jail Standards 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $1.9 MILLION

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REQUESTED REQUESTED $971,184 $971,184 APPROPRIATED $968,934 $968,934 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $895,055 $905,990 $905,988 17.0 17.0 $925,055 $910,490 $910,488 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED 16.0 16.0 16.0

2015 2016 2017

$870,619 $916,040 $925,733 $955,659 $955,659 $870,096 $913,790 $923,483 $953,409 $953,409 12.5 14.6 15.4 17.0 17.0 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 409 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Commission on Jail Standards Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT A.1.1 $662,481 $710,064 $47,583 7.2% Recommendations include an increase of $47,583 in General Revenue which reflects the transfer of one FTE from Strategy A.2.2, Management Consultation, to Strategy A.1.1, Inspections and Enforcement. The agency made staff assignment changes during FY15 to better address the agency's needs.

CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW A.2.1 $135,905 $176,330 $40,425 29.7% Recommendations include an increase of $40,425 in General Revenue which reflects the filling of a vacant position the agency had for the majority of FY14.

MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION A.2.2 $357,422 $297,548 ($59,874) (16.8%) Recommendations include a decrease of $59,874 in General Revenue which reflects the transfer of one FTE from Strategy A.2.2, Management Consultation, to Strategy A.1.1, Inspections and Enforcement. The agency made staff assignment changes during FY15 to better address the agency's needs.

AUDITING POPULATION AND COSTS A.3.1 $96,730 $94,178 ($2,552) (2.6%) Recommendations include a decrease of $2,552 in General Revenue which reflects a salary differential of a new agency staff member.

Total, Goal A, EFFECTIVE JAIL STANDARDS $1,252,538 $1,278,120 $25,582 2.0%

INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION B.1.1 $589,235 $633,198 $43,963 7.5% Recommendations include a net increase of $43,963 in General Revenue due to: A) $15,887 decrease because the agency incurred certain FY14-15 charges, such as unemployment and temporary services, that are not anticipated to reoccur in FY16-17; and B) $59,850 increase for one administrative support staff (1 FTE) and related operational costs. As a result of budget limitations during the 2012-13 biennium, the agency is functioning with no receptionist or administrative support personnel. Total, Goal B, INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION $589,235 $633,198 $43,963 7.5%

Grand Total, All Strategies $1,841,773 $1,911,318 $69,545 3.8% Recommendations include a net increase of $69,545 in General Revenue due to: A) $9,695 increase for biennializing the state employees salary increase adjustment made in the 2014-15 biennium; and B) $59,850 increase for one administrative support staff (1 FTE) and related operational costs. As a result of budget limitations during the 2012-13 biennium, the agency is functioning with no receptionist or administrative support personnel.

Agency 409 2/9/2015 3 Section 3a

Commission on Jail Standards Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Clerk / Receptionist. As a result of budget limitations during the 2012-13 biennium, the agency is functioning with no receptionist or administrative support personnel. This results in the agency’s professional staff having to rotate and assist with various administrative support duties such as receptionist functions, mail processing, filing, copying, and document distribution. Recommendations include one Clerk/Receptionist at a cost of $29,925 per fiscal year in General Revenue Funds.

Sec3a_Agency 409.docx 2/9/2015

4 Section 3b

Commission on Jail Standards FTE Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended Full-Time-Equivalent Positions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cap 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 Actual/Budgeted 12.5 14.6 15.4 NA NA

Schedule of Exempt Positions (Cap) Executive Director, Group 1 $75,350 $84,125 $84,125 $84,125 $84,125

Note: The State Auditor's Office Report, Executive Compensation at State Agencies (Report No. 14-705, August 2014), indicates a market average salary of $110,331 for the Executive Director position at the Commission on Jail Standards and recommends a change from the current Group 1 classification to Group 2. The agency is not requesting any changes to its Exempt Position.

Sec3b_Agency 409.xlsx 2/9/2015

5 Section 3c

Commission on Jail Standards Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Number of Jails Achieving Compliance with Standards 237 240 232 235 235

Measure Explanation: The agency indicates the number of jails achieving compliance with standards is expected to decrease compared to FY14 due to the number of newly elected sheriffs that are scheduled to take office during FY16-17. Historically, the agency has found that administration changes affect the compliance rate. Also, for three years the agency has provided technical assistance to county officials on the requirements of Article 16.22, TCCP (Continuity of Care Query/Magistrate Notification), and the agency has now begun to issue violations for non-compliance.

• Percent of Jails with Management-related Deficiencies 3.3% 1.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Measure Explanation: The agency indicates the percent of jails with deficiencies is expected to increase compared to FY14 due to the number of newly elected sheriffs that are scheduled to take office during FY16-17. Historically, the agency has found that administration changes affect the compliance rate. Also, the agency is no longer able to provide technical assistance to county officials on the requirements of Article 16.22, TCCP (Continuity of Care Query/Magistrate Notification), and the number of non-compliance notices in this area may increase.

• Number of Annual Inspections Conducted 245 245 244 244 244

Sec3c_Agency 409.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 4 Commission on Jail Standards Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 409.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 5

Texas Commission on Jail Standards Rider Highlights - House

NONE

Sec5_Agency 409.docx 2/9/2015

8 Section 6 Commission on Jail Standards Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Travel increase for agency's commissioners to attend training conferences $ 10,000 $ 10,000 2. Salary adjustment to retain and recruit agency personnel $ 21,050 $ 21,050

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 31,050 $ 31,050

Agency 409 2/9/2015 9 Section 7 Commission on Jail Standards Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Travel Reduction The agency indicates the reduction would: $74,600 $74,600 $0 35% No * virtually eliminate special inspections and unannounced visits by the agency's jail inspectors; * result in fewer opportunities for agency staff to conduct on-site visits for management consultations, training and technical assistance; * negatively impact the number of jails in compliance; * result in the elimination of facility needs analysis and on-site technical assistance for jail construction projects; * reduce the number of agency attendees at critical conferences and association meetings; and * reduce the agency Executive Director's ability to meet with sheriffs, county judges and commissioner court officials to discuss resolutions to potential jail facility issues.

2 Operating Cost Reduction The agency indicates the reduction would eliminate or reduce several current $16,000 $16,000 $0 15% No contracts for computer equipment and print machinery. The agency would also eliminate or reduce all current electronic communication services, registration and membership expenditures.

3 FTE Reduction The agency indicates in order to achieve the ten percent reduction, if no agency $90,598 $90,598 1.0 $0 30% No positions become vacant for the 2016-17 biennium, the agency would eliminate one FTE from the agency's Management Consultation strategy.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $181,198 $181,198 1.0 $0

Agency 409 2/9/2015 10 Section 7 Commission on Jail Standards Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Agency 10% Reduction Options by Category of Reduction

Administrative - Operating Expenses 8.8%

Programs - Service Reductions (FTE Layoff) 50.0% Programs - Service Reductions (Travel Reduction) 41.2%

Agency 409 2/9/2015 11 TEXAS COMMISSION ON JAIL STANDARDS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Brandon S. Wood P.O. Box 12985 Austin, Texas 78711

Voice: (512) 463-5505 Fax: (512) 463-3185 http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us [email protected]

February 19, 2015 House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV and V

Texas Commission on Jail Standards Created in 1975 to end and prevent federal court intervention Promulgate rules with enforcement capability By 1980 Federal Courts accepted minimum standards 244 County Jails and Facilities are under our purview 62,000 inmates as of January 1, 2015 Nine-member board appointed by Governor

TCJS Strategies

Inspection & Enforcement: All jails are inspected at least once per year and complaints are investigated.

Construction Plan Review: All new construction or renovations are reviewed and approved

Management Consultation: Technical assistance, training, operational plans & staffing analysis

Auditing Population: Population reports, paper-ready inmate information, and immigration

A fifth strategy, Indirect Administration accounts for agency support services and administration.

Our baseline request for each Fiscal Year in the next biennium is $955,659 Inspection & Enforcement 355,032 Construction Plan Review 88,165 Management Consultation 148,774 Auditing Population 47,089 Indirect Administration 316,599

Exceptional Items 1. Travel $ 5,000.00 2. Targeted Employee Retention $10,525.00

At the proposed baseline, no additional programs or duties mandated by legislature would justify further requests. If additional duties or programs are mandated, additional resources will be necessary.

Stanley D. Egger, Abilene, Vice Chair Sheriff Dennis D. Wilson, Groesbeck Dr. Michael M. Seale, M.D., Houston Irene A. Armendariz, Austin Sheriff Gary Painter, Midland Larry S. May, Sweetwater Jerry W. Lowry, New Caney Allan D. Cain, Carthage “The Commission on Jail Standards welcomes all suggestions and will promptly respond to all complaints directed against the agency or any facilities under its purview”. To empower local government to provide safe, secure and suitable local jail facilities through proper rules and procedures while promoting innovative programs and ideas Section 1

Commission on Law Enforcement Summary of Recommendations - House

Page: V-36 Kim Vickers, Executive Director John Wielmaker, LBB Analyst RECOMMENDED FUNDING BY METHOD OF FINANCING 2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Method of Financing Base Recommended Change Change General Revenue Funds $96,052 $0 ($96,052) (100.0%) GR Dedicated Funds $5,273,228 $5,226,549 ($46,679) (0.9%) Total GR-Related Funds $5,369,280 $5,226,549 ($142,731) (2.7%) Other 16.6% Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other $1,297,602 $1,040,000 ($257,602) (19.9%) GR Dedicated All Funds $6,666,882 $6,266,549 ($400,333) (6.0%) Funds 83.4%

FY 2015 FY 2017 Biennial % Budgeted Recommended Change Change FTEs 43.6 43.6 0.0 0.0%

The bill pattern for this agency (2016-17 Recommended) represents an estimated 100% of the agency's estimated total available funds for the 2016-17 biennium.

Agency 407 2/9/2015 1 Section 1 Commission on Law Enforcement 2016-2017 BIENNIUM TOTAL= $6.3 MILLION IN MILLIONS

ALL FUNDS GENERAL REVENUE AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS GENERAL REVENUE-DEDICATED FUNDS REQUESTED 65.6

REQUESTED REQUESTED REQUESTED $4.3 57.6 $4.8

REQUESTED REQUESTED $3.8 $4.3 APPROPRIATED 43.6 APPROPRIATED 43.6 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED $3.3 APPROPRIATED $3.3 $2.7 APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED 37.6 $2.7 2015 APPROPRIATED 2016 $2.8 APPROPRIATED 2017 $2.2

$2.9 $3.2 $3.5 $3.1 $3.2 $2.2 $2.7 $2.7 $2.5 $2.7 36.9 43.3 43.6 43.6 43.6 EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED EXPENDED ESTIMATED BUDGETED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agency 407 2/9/2015 2 Section 2 Commission on Law Enforcement Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

LICENSING A.1.1 $2,054,294 $1,944,352 ($109,942) (5.4%) STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT A.1.2 $509,200 $431,127 ($78,073) (15.3%) Total, Goal A, LICENSE AND DEVELOP STANDARDS $2,563,494 $2,375,479 ($188,015) (7.3%)

ENFORCEMENT B.1.1 $1,677,103 $1,576,062 ($101,041) (6.0%) Recommendations replace all General Revenue Fund 01 ($96,052) with an equal amount of GR-D Fund 116. See also Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues No. 1 for further detail.

Recommendations also reflect cessation of a Governor's Criminal Justice Division grant ($207,002) for two Field Service Agent FTEs. These FTEs assisted in helping the agency reduce its backlog of investigative cases.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE B.1.2 $1,852,300 $1,697,808 ($154,492) (8.3%) Recommendations delete Rider 9, Critical Incident Seminars at Sam Houston State University and associated funding ($90,000 per fiscal year). Note, there is a technical adjustment associated with this action. See also Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues No. 4 for further detail.

Recommendations include $250 in each fiscal year in GR-D Fund 5059, Texas Peace Officer Flag Account. GR-D Fund 5059 is used to purchase state flags for deceased peace officers. Collections are based on donations and are thus variable. Total, Goal B, REGULATION $3,529,403 $3,273,870 ($255,533) (7.2%)

INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION C.1.1 $573,985 $617,200 $43,215 7.5% Total, Goal C, INDIRECT ADMINISTRATION $573,985 $617,200 $43,215 7.5%

Agency 407 2/9/2015 3 Section 2 Commission on Law Enforcement Summary of Recommendations - House, By Method of Finance -- ALL FUNDS

2014-15 2016-17 Biennial % Strategy/Goal Base Recommended Change Change Comments

Grand Total, All Strategies $6,666,882 $6,266,549 ($400,333) (6.0%) Recommendations include a $37,269 increase in GR-D Fund 116 across the agency's strategies to biennialize the state employees salary increase adjustment made in the 2014-15 biennium.

Total recommendations slightly decrease Appropriated Receipts (Other Funds) by $40,600 to reflect the agency's estimated fee revenues.

Note, the FY 2012-13 fee revenues were erroneously estimated, resulting in a revenue shortfall of $0.3 million. The Eighty-second GAA authorized the agency to charge fees for voluntary law enforcement proficiency certifications to maintain the Distance Learning Program, which was then called the Police Officer Standards Education Internet Training system. The agency estimated this would have resulted in about $0.3 million per year in additional fee revenue.

However, to minimize the costs to law enforcement personnel, the agency opted to charge only for the cost of the physical certificates, rather than actual cost of the certification.

The agency raised its fees in 2014-15, resulting in a revenue increase of $0.3 million over the 2012-13 revenues. The slight decrease in estimated fee revenue in FY 2016-17 results from an assumed constant number of fee payers and a continuation of the agency's decision to charge fees for the actual cost of the certification, rather than only the cost of the physical certificates.

Agency 407 2/9/2015 4 Section 3a

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Selected Fiscal and Policy Issues - House

1. Method of Finance Swap: Recommendations replace all General Revenue Fund 01 ($96,052 in the 2014–15 base) with an equal amount of General Revenue-Dedicated Fund 116 (Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education Fund). The Occupations Code §1701.156 requires that GR-D Fund 116 be the account used to fund TCOLE. GR-D Fund 116 receives a statutorily specified percentage allocation (5.0034 percent) of the total consolidated criminal court cost fees collected. The Comptroller’s Biennial Revenue Estimate for the 2016-17 Biennium indicates the balance of GR-D Fund 116 at the end of fiscal year 2015 will be approximately $23.3 million.

2. Continuing Education Grants for Law Enforcement Officers: Baseline recommendations for the Comptroller’s Fiscal Programs include $6.0 million per year to fund continuing education grants for law enforcement officers. Since fiscal year 2001, $6.0 million per year in GR-D Fund 116 has been used to provide continuing education grants for city and county law enforcement departments. To preserve balances to address the budget shortfall, the Eighty-second Legislature did not appropriate funds for these grants in the 2012–13 biennium.

These grants are established under Occupations Code §1701.157, which requires the following: “…the comptroller shall allocate money deposited during the preceding calendar year in the general revenue fund to the credit of the law enforcement officer standards and education fund account for expenses related to the continuing education of persons licensed under this chapter…”. Accordingly, appropriations for these grants historically have been made in the Comptroller’s Fiscal Programs bill pattern (A.1.10. Strategy, Local Continuing Education Grants). Also, Local Government Code, §133.102 (f)(1), requires that 20 percent of the continuing education funds be allocated equally to all law enforcement agencies, and the remaining 80 percent be allocated to all local law enforcement agencies in a share proportionate to the number of law enforcement officers at each law enforcement agency. We wanted to provide you with this information since the Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) is responsible for oversight of law enforcement officers and funding for law enforcement training is granted through the Comptroller’s Fiscal Programs, and because the two agencies share General Revenue-Dedicated Fund 116.

Sec3a_Agency 407.docx 2/9/2015

5 Section 3b

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement FTE Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended Full-Time-Equivalent Positions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cap 37.6 43.6 43.6 43.6 43.6 Actual/Budgeted 36.9 43.3 43.6 NA NA

Schedule of Exempt Positions (Cap) Executive Director, Group 2 $ 88,000 $ 93,443 $ 93,443 $ 93,443 $ 93,443

The Presiding Officer of the Commission on Law Enforcement is requesting an increase in authority for the agency’s Executive Director Exempt Position from $93,443 to $115,000 per fiscal year. This additional authority would represent a salary increase of $21,557 (or 23.1 percent) per fiscal year. This Exempt Position received a $5,443 salary increase in the Eighty-third Legislature.

The State Auditor's Office Report, Executive Compensation at State Agencies (Report No. 14-705, August 2014), indicates a market average salary of $127,149 for the Executive Director position at the Commission Law Enforcement and recommends a change from the current Group 2 classification to Group 3.

Sec3b_Agency 407.xlsx 2/9/2015

6 Section 3c

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Performance Measure Highlights - House

Expended Estimated Budgeted Recommended Recommended 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Number of School Marshal Licenses Issued 0 6 12 200 200

This new measure was added during strategic planning for the 2016-17 biennium to reflect the enactment of HB 1009, Eighty-third Legislature, Regular Session which created the school marshal category of law enforcement licensee. The agency's estimate is based on agency's experience licensing school marshals starting in January, 2014.

• Number of Disciplinary Actions Taken 157 866 700 500 130

The agency notes the significantly elevated targets in even years reflect the timing of the required training for licensees. Licensees may be subject to disciplinary actions for multiple reasons, but the majority of disciplinary actions come from licensees not completing their mandated training. Mandated training is described in Occupations Code 1701 and must be completed within a set timeframe. The required hours and/or courses must be completed within a training "unit". There is a unit every two years (e.g., FY 2014 and 2015 is a training unit). Because licensees have until the end of the two-year training unit to complete their training, any disciplinary actions resulting from not completing their mandated training would arise in the year after a training unit has concluded.

Sec3c_Agency 407.xlsx 2/9/2015

7 Section 4 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Performance Review and Policy Report Highlights - House

Savings/ Gain/ Fund Included Reports & Recommendations (Cost) (Loss) Type in Introduced Bill Action Required During Session

NO RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Sec4_Agency 407.xlsx 2/9/2015

8 Section 5

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Rider Highlights - House

4. (Revised) Appropriation: Licensing Fees. Recommendations amend this rider to clarify focus of the rider is on licensing fees specifically.

7. (Revised) Appropriation: Distance Learning Program. Recommendations amend this rider to clarify the subject of the rider is the Distance Learning Program, formally known as the Police Officer Standards Education Internet Training program.

8. (New) Appropriation: Conference, Seminar and Training Registration Fees. Recommendations include a new rider to ensure all Appropriated Receipts appropriations are shown above the line.

Historically the agency’s Method of Finance table included Appropriated Receipts amounts that were not referenced in the agency’s riders. The 2006–07 and older General Appropriations Acts (GAA) included Appropriated Receipts as a Method of Finance, but did not include riders estimating Appropriated Receipts revenues. Starting in the 2008–09 GAA, Rider 3, Appropriation: Proficiency Certificate Fees, was included in the Appropriated Receipts totals. An additional rider, Appropriation of Receipts, was included in the 2012–13 GAA (Rider 7 as amended above).

House Bill 1 adds a new rider appropriating the Appropriated Receipts (Other Funds) amounts not included in existing Riders 3 and 7, so that the sum of the Appropriated Receipts referenced in the Method of Finance table equals the amounts cited in Riders 3, 7, and 8.

9. (Old) Post Critical Incident Seminars at Sam Houston State University. Recommendations delete this rider to reflect the recommendation not to continue funding for these seminars.

Sec5_Agency 407.docx 2/9/2015

9 Section 6 Commission on Law Enforcement Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds

Agency Exceptional Items - In Agency Priority Order 1. Homeland Security- This item bundles the following three requests (6 FTEs total): 620,000 620,000 a) two additional investigators to work with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in border security; b) three additional "civilian" compliance specialists to conduct oversight of law enforcement academies; and c) one attorney to serve as the agency's prosecutor.

2. Investigation, Prosecution and Enforcement - process all complaints received, rather than only those complaints 941,500 941,500 in final suspension action (8 FTEs)

3. Compliance and Grant Coordination - one human resources specialist and one grant specialist (2 FTEs). 182,000 182,000

4. Enhanced Field Service - three additional field audit agents and one administrative assistant ‎to supplement the 441,000 441,000 8.0 FTEs currently conducting agency audits on each of Texas' 2,600 law enforcement agencies at least once every ‎5 ‎years‎ (4 FTEs).

5. Targeted Employee Retention - pay agency's 1.5% payroll benefits contributions and provide targeted pay 189,250 189,250 raises.

6. Information Technology and Network Effectiveness - two information technology specialists and updates to four 207,500 207,500 dated network systems (2 FTEs).

7. Interoperable Communications - replace agency's communications systems with multi-bandwidth systems 127,400 127,400 currently used by DPS.

Agency 407 2/9/2015 10 Section 6 Commission on Law Enforcement Items not Included in Recommendations - House 2016-17 Biennial Total GR & GR- Dedicated All Funds 8. Authority for Executive Director Salary Increase - The Presiding Officer of the Commission on Law Enforcement - - is‎requesting‎an‎increase‎in‎authority‎for‎the‎agency’s‎Executive‎Director‎Exempt‎Position‎from‎$93,443‎to‎ $115,000 per fiscal year. This additional authority would represent a salary increase of $21,557 (or 23.1 percent) per fiscal year. This Exempt Position received a $5,443 salary increase in the 83rd Legislature. See also Section 3b, FTE Highlights for more information.

Total, Items Not Included in the Recommendations $ 2,708,650 $ 2,708,650

Agency 407 2/9/2015 11 Section 7 Commission on Law Enforcement Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Biennial Reduction Amounts Priority Item Description/Impact GR and GR- All Funds FTEs Potential Reduction as Included in Dedicated Revenue % of Program Intro Bill? Loss GR/GR-D Total 1 Program Service Reductions The agency states these reductions would negatively impact customer service and $9,400 $9,400 $0 0.18% No could result in a reduction of data repository agency services.

2 Deferred Capital Maintenance The agency states a ten percent reduction would eliminate all information $350,000 $350,000 $0 6.70% No technology purchases, including systems such as the agency's network and IT infrastructure. The agency states it would not have sufficient funds to ensure the integrity and stability of its critical IT systems. These funds are also used in other areas, such as maintaining and upgrading necessary systems in the agency (computers, software, and maintenance agreements). If these funds are reduced, the agency will not be in a position to ensure the availability of equipment and services necessary to allow staff to fulfill the agency's mission.

3 Service Reductions These reductions would negatively impact customer service and could result in an $168,398 $168,398 0.5 $0 3.22% No overall reduction of agency services. A hiring and salary freeze would be instituted and employees could possibly be laid off. Also, agency travel which is central to the agency's mission would be reduced.

TOTAL, 10% Reduction Options $527,798 $527,798 0.5 $0

Agency 407 2/9/2015 12 Section 7 Commission on Law Enforcement Summary of 10 Percent Biennial Base Reduction Options - House

Agency 10% Reduction Options by Category of Reduction

Programs - Service Reductions (Other) 1.8%

Administrative - FTEs / Hiring and Salary Freeze 31.9%

Programs - Delayed or Deferred Capital Projects 66.3%

Agency 407 2/9/2015 13 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Presentation for the House Committee on Appropriations February 19, 2015 TCOLE MISSION

The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) is a state agency charged with four primary responsibilities:

Licensing over 112,000 currently appointed peace officers, jailers, telecommunicators, and school marshals;

Establishing training standards for each of these types of licenses;

Taking action against these licenses if administrative or criminal violations have been committed by a licensee; and

Approving the creation of new law enforcement agencies and ensuring that the agencies meet criteria set forth in statute and rule. TCOLE MISSION

TCOLE, which was known as TCLEOSE until renamed by the 83rd Texas Legislature, has increasingly transitioned from its roots in training standards to a proactive enforcement posture, ensuring the public is served by highly trained and ethical law enforcement, corrections, and telecommunications personnel.

In turn, the Texas Legislature has entrusted the agency with greater responsibilities, such as the added oversight of telecommunicators and school marshals following the 83rd Legislative Session. STAFFING LEVEL

FTE Count FY10-FY14 50

45 46 46 43.6 40 37.6 37.6 35

0 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 STAFFING LEVEL

Current Requested

8 7 2

2 3 8.6 8 7 8 4 4 3 3 EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS

Exceptional Item #1- Homeland Security: $620,000, 6 FTEs

Exceptional Item #2- Investigation, Prosecution and Enforcement: $941,500, 8 FTEs

Exceptional Item #3- Compliance and Grant Coordination: $182,000, 2 FTEs

Exceptional Item #4- Enhanced Field Service: $441,000, 4 FTEs

Exceptional Item #5- Targeted Employee Retention: $189,250

Exceptional Item #6- IT and Network Effectiveness: $207,500, 2 FTEs

Exceptional Item #7- Interoperable Communications: $127,400

Total Request: $2.7 million, 22 FTEs TCOLE FUNDING

$4,000,000.00

$3,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$500,000.00

$0.00 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 (HB1) FY17 (HB1)

Fund 116 - Appropriations Fund 001 - Appropriations Appropiated Receipts GR-DEDICATED FUND 0116

Under Local Government Code 133.102(f), 33.3 percent of funds from the Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education Account are designated for TCOLE operations and administration.

However, over the last five fiscal years, appropriations have averaged 26.7%. FUND 0116 DISTRIBUTION, FY 2010-2014

Fund 0116 Appropriated to TCOLE, $12,587,547 Funds Not Appropriated, $3,128,662 NOTE ON HB 1

In the DPS budget under HB 1, Rider 47 would utilize $300,000 over the biennium from Fund 116 for the purpose of training law enforcement agencies on incident-based crime reporting.

While this is an important endeavor, funding the training through this method has the potential to jeopardize an already limited budget for TCOLE operations and training funds for law enforcement agencies, many of which receive no funding for training outside of this source.