FTE PC STEP 1 Convert Subordinate FTE Need Personnel Judicial - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PC

Personnel Costs - Salary & Benefits

STEP 1

Determination

• f Personnel Costs

Convert FTE to Dollars

STEP 2

Apply Operating Expenses and Baseline Unique Factors (Ongoing)

TCBC

Trial Court Baseline Costs (Specific Court – State Funds)

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Budget Development

Continues on next page

PC

Personnel Costs - Salary & Benefits

• 2a. Operating

Expenses and Equipment (OE&E) (Formula based on FTE need)

• 2b. Unique

Factors w/ Ongoing Funding Needs

FTE

FTE Need (Based on Workload Model)

Subordinate Judicial Officer Costs 4/17/2013– page 1

TTCB

TOTAL TRIAL COURT BUDGET NEED (Specific Court – All Sources)

STEP 5

One-Time Costs / Budget Change Proposals

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Budget Development (cont.)

• 5a. Approved

One-Time Costs and BCPs

• 3. Costs of

programs w/ dedicated state funding sources/ reimbursements (ex. Security, Dependency Counsel, Jury, AB1058, AB 109)

STEP 3

Additional Expenditures from State Funding Sources

TTBC

TOTAL TRIAL COURT BASELINE COSTS (Specific Court – State Funded)

TCBC

Trial Court Baseline Costs (Specific Court – State Funds)

STEP 4

Additional Expenditures Local Funding Sources

• 4a. Costs

associated w/ programs or services funded w/ local revenue

TTBA

Total Trial Court Baseline Costs (Specific Court – All Funding Sources)

TTBC

TOTAL TRIAL COURT BASELINE COSTS (Specific Court – State Funded)

TTBA

Total Trial Court Baseline Costs (Specific Court – All Funding Sources)

Continues on next page 4/17/2013– page 2

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Budget Development (cont.)

STCN

TOTAL STATEWIDE TRIAL COURT BUDGET NEED (All Courts – State Funds)

STEP 6

The State “Ask”

• 5a. Approved

One-Time Costs and BCPs

SUM:

TTBC

TOTAL TRIAL COURT BASELINE COSTS (Specific Court – State Funded)

SUM:

4/17/2013– page 3

Recommendation of the TCBWG

• 1. Approve the Workload-based Allocation and

Funding Methodology (WAFM) for use in allocating the annual state trial court operations funds, consistent with the implementation schedule below, with the understanding that

• ngoing technical adjustments will continue to be

evaluated by the TCBWG and that those adjustments will be submitted to the Judicial Council for approval.

• 2. Direct the TCBWG to provide annual updates
• f the WAFM beginning with the April 2014

Judicial Council meeting.

Recommendation of the TCBWG

• 3. Adopt the five-year implementation schedule

for the WAFM outlined below:

• a. In fiscal year (FY) 2013–2014 the currently

estimated $261 million in unallocated reductions shall be allocated to each court

• n a pro rata basis (based upon each court’s

current share of the statewide total of all applicable funds);

Recommendation of the TCBWG

FY 2013–2014:

• 10% allocated pursuant to the WAFM
• 90% allocated pursuant to the FY 2013–2014

historically based funding methodology

• The state’s smallest courts would be

excluded from any change in their allocation based upon the WAFM in FY 2013–2014

Recommendation of the TCBWG

FY 2014–2015:

• 15% allocated pursuant to the WAFM
• 85% allocated pursuant to the historical based

funding methodology FY 2015–2016:

• 30% allocated pursuant to the WAFM
• 70% allocated pursuant to the FY 2013–2014

historical based funding methodology

Recommendation of the TCBWG

FY 2016–2017:

• 40% allocated pursuant to the WAFM
• 60% allocated pursuant to the FY 2013–2014

historical based funding methodology FY 2017–2018:

• 50% allocated pursuant to the WAFM
• 50% allocated pursuant to the FY 2013–2014

historical based funding methodology

Recommendation of the TCBWG

• c. Allocate any new money appropriated for

general trial court operations entirely pursuant to the WAFM; and

• d. Reallocate applicable base funding pursuant

to the WAFM on a dollar-for-dollar basis for any new money appropriated for general trial court operations.

Recommendation of the TCBWG

STEP A

Determine Funding Available for Court Operations

STATE TRIAL COURT TOTAL ALLOCATION (Budget Act)

Z

STATE TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS ALLOCATION

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Allocation Process – Proposed FY 13/14

Budget Act Statewide Totals for:

REVENUE for 1e. Subordinate Judicial Officer Costs 4/17/2013– page 4

REVENUE for

• 3. Costs of

programs w/ dedicated state funding sources/ reimbursements (ex. Security, Dependency Counsel, Jury, AB1058, AB 109)

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Allocation Process –Proposed FY 13/14

( )

TC%

Trial Court’s Percentage Share of Workload Driven Need

Z

STATE TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS ALLOCATION

90%

H%

Historic Funding Percentage

Z

STATE TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS ALLOCATION

10%

( )

REVENUE for 1e. Subordinate Judicial Officer Costs

TCOF

INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS FUNDING

STEP B

Determine Local Court Share of General Operations Funding

4/17/2013– page 5

TRIAL COURT BUDGET DEVELOPMENT and ALLOCATION PROCESS DIAGRAM Allocation Process –Proposed FY 13/14

TCOF

INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS FUNDING

STEP C

Determine Individual Court’s Total Budget

REVENUE for

• 4a. Costs

associated w/ programs or services funded w/ local revenue

ITCFB

INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURT FINAL BUDGET

4/17/2013– page 6

REVENUE for

• 3. Costs of

programs w/ dedicated state funding sources/ reimbursements (ex. Security, Dependency Counsel, Jury, AB1058, AB 109)

Parking Lot Items (to be addressed in Phase 2)

• Rev. A

April 8, 8, 2013 2013

15

1. Reevaluation of the effect of future changes in the judicial branch budget

• Consider how cuts should be handled beginning in FY 14-

15 if the cuts occur after:

• a. new money was received in the prior year
• b. no new money was received in the prior year
• Consider what the recommendation should be if there is

“new money” but it is only one-time new money (e.g., it is designated one-time in the budget bill or its source is one- time funding such as the IMF)

16

• 2. Improvement and validation of the data to determine

workload

• Validate the data used in the new model, including the

accuracy of the data and consideration of factors other than filings, such as:

• Factor into workload determination “access to justice

standards”/best practices

• Case complexity
• Develop a “unique factors” protocol, including a process for

requesting modification of revenue allocation

• Develop a process for updating the WAFM as the filings, or

any other factors used to develop “workload,” change in individual counties

17

• 3. Reevaluation of the role of salary and benefits
• Evaluate impacts of new model in cluster #1 courts and

make permanent adjustments as necessary

• Evaluate manager to staff ratios currently in the new

workload model

• Evaluate Program 90 ratios currently in the new workload

model

• Evaluate how to include employee benefits in the new

workload model (FY 13-14 model funds benefits at actual costs)

• Consider BLS deflators for Program 90 salaries separate

from those for Program 10 salaries

18

• 3. Reevaluation of the role of salary and benefits

(cont’d)

• Consider removing courtroom staff from new model (leave

as is first year) and determine whether to make adjustments based on unmet judgeship needs

• Reevaluate the salary component to consider the following:
• a. Employee salaries may be higher due to the distant

location of outlying courts

• b. Compare salaries to other courts in the region rather

than to all other government employees in the county

19

• 4. Evaluation of the impact of outside factors on

funding or expenses related to operations

• Evaluate self-help funding in the new workload model
• Evaluate alternative ways of allocating technology funding
• Evaluate impact of AOC provided services
• Evaluate 1058 revenue as an offset
• Extra staffing for multiple locations
• Consider how any recommendations should be related to

judgeship needs or otherwise make reference to judgeship needs

• Evaluate whether and how Civil Assessments should affect

funding allocations (and consider any relationship to MOE)

20

• 5. Evaluation of the impacts of outside factors on

funding or expenses unrelated to court operations

• Whether and how to treat unfunded costs not included in

requests for the new model, e.g., payments for courthouse construction

• Evaluate whether and how MOE should affect funding

allocations (and consider relationship to civil assessments)

21

End of Presentation