Court staff outline modest net budget increase, propose security upgrades and Title 4 tracking

Court staff opened a line‑by‑line review of the clerk/court budget, saying they were not seeking additional full‑time positions and that most of the roughly $200,000–$300,000 increase reflected higher fringe benefits and workers’ compensation costs. The presenter handed the detailed review to Courtney, who walked council through staffing, part‑time wages and a series of reclassifications to make Title 4 reimbursements easier to track.

Courtney said the office increased its salaries and wages modestly to give performance raises while keeping headcount unchanged, and added a $25,000 part‑time line to cover bailiffs and ushers that had previously been folded into salaries. She proposed creating a $20,000 public‑relations line by shifting existing funds — describing the change as a reallocation, not an added net cost.

The office requested raising legal fees to $20,000 to cover an ongoing case that has already cost roughly $10,000, and explained it would separate family‑court expenses (Title 4) into distinct line items for clearer reporting. “Part of why y’all gave me the budget to get Courtney in … is for her to do this; it pays for itself,” Courtney said, describing the tracking approach and saying Title 4 allocations could allow the county to recover a significant portion of family‑court costs.

Staff also described a data‑storage project: bids and research allowed them to scale back equipment purchases and propose rolling about $50,000 of unspent project funds into the next fiscal year to complete the work. They said the net request for data services would be reduced to $15,000 in the coming year while the rollover would leave the project with roughly $65,000 to finish.

On courthouse safety, staff asked for $38,000 for security equipment updates after judges requested a comprehensive safety evaluation; the items could include camera upgrades and screening equipment depending on Title 4 unit costs and other funding decisions. Courtney said the change was recommended by the courthouse security staff and by judges preparing the inspection.

A recurring operational issue was courthouse security billing. Court staff noted an $80,000 contractual services item that covers sheriff‑provided courthouse security and said routing that payment through the clerk’s budget makes the clerk’s office appear larger relative to other elected officials. Staff described a journal‑entry invoicing process the county uses to account for that service and said the arrangement replaced prior private security spending.

Court staff proposed increasing juror pay to $25 for the first day and $50 if selected for jury service, but emphasized such a change would require council action and a formal motion. On legal fees, they said the ongoing matter requires outside counsel and is not covered by in‑house representation.

The clerk’s office closed its presentation after answering council questions about equipment, Title 4 allocation mechanics and the security arrangement. The office asked council for permission to use Title 4 tracking to maximize reimbursements and to authorize rolling unspent data‑project funds into the next fiscal year to complete records storage work.

The council asked for supporting documents and the Title 4 annual report; staff said they would provide the annual report that breaks down how salaries and fringe benefits were allocated to family‑court activities. The clerk’s office indicated this tracking would allow the county to reclaim roughly 66% of qualifying expenditures under their current assumptions.

The workshop then moved to countywide millage and budget scenarios.