Tarrant County Spent Nearly $244,000 to Reopen Courthouses With COVID-19 Precautions
An open records request showed that so far, Tarrant County has spent a total of $243,695 on the masks, gloves, wipes, thermometers and more that it needed to reopen its courthouses.
July 02, 2020 at 12:42 PM
4 minute read
The face masks, gloves, wipes, thermometers and other gear that courts in Fort Worth needed to guard against COVID-19 spread and reopen safely have so far cost Tarrant County at least $244,000.
Counties across Texas have needed the same type of gear and equipment to lessen the risk of COVID-19 infection as they welcomed lawyers, litigants and other court participants back into courthouses for some limited in-person proceedings in June. Although the largest Texas counties may be able to cover the extra costs, smaller counties could struggle to find the money in their budgets.
Texas Lawyer has done a series of open records requests for invoices and payment records for the COVID-19 precautions now seen around Texas courthouses. Tarrant County released a spreadsheet and invoices that detail its spending. Meanwhile, adjacent Dallas County refused to release the records, arguing they are "judicial records" not subject to the Texas Public Information Act. Texas Lawyer has filed a complaint over that determination.
The records show that so far, Tarrant County has spent a total of $243,695 on the items it needed to reopen its courthouses.
Explore the spending: Hover over the pie chart to view dollar figures.
Source: Texas Public Information Act request to Tarrant County. Graphic: Angela Morris/ALM
Face masks made up the bulk of the spending: It was $155,673, or 64% of the total. That included surgical masks, KN-95 masks, reusable masks, and child-sized masks. Other big-ticket items included $38,400 for Plexiglas and $33,823 for stanchions, which are poles with ropes used for crowd control that are often seen in airport security lines.
|Frequent wipe-downs
Judge Patricia Baca Bennett of Tarrant County's 360th Family District Court, who's been holding limited in-person proceedings for about a month now, said that she's pleased with all of the precautions that the courts have been using.
"Tarrant County facilities is wiping down: Every time someone opens a door knob, it's wiped down. Every time someone goes before a microphone, we clean it off or spray it," Bennett explained. "We have plenty of masks, we have thermometers, we have gloves, we have the Purell. They have it all for us."
She said $244,000 isn't a lot to spend if you consider the number of courts that Tarrant County runs.
"It surprised me that it was that low," Bennett said.
She said she counted 63 total courts, made up of civil, family and criminal district courts, plus their associate judges and criminal magistrates, county courts-at-law, probate courts and child support courts and justice-of-the peace courts. That would bring the cost per court down to nearly $3,900.
|Budget woes
Although Texas' larger counties, including Tarrant, may be able to swallow those costs, it's different in the Lone Star State's smaller, cash-strapped counties, according to Hector Gomez, court security director for the Texas Office of Court Administration.
"It is going to place a hardship on the counties. It's an unanticipated expense or cost," said Gomez, who's been assisting counties across Texas to figure out how to secure personal protective equipment. "They have to now find that money in their budgets, move it or forgo the cost of what they were going to look at expending."
Gomez added that all of the gear and equipment that Tarrant County has been buying is exactly the "textbook, standardized equipment" that he has seen other counties requesting for their courthouses.
"They have to go seek this equipment, these supplies, at open-source vendors. If there's a supply-and-demand issue to consider, and hard-to-find items, obviously there would be a cost to pay for it," Gomez said. "When there is a run on supplies, prices tend to go up."
Related story:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250