Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

And we're reconvened. So I know Mr. Rhodes wanted to say something briefly.

When you're ready, I'd like staff to explain the documents we prepared and why we prepared it this way. Yes, that will be next.

Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that this Board recognized that Under-Sheriff Lee Eby recently retired May 21st of this year. And I just want to recognize him and thank him for a wonderful, dedicated career. And also recognize that he's here today on a voluntary basis out of pure love and loyalty to the Sheriff's Office. So he's here for our abuse of his own free will. So again, Under-Sheriff Eby, thank you for a fabulous, stellar long career.

All right.

That's all. Thank you. And now, yes, I'd like staff to walk us through.

Thank you. So we have produced the information you asked for. It's not exactly the way you, it's not in the format exactly you asked for, but this is the quickest we could do it in 50 minutes. So Sandra or Elizabeth, would you explain the one pager we produced and what it shows?

Okay. So we have produced three different documents for you. I'm going to walk you through two of them and the other so that you have a one-page This summary, okay, this is just a little, like one-third of the sheet. You should have that. All that is, we were asked what is in the current budget adopted. That's $82,802,000. That's CCSO general fund only. So if you all remember, positions for CCSO are across three funds, general fund, the levy, and ELED. So this is general fund only. And then we were asked, okay, if we gave $3.6 million to CCSO, what would the 26-27 budget be, and what would be the dollar change and the percentage change? So that would be $8,126,999, and that percentage change would be 9.8%. Okay. So that was, somebody asked us that question?

So I asked for that. That's just illustrative only, should you reinstate the $3.6 million that the sheriff needs, and I recommended earlier. Again, this is adopted budget to propose. It is not supplemental. The Board of Commissioners did approve $4 million to the Sheriff's Office the current fiscal year. That was one time only, but I'm only looking at the adopted budget from a year ago. This is what the change would be, just as a data point as you make decisions today.

Thank you. OK. The next document we can go over is the one with the yellow bar. This we call the fund roll up. So if you take a look at that one. Got that one? OK. This is for those of you who are saying like, I'm so confused, just give me the summary. If you want the summary, this would be the document you're going to look at. And what this is, is it has the 26-27 general fund budget, For positions, so we're really focusing on the, yes, total budget. We're looking at the first column with numbers that says general fund 100, and we're using the yellow bar, general fund support. That's a number we're focusing on. And now we're looking at positions. What I need to communicate to you, and we're going to walk through it, is the sheriff has position counts, full-time equivalent, Full-time equivalent doesn't equate to funded, okay? So within the current budget of the sheriff, there's 607 approved positions, but there is discussions for reductions, and this budget includes, for the eight position that's being reduced, it only includes one month of funding. So there could be, or in this budget, if a position, Lee, if I could pick on you, Lee retired, they knew he was going to be retired, so his position is on there for reduction. In 26-27, Lee's position is only one month. So, but again, the position is still there, but 11 months of funding is not.

So you speak to...

Oh, so what we have added in the red column, the very end, the far right side, the red digits, is layoff. That LO stands for layoff. And within the first program of Office of the Sheriff, there is one position that's being offered up as a layoff position. And what that means is only one month of funding is in 2627. So in order to fully fund that, we would need to fund 11 months worth of the salary. And we have that number for you too. So the next one, for those of you who are gluttons and want lots of information, we have a third document. We have not passed this one out yet because this one is very information dense. But this one has, by program, it has a column by funded or unfunded. It has sworn, unsworn, and it has filled or vacant. It's on the screen. Oh, thank you, Andrew. Thank you. It's on the screen now. And it says 2627 proposed. That is the amount of dollars that are in the budget for each of those groups. And where you see total FTE cost, If there's a difference between those two columns, the difference is in the unfunded column at the end. And what that means is, so again, if we take that first program as an example, the unfunded, if I take that first unfunded number of 365,660, that is 11 months of somebody's pay. Because there's one position there, and it's one month funded, 11 months unfunded. Okay, total personnel costs, so that total wrapped costs, their salary, PERS, fringe benefits, any add-on pays, that's, it's the whole kit and caboodle, excluding materials and services. So this is personnel only.

Could you expand that, Andrew? On the side view here, I can't make out the numbers.

Oh, I'm bringing these to you.

Oh, okay, we'll have a handout here, so it'll be easier. So Sandra, in your example then, using undersheriff Evie, that one position is actually Mr. Evie?

Or under Sheriff Eby.

Sorry. The position. Yes. I would say there's a couple of changes because that one you're looking at was printed as of April. Yeah, so there are some changes in there that are a little different. But yes, in general, that's what it is. And I'll go through a couple of the changes that occurred, not specifically in that one, but in the other sheet that you guys were supplied with.

So the other thing that I should clarify is in our budget, this is data from April.

With positions, as you well know,

We lock in the data one day, the very next day it could be off. Somebody resigns, retires, somebody gets hired. That data, it's a snapshot. So we have a snapshot of the data. and CCSO has everything that's happened in between. So their information is gonna be different than ours, and that's also why sometimes when we're discussing things, why we're off in data, it's a point in time. They have current data, ours is back from April.

The other question I heard is on the roll-up sheet with the yellow column, what positions were being proposed to be eliminated? And so those are in a very small red print and we have John Santana here from the Sheriff's Office that can provide a description of those and also I heard if they're sworn or non-sworn positions. So we can go through that now if you would like.

Sure.

Again referencing the what would be page 61 but now with red on the side I'm going to go through it just kind of high level there is one. Error that I got, mistake that I will point out that we've, the total number doesn't change, it's just where it was, was got put in the wrong column, because it was kind of hard to see. So first one, as you will see at the top, the Office of the Sheriff program, the business reduction plan, it says one, there's actually two positions in the Office of the Sheriff. One of them, as we've already identified, is the undersheriff position. Another one would be a strategic analyst that does data. Our next column.

Is that a reduction of the middle column, the field position, just to clarify for me, please? Thanks.

Yes.

Okay. So we'll go from nine to eight? Yes.

Or seven.

Seven. It's actually two. Oh, the red.

Yeah, there was actually two on that one.

So the red is two, not one? Yeah.

And I'll correct the other one as we get down to it. We're just kind of trying to get it done in time. Next one is operational support. There are four positions that were reduced or are proposed to be reduced. Those include areas of our IT. our facilities, and our fleet, and also support, support for our personnel section of the sheriff's office. Going down, the next one is the PIO unit. That one's actually, that one is three, not four, that's where there was a mistake. Those are three, reduction of our public information office.

3, not 4.

Correct. Those were the only two changes that got printed before we could catch that. The next one is the FJC, which I think has been discussed.

Then going down is... Just to understand, I know that this is probably no longer up to date with the 16 that were proposed. Does that... We... I show specifically, is it one on here for FJC, the management analyst too?

No, there's another one.

There's two. Are they both with the FJC? Yes. Both of those analyst positions are with the FJC?

No, no. The analyst position is one, and there is a... An office specialist? Office specialist.

What about the human resources? That's with corrections under... Parole and probation. That's parole... Okay, okay.

Thank you. Yes. So going now down to parole and probation, those are three, and one of them is the position you just mentioned, and then one of them is a supervisor for parole and probation. And that is a sworn position. And then the other one is a program specialist. Try not to identify people specifically, sorry. And then going down one is the jail. That is an administrative support person for the jail. And then going down is the public safety training center will be losing one which is a manager position over the PSTC.

So total of two sworn?

Two sworn that is correct. Total of two sworn the rest are all professional staff. Two sworn are the one supervisor on probation and the other one is the undersheriff under the office of the sheriff. As proposed that is the business reduction plan.

All right. Uh, Gary, do you think it might be appropriate to just move to deliberations at this point?

I guess I would say if you have any further questions of the sheriff, please ask them now and then let her go, let her go about her day. So then you can start deliberation.

All right. So any further, let me let Cindy clarify whatever she wants and then we'll come to it.

So I just want to make sure that folks know that the vacant, those are being, those are frozen. So these 16 are in addition to the vacant list.

Did you have a question?

I have a clarifying question. I know that everyone doesn't, because it's not really legible, it's hard to read, but I did get a stab at the organizational chart, and in the org system, there is something called strategic policy, but it's not here as a program. So where is strategic policy? Is that a program, or how, I'm just trying to understand how to navigate that question.

It is a person that writes and keeps us up to date on policy. Am I correct? That's correct, right?

There's four folks in there.

Okay. That's how we have it. Strategic policy. That's right. We reordered that together, right? So, yes. So that's policy and that's the data, the folks that bring us the dashboards and keep us in compliance with accreditation as well as the reports that go to the state, sometimes monthly reports and yearly reports that go to the state to keep us in compliance.

And what does that cost? because it's not outlined here in pages 69 forward. And again, it's not a program. It's.

No, it's under the Office of the Sheriff because of the reporting requirements and the compliance part.

Okay.

And we can give you that cost. We can detail that out for you and give that to you. I'm looking at county finance staff. It's a very small group of people, so I think we can probably find that for you pretty quickly.

While you're looking at that, Commissioner West, did you have a question?

Unless Patrick needs to address. Yeah, real quickly here. I think there's a, so we have a strategic policy analyst that reports in the Office of the Sheriff. And then we have a strategic analysis unit, which is a distinct individual program. and the strategic analysis unit is the ones who dashboards and they provide data. So it's two separate things. So the strategic analysis unit is an actual program and the strategic policy advisor is an employee of the sheriff.

Who oversees that unit? Yes.

Yes. Yes. So in the org chart, it's displaying one, two, three, four, eight positions. in the org chart under strategic policy?

So that's different, so like my, the one support staff administration person is part of that group under that manager who manages that person, may not be part of that strategic analysis, but it's, there's other folks that are within the Office of Sheriff that that person oversees. Does that make sense? So the, the one admin, uh, staff that support me and the under sheriffs is in that. So we can detail that out for you if you would like.

Okay. All right. Just, just trying to, yeah, I'll, I'll leave it there. Um, I'm confused, but I'm not going to pursue it commissioner with, um, uh, sheriff Brandenburg.

Um, statutorily can, can you just remind me again what your function is when you, with, with. with staffing and running the department, statutorily.

So statutorily, like what, an administrator has detailed that?

You being the head of the Sheriff's Department, what's your statutory responsibility when it comes to staffing and positions? You spoke to it earlier when we first started the budget process. You spoke to, by statute, your function is responsibility as a sheriff is.

uh, to run the operations of the sheriff's office that we're asking. Right.

I guess. Is it not correct that who fills what position within that budget is your responsibility statutorily?

Yes. That would be ultimately me.

Yes. Okay. Um, I know that the board, I think the board and many of us are concerned about, the three positions that impact victim advocacy or helping victims and the FJC. I just wanna know if we do make sure that those positions are funded, that those positions, will you commit to those positions still being available to do that service for the public?

So as I touched on yesterday, the FJCU is a priority of mine, a passion of mine, actually. Having been the director for five years there, I thought I would end my career there and be there. And so it is a passion of mine. As I talked with the district attorney, who is a partner of Family Justice Center and the partner agencies, Clackamas Women's Services, that that is a priority. And so the program, the management analyst position, after we created the list and submitted the list, I have an opportunity to use some current funding for that position. and so but everything had already been submitted so but that position for sure is something that we're looking at with my existing and taking and I can't go into the details but using some existing funding that I have an opportunity to use for that so there's three positions that deal with the

advocacy for victims. There's the human services coordinator two that was on the list that received layoff notice. There's the office specialist two for victim services. And then there's that management analyst that you just spoke to with the FJC. If we can protect those vital operational positions to help victims and victim advocacy, will you ensure that those stay intact and those people continue to do the job in that capacity as they are now?

I will take the funding that you give me and I will do the best that I can with it. Um, so it's kind of a yes or yes or no. Yeah. I need to take a look at the, I don't know the amount of funding that you're giving me. Um, I can tell you that the management analyst position, I mean the, I have existing funding that I will be able to use for that. So it leaves the other two and I need to take a look at the entire package that I've given to you and determine.

So we share the commitment for those, at least there's a strong, strong commitment for those three positions. as uniquely necessary for the job they do. We share common interest here. It's just important that if we make that a priority that we know you'll continue to make it a priority under your office and make sure that they continue to operate as funded and intended.

I will do the best with what you give me to make sure that I understand that you strongly recommend filling those positions. As I said, I also have a strong commitment to the Family Justice Center and the success of the Family Justice Center. I need to look at across the board with what you give me, I'm going to take a look at that. But I can tell you that that management analyst position, whether you give me money today or not, I believe I have the funding for that position.

And so I'll just be candid. My priority, as somebody who cares deeply about this, is to make sure that those three positions are protected moving forward. We don't lose them. They continue to do that very valid and essential work. I don't think there is much, you know, I mean, it's either yes or no, because we all agree that the work is important. So when I, we look as a board to share that priority, we're looking, I'm looking for commitment and trust to say, yeah, I share that with you also for these victim advocates. I haven't got a yes or no answer, but that helps me determine at least what I will advocate for on this committee.

I appreciate that. I just need to know the level of funding you're going to be providing me. Enough to fund all three positions. And to get through with everything.

Enough to fund all three of these positions. And then we can't tell you what to do or who to employ.

I understand.

That is statutorily your responsibility. But in good faith, if we say here's the money for the victim advocates, we want... to know and be reassured by you that you agree with us that those will continue to operate as they currently are and hold the positions they hold, and they won't be moved, reassigned, or eliminated under your authority.

So I hear what you're saying, and I understand what you would prioritize and what you would like us to fund, and I hear what you're saying, and I will take that into consideration for sure. But, and also, one of the positions is not necessarily an advocate. front desk personnel, yes, is integral to the part of the FJC, one of the two front office staff person. As a director who actually did that job as the director, I know that Sheriff Roberts came into the center and I'm working the front desk as the director, because that's what we do, it's one of two positions there. And so I just want to tell you that I hear you, I understand, I share your same concerns about the staffing at the Family Justice Center.

Right. Okay. I will yield back.

I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Rhodes?

Thank you. Actually, I have two questions. My first question is you have this list of potential layoffs, 16. This took a lot of thought on your part and a lot of work. And crunching numbers and so forth. You've heard from the committee today that we're very concerned about priority service and so forth. Um, can you please just go through each one of them individually? You may be at this point, you can skip FJC because we just talked about it, but can you go through the, at least the rest of them? How was it? How did you determine that that was where the cut needed to be? Um, and what, cause you talked about using data and so forth to determine where this is going to be. What, what did you use to decide? How did you decide? That's the thing. And most importantly, what I'm asking for is what will the impact of that reduction, that layoff be on your core services or your priority services?

Yeah, difficult question to answer. I don't make those decisions. They're difficult decisions, tough decisions. The right arm, the left arm, I've used that before. And it is not me. At the end of the day, it is me. I'm here. I'm the leader of this organization. I am the elected sheriff. But that is the input of the people doing the work, the managers that you saw behind me yesterday, and trying to minimize the impact on any one program, which is why we come back to the FJC, and my priority is to try and find funding for that position, for all the positions. And so it is a matter of not wanting to have the least amount of impact not only internally, but to our external services and support. And so that is the overriding guide with input from those doing the work and closest to the work. Many long, tough conversations. And I don't wish this on anybody. It's awful. I mean, these are people with families who rely on medical care, you know, medical health insurance. And we know them. They're part of our family. It's tough. I don't wish this on anybody but that I can tell you I mean I going through each one of those I think that would be difficult but I can tell you because I don't make that decision in a vacuum at the end of the day I stand here and tell you these are the positions and it's tough and having those tough conversations with people I'm sorry that you're on that you're on this list it doesn't mean that your work isn't important or that we don't value you that you're expendable you know it's difficult At the end of the day, we're trying to live within what we're giving from you and also deliver the services to the people we serve.

Thank you. I have a second question not related to that. The PSTC, Public Safety Training Center, there's a component of that that is a training center for law enforcement and a component of that that is a public-facing shooting range. My understanding and belief is that there's no return on investment from the public side. It costs money to run that thing and it's ultimately subsidized by general fund dollars or sheriff's office dollars. Will any of these layoffs impact the financial viability of the public range and or are there other strategies to return that to at least a neutral, if at least not profit losing venture?

Thank you for that question. I think that we have done, in these lean times, a much better job about getting the return of investment open to the public. And it is a public service, right? It is something that people enjoy having access to a shooting range in Clackamas. And so we take a look at that, but also the benefit of having this valuable training center where we can have cops on duty go in and train, and we are one of the best trained law enforcement agencies because of that building, because we have access to the range. People can, they can pop in, they are on duty, already in uniform, do their training, then get back into service. And knowing that there is the public side, there is cost to doing that business, this is nothing new. Sheriff Roberts, when he is here, is how do we make that cost neutral? I can tell you if we close that center, I know there had been talk about closing the center, selling that center, doing something different. The cost to us and our training budget is exponential. So factoring all of that in and having that facility, and then we also rent that out to other law enforcement agencies, so we are getting and working that more like a business. We are working closer and closer. We were just talking about that under Sheriff Eby and I. It's getting closer to cost neutral. One of the positions on there is the manager of the training center and it's not that he doesn't do valuable work. Someone else will have to pick up that work and it'll be additional pressure on us. Is it ideal? It's not because this is the person we're relying on to help us with that cost neutral. He does very important work. I can tell you that we we've looked at it. We've talked about this before with with chair Roberts Is to how do we how do we make? It more cost-neutral and I know we've raised our fees. We were talking about that recently maybe undershirt EB can talk about that Because at the end of the day we don't we also want people to pay for the service that they're getting and

We have been looking at it and one of the things we've been looking at is fees and we will obviously next year be bringing those towards the budget committee to reevaluate those but that takes a lot of work as anybody knows it's a business it's not just throwing money out there you have to do that cost neutral where there's a raise but there's still an interest in using the product and so we're reviewing that now and obviously in this next year with the other cuts that we're doing we're going to be reviewing that and seeing where that will go which is likely to move up.

And I also want to talk about that facility is very important to us because we can bring in training into that facility, host the training, get free spots, free seats for our folks. And so as part of the trade off of hosting, you understand what I'm talking about, that we get the training. We don't have to pay for the training. We get great training. We bring training into this region so our law enforcement partners have access. So it is a symbiotic relationship with our partners. And so it's a great facility for that. We're lucky to have that facility. We're the envy of a lot of agencies.

I agree with that. I'm talking specifically about the public access to use it as a shooting range. I don't advocate for eliminating the building. It is important. I think it's valuable that we share that resource or rent that resource to other law enforcement agencies, but your public range runs at a deficit of about $400,000 a year. Yeah, so that deficit, right? I'm not advocating, yet the billing is important. We need it for training. It is a money saver as far as training. It's a money maker as far as renting it out to other police agencies that use it. But something needs to seriously be addressed about the public-facing side of this. I mean, again, it's $400,000. And so if you eliminate one FTE, that will close that, and you increase fees, That would help. I just don't know that that's gonna close a $400,000 gap per year. So that needs to really be, I would encourage you to really think about what your solution's gonna be to close that gap. Again, talking about the public access to a shooting range.

Only that part. Yeah, I can guarantee we've been having the discussions and evaluating the alternatives and this is, one of the first steps to close that gap and um you know what i'm sorry what's the first step of controlling our personnel costs oh okay yeah um uh and you're right the the the The other public agencies that we rent it out to, it's neutral or potentially helps us pay for the center. But it's a step-by-step process, as you know, with a lot of things. So that's definitely been on our radar. It bears your attention. Thank you. Absolutely.

Commissioner Savas.

Yeah. Briefly, I hope I want to go back to Commissioner West's question that he posed and I'll reframe it a little bit if the Budget Committee all ten of us said we want to fill those positions and FJC operations out that Commissioner West spoke to My guess is your response would be the same right maybe I

I think it's, I understand, I hear your recommendations and I will take that recommendation and make that determination. I hear you and I hear that that is priority. And I've told you it's a priority of mine as well.

Yeah, I guess I'm not questioning whether or not it's a priority, right? But there must be another priority, other priorities that you're gonna try and balance as a sheriff, right? You're gonna take all these priorities and say, geez, what do I do, right? And I guess that, whether it's the 13 positions that we added for the courthouse, or it's the monies that we posed in, well, the commitment that we made. I was gonna go back to the commitment we made in 24-25, right? Yeah, 24-25, and we said, go higher. fill the positions, go higher. And I think that was the year. And that was the year that we didn't have a lot of actuals behind us when we were doing the budget. So, but I had the mistaken confidence, I'll say I was mistaken, the confidence that the monies were there, right, based on what I saw. And I couldn't see very much. And ultimately, we were unable to fill those positions. And we came back with, at the beginning, 86 positions in the levy, for example. And we ended up a year later with 86 positions in the levy. had expended quite a bit of money. So I guess sitting here today, if we don't have any security that if we make a commitment of 3.6 that it's going to go to what we're told it's going to go to, then it's hard. It's hard for me, right? It's hard for me to say, well, geez, DA Wentworth, You know, I think I've really heard a lot of confidence from him that those are the positions he would fill if we provided $500,000 that he would fill those positions. Now, granted, I mean, I think he was also saying to my point of question that, geez, it may be next year or inflationary aspect that maybe in the years to come he might struggle with that, but the only reason those positions became vacant because it was attrition. He didn't make the call to say this was a higher priority or a lesser priority. It was due to attrition, right? He didn't fill those positions. So it sounds like in this case, for the FJC, it wasn't attrition, right? It was not attrition. There's no one really moving. It's a decision that was made by you and your staff. And certainly there's other, I don't question your priorities and how you made the call, but if we're gonna make it a priority, and the sheriff's office in entirety is not gonna make it a priority to fund those positions, then I am very inclined to say, Gary, if we line item every position, do we get there or not? If we line item 607 positions in the budget, do we or do we not get there, right? I want to make sure it's done. If it's not done and we're just going to give the money away and hope it's done, I know that's difficult for me.

Can I have an answer for you? So the difference between your two questions that you've posed to me, one is, if we give you some funding, will you fill these positions? And you're saying, if we give you the funding you're asking for, I'm going to come back to The statement I read into the record, which I sent out to my office yesterday after our budget talks yesterday, what I read into the record yesterday, my last line is, today I'm asking you to provide 3.6 million to avoid 16 layoffs. So you're saying that you want to provide the full funding that we're asking for, but Commissioner West talked about if we give you some funding, which positions will you fill? And so you're saying if you commit to giving us the money, to avoid the layoffs, I'm not gonna divert that to somewhere else. So, does that answer your question?

Well, I was actually proposing both, two scenarios. One scenario which we go, Program by program and say, you know, shall we or shall we not, you know, tell us what that that program does, you know, give us the wet worth on it, kind of explain the best you can, how or whether or not that's a priority that rises above or below something and then kind of help maybe. piece together how we get to 3.6. Now, the second thing I put out there was if we did the whole 3.6, right? So I'm going back to the procedure that just before lunch we said that I, Paul, you know, I can't speak for everyone here, wanted to go down from page 69 forward and talk about each of those programs and kind of understand the value, whether it's an ROI or how the effectiveness of that, the value of that, and what the priorities are that maybe the countering the competing priorities to establish, you know, maybe whether or not the FJC is more or less important, for example, than anything else. But I'm just trying to understand the operations and maybe we end up getting into 3.6. Maybe we get to 2.4. I don't know. I don't know where we end up. But I think that to start the starting point, Commissioner West jumped ahead. We're not on that page, right, for the FJC. I think we need the commitment. I need the commitment to know that if we say yes to something, right, and we provide the funding for it, in addition to the budget proposed, which is the minus 16, and we start adding to that bit by bit strategically as a group here today, and we don't have the commitment that it will be filled, then I'm reluctant to help.

I can tell you that the money that you're committing to our office today will go towards the 16 positions that are on this layoff plan. They're not being diverted to something else. They're for these positions.

Right. I'm going back to doing the piece by piece. And as we go down this list, if it was a futile exercise, I don't want to go down that path. If it's futile. I'm really wondering the value of some of these other programs we haven't even talked about yet. Right? I'll leave it there.

Chair Roberts.

All right. How's everybody doing? Hang in there, everybody. We'll get through this, OK? Right, Martha? Oh, gosh. This is, you know. I'll start with one question. And you might have it. Is it true that the Public Safety Training Center is going to be paid off in 28, 29? All right, so part of the big hole in the training center is a huge debt service. That debt service is coming to an end soon, right? It isn't? There's a balloon payment for the light rail, which I believe is in 2728.

Chair, is your mic on?

I'm sorry.

There we go, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sandra Montoya, budget manager, and the debt is not in the training center. The debt is in the general fund, non-departmental. That's still where it lives. So it's the amount that Member Rhodes was talking about is separate from the debt in the training center.

Was that ELED, wasn't it?

No, that's something different as well.

That's north or something, right? So my question is, can you tell me when that debt is paid off?

Yes. The PSB and the Sheriff's Office Training Center will be paid off this coming year, 26-27, at $8.5 million. Okay.

Is that a GO fund?

No. No, it's a full faith and credit. Okay.

And then, am I correct that the 2728 balloon payment for the light rail is due 2728, is that correct?

We're gonna look at the forecast, because we do have those identified for you.

And maybe while they're looking at that, a couple of things I want to kind of come back to, and that was, The, I wanted you to elaborate a little bit on the strategic policy person. And I think that the right person that is helping with the policies, that's my understanding, correct? Right.

Yes.

Yes. And so I just want to elaborate on that so folks can understand how vital that role is. And I'll tell you, when I was sheriff, one of the big goals I was hoping to accomplish was to become accredited. And both we got accredited under the Oregon Accreditation Alliance, and then later, thanks to Lee, we got medically accredited. And that is also due to having a policy analyst. We would have never accomplished that. It is extremely complex. You have to look at all of these technical policies. And the reason I want to tell you why it is so important that the policies are constantly evolving. They never stop. And here's what happens in litigation. And if you saw, we heard in testimony today that the excess insurance carrier, we had a 51% increase, right? And part of which is in any litigation, here's what they do. The attorneys making claims against the sheriff's office will seek policies from surrounding agencies. They will also want to know if you are accredited or not. They want to see if you have the best standards in place. If you have horrible policies, I will guarantee you, when you get into court, you will pay one way or another. And it's to make sure that you have good policies and that you also train by those policies. And part of that is really trying to manage the risk, which I'll just reiterate again, is it is one of the highest risk organizations this county has. And in order to mitigate any of that, you have to truly have the very best policies and making sure you're working with the Accreditation Alliance, that you're staying up with it. I know sometimes people wonder like, oh, really, what's that person do? I wouldn't want to do it because it's really technical work. But just wanted to elaborate on that. And, Sheriff, do you have any other comments about that?

Yeah, I don't know why anybody would want to do that job. That's my comment. So it's policy. don't it is very necessary and and litigation to keep us all on the same page case law changes and we have to stay up on that and so and it is vital for that for that position and someone who is who can understand that also right and work with cops so

Yeah, and then just one kind of last follow-up question. So as I understand it, if we're able to give you that 3.6, those positions, those 16 positions, we will not have to move to layoff, as I understand, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, all right, that's all I have.

Elizabeth?

Thank you, I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Roberts, Chair Roberts. The payment for the Sheriff's Training Center payoff is this coming fiscal year, and it's out of property taxes and the non-departmental fund. And then the balloon payment of $6.8 million for the light rail is in the following year, 27-28.

Thank you very much.

Also non-D property tax.

Cindy, I've been assuming your card is still up from before, is that right? All right, thank you.

Commissioner Schrader.

So I'm just going to throw a monkey wrench on things right now. Gary, one of the things I'm concerned about is the DA's office because they've been cut and cut and cut. So I'd be willing to look at the dollars, the $3.6 million, but I would strongly suggest if we do something like this, we give the out of that money we give $500,000 to the DA, and then at least try and make you as whole as we can with the rest of it. He's really done a good job in being, you know, really running a lean, and he's, you know, I look at it, he's part of the continuum of public safety, and that's kind of what we have to look at at sheriff, you know, DA, and all of that. So I'm just going to throw that out there as a suggestion. And I'd like to hear some feedback if people might be ready to go there at this point. But the other thing is, when we're talking about this staff policy person, is there any way we can integrate it with the kind of work we do with our policy people, number one? I don't know. Or number two? Do you need someone on staff the entire time, or is it something that you could like quarterly get someone out there to review? See what I mean? Contract it out. That might save you. I don't know if that will save you money or not, but what I'm trying to think is do you need a full-time position, or do you just need somebody who can come in who's an expert in uh policy okay for public safety and just because i know we do that we actually look at our policies at a certain time and i know gary have we contracted out for things like that upon occasion if we need no no we have not okay i just i was just throwing it out just to see if that might be a way to save some dollars but but i would like to put five hundred thousand dollars towards the I think our DA needs it, and I think that he's done a good job. And the other one was just a wild idea I had.

Yeah, okay, why do you need a policy person, Angie? I understand why I need policy people.

To follow up on your comments. So I have been in talks with the DA. Obviously, we talk about our budgets, and I know he has need. of that funding because part of my solving of problems with the FJC was to say, hey DA, do you have anybody you can help us staff the Family Justice Center with? Because it's not just me. He said, I'm down to one office person in the front answering the desk. so and he said that he also had a shortage he'd been working with County Administrator on his budget and so I do understand and I do support that the DA is you know he does have a need of that funding I'm in support of that and and then if whatever comes to me, we'll do what we can do. And then the policy person is, the person I have is an expert in those policies and it is a full-time job. It's absolutely a full-time job to stay on top of just the changing case law which changes at a moment's notice. Whether it's the current Ninth Circuit Court, Supreme Court, this person is integrated with the county. I know that, Cindy? Liaisons with her she's on the the policy committee With the county and that is how we stay connected because I think before that it was not very good And it's much better our relationships are great. We bring our concerns and these two talk about a lot So and that comes back and so because we are we want to be good partners, right? So that's my two cents worth

My math says if we gave 500 500 thousand to the DA then you'd get at least what 3.6 Is that correct Gary? Are you telling me? I'm tired.

Yes, so you have 3.6 million right that you could spend without impacting the 30-year forecast and I want to remind you, please limit your questions to the sheriff so that she can move on with her day and that you can begin deliberations. It's almost 2 p.m. You spend five hours now with the sheriff. Thank you.

I'm trying to move us along with deliberation.

Deliberation is after we're done questioning the sheriff.

I have no other questions. I deliberated early.

All right. Mr. Kern, question for the sheriff?

Yes. Thank you. I think I already know the answer to this question, but we talk about accreditation. in a variety of areas of things that we do. The jail, the sheriff's office in general. I can't remember because the fire district itself went through this, but if there's, I know it takes a lot of staff hours and time to maintain that accreditation. I didn't know if there was a financial component to it that we gotta break insurance-wise or something. I don't think we do, but it's been a while since I've gone through that process. So the benefits of being accredited, is there something financially that we can see

I can tell you that we're in compliance with the law because it's required. And I have the benefit of being sheriff on the heels of Sheriff Roberts, who was ahead of the curve. But every agency over a certain size is required now to be accredited. And I sit on the accreditation board, the Northwest Accreditation Alliance, that we are accredited through as a city member of the board. Oregon State Sheriff's Association. And there's financial help for agencies to come on board because there is a financial component. We do absorb that, and that falls within the Office of Sheriff to stay accredited. The good news is that we just received our three-year accreditation, and so that is good news, and we are in compliance with the law, most importantly.

Yeah, I didn't know that it was required now, so thank you.

I think Commissioner West was next, but if I'm mistaken, please let me know.

Actually, I was up first. Okay.

Commissioner Sava.

So I was hoping we could, after lunch, we could start going down from page 69 forward just to get us back on track.

So in that vein, what you all handed out here, staff, right, I'm trying to align that, again, with I'm saw on page 69.

Office of the Sheriff, and I'm looking at this, Office of the Sheriff, and there's not one number on here that reconciles with what's on page 69. It's in the range, so for example, the 2.286 million is not reflected here on the personnel line, for example. And so help me out, why do those lines not reconcile?

So the 2286 million is in the FY2627 proposed. And this, sorry, I'm trying to help Elizabeth and Cindy get there as well.

Look at page 69 and then look at the personnel line.

2.3? Oh. Are you looking at projected year end or budget for 26-27?

Any of them. I'm just looking to try to find any number that is recognizable on the personnel services aligned with what you handed out.

This is Office of the Sheriff. Can they help?

So for example, colleagues, for fiscal year 26-27, the number under personnel is 2.331 million. And what we were handed out was looking at proposed is 2.286 million. So it's off by 400 some odd thousand or more. No, it's not off that far. No, not that far. Yeah, it's not that far. But it's not the same.

I'm almost positive it's insurance.

It says because OT and other personal costs.

The personnel service. Yeah, this number.

It's not jiving with that. 210-101. Oh, my God.

So in the meantime, while they're figuring out those numbers, ask the sheriff in the, I don't know if the org chart's the best place to look at, but what does the, putting the undersheriffs aside, what does the Office of the Sheriff do? Is that where the accreditation is, or the person? I mean, I was trying to follow that discussion. So organizationally and by program, is that where it lies?

Yes. It lies in the office of sheriff.

How much does that cost for the, the work for accreditation? How much does that cost?

I'm not.

Staffing and the whole, the whole caboodle.

I don't know. I have not done that math because it's a requirement. So it's a, I don't have the answer for you. We can find out, because it's not, it's an every three year cycle, and there are things that we have to hit, policies that have to be updated, so it's not a full-time job for somebody, right? It's done throughout the year, and then really the last, the third year before the accreditation's up is when we work with the accreditors, they actually come through, they review all of our policy, they do site visits, The work that's done in the between times, we have to do unannounced property room inspections. There's a whole list of things that have to be done. And so I have not priced that out.

Okay.

It's a good question.

Okay. And I'll put that aside for a moment. What else does the Office of the Sheriff do? Again, taking the undersheriff's work out, what else does the Office of the Sheriff do?

So like every other department in the county, For instance, the Department of Finance has the Office of the Director. Health H3S has the Office of the Director. This leadership, its communication, it's just the leadership of the department. And each department in the county has an office of the director as a program. So it's a program. They have a few staff members. Sometimes they have a little more, depending on the size of the department. But it's just really the leadership of either the department or the program. And it's not distinct to the sheriff's office.

Okay. And I've seen the org chart a little bit. It's the best I can follow it. So I'm trying to understand. It looks like if I'm looking at the org chart correctly, the undersheriffs have their array of areas where they manage. I get that on behalf of the sheriff. So how is the... How is the interplay between the balance of those staff in that department, Office of the Sheriff, support? Who do they support? Are they supporting the sheriff directly? And if so, what does that look like? Or are they supporting the undersheriffs? I'm just trying to understand just organizationally how that works.

Yeah, I wish I had a picture for you, and I don't know if it's on our website. Like you said, it's difficult to put our entire org chart together because it would be very tiny in spots. The Office of Sheriff, I have our communications, I have our professional standards, which is internal affairs, communications, strategic analysis, strategic policy, and the undersheriffs who oversee the divisions within the sheriff's office. And support staff is for us, like I said, is one administrative person for myself and for the Office of Sheriff for all of us.

Okay, so is the professional standards, the certification, is that the same person that has the strategic policy?

If I may briefly step in. I'm not sure how in the scope this line of questioning is for the budget. So I just would like to see if the committee as a whole would like to continue down it. if we could take a, I don't know how to pull, but just to see if as a whole we want to continue down this or not. Commissioner West.

I mean, I know we want to get to deliberations quickly, but I found the questioning appropriate, and I would like to better understand that structure if we're going to make budget decisions around it. But I do know that we probably want to try to get to deliberations as soon as possible. I'd like to see Commissioner's office finish his questioning. Okay.

Well, I just wish it was more clear so I didn't have to ask the question, I guess. And if there's KPIs, and I did go to the Sheriff's website, there's no way of seeing the KPIs by program. This one in particular, unless I missed it.

You're having a side conversation. The key performance measures for the Office of Sheriff.

Are there KPIs for each of these programs from page 69

I don't know for each program. Yes, the programs do have key performance measures for all of them. And it's in, I believe in the county's system of record for those measurements.

Okay, I didn't read it that way. I'm sure there's KPIs for functions in there.

For the programs, for the programs. In the managing results, there are key performance measures for our entire office, including the Office of Sheriff.

Okay, I'm just gonna, I'm a little discouraged. I'll just close with this. This is a lot of money. Whether you're looking at the 86 or the 90 or the 3.6, it's a lot of money. I just feel as though that we ought to have, if we're going to backfill and take precious resources, whether it's one-time 3.6 or it's ongoing 3.6, it's a big commitment. And I... And we also have other commitments. I agree that I do want to appropriate. And this is where it gets complicated. I do want to make sure that the DA's got that $500,000 because part of that was the domestic violence. But the same token is that that's also being shared with the Sheriff's Department for the two positions that are vacant, which is what Commissioner West started with. So we've got to connect the dots here. and we're we're struggling just with one issue and We haven't moving down the path. So I I'm just gonna respectfully pull back a little bit and Not sure I'm gonna not sure I'm gonna support the budget today if that's the case Yeah, I'll try and be really quick I know we all want to kind of get out on deliberation a couple three little questions here, right?

You have 44 frozen positions, correct? I

Yes, that's correct, that we held this current year going into the next fiscal year.

And how many positions? In general fund, in general fund. Right, and how many did we hold off in the ELED that we're not funding?

It's currently 10. It'll be another two July 1st.

And my last question is, so we obviously got a number of vacancies, and my very last question is, and this is a hypothetical, If we were able to come up with approximately $3 million and we helped the DA perhaps with some of his issues, could we perhaps be able to retain the majority of those on the layoff list? And I'm just trying to, hypothetically, I don't want to put you on a spot here.

I believe that the answer is yes. We do have, as Commissioner West talked about, empty positions that would also be added to the frozen list. And I would be able to use the $3 million to fund all the folks on the layoff list.

All right. No further questions.

Commissioner Helm.

Sounds like court of law.

No further questions.

Help me out with this, Angie. Oh, somebody's singing here. It's not me. The Office of the Sheriff, you say, is mostly leadership, right? So where does, just help me out with this, because the materials and services went from $302,500 in 23-24 to almost $700. 100,000, it's a 50% increase. Can you just tell me what falls under that?

The Office of the Sheriff covers some expenses that are department-wide. Legal settlements, for instance, or legal fees. Not the settlements, I'm sorry, the risk fund covers that. But legal fees, there's training, there's accreditations, as the sheriff mentioned. And I don't, are you referencing 2526 or 2324?

Well, 2324 was 302. This was actuals and the materials and services and the budget for 2627 is nearly $700,000.

I believe there was a change in county council support for some litigation issues too that moved some of the expenses to us.

Yes, so previously, I can't remember when it changed, but employee arbitration matters are now the responsibility of the department. So we did have an employee arbitration that was expensive. And so previously it hadn't covered, I believe, under the risk fund. Now I'm speaking for the county administrator.

No, Human Resources covered it in their budget, and I'd made the decision three or four years ago. A department is responsible, because with respect, they're responsible for managing their employees. So if there's an error or if there's something that goes to arbitration, it's revolved with management of the employee. So the department's responsible for paying for it.

Okay. And then I just want to say, too, so, you know, we were all given this... Line item, right, but it's just Fund 100. I know it's everything balled up into one, and it's all marked up, it's all highlighted, and I would love to have the time to go through each line item just to kind of have you explain. We don't have time for that. I understand. I understand there's a lot of questions about things we don't really understand, and I don't want to micromanage your department. You know, that's your job, right? We're here to set the budget. We're here to say, this is how much money we have. Here's your portion. Do the best you can with it, right? I am worried about some positions, especially the sworn positions. But when you came to us for the supplemental budget, too, last fall, you know, I did say, Angie, where have you trimmed the fat? Come on, come on. You know, there's always places to cut just It's painful, I know. We're all going through the pain right now with all the things that we have to tell people and we're asked for money every single day of the week and we have to say no because we just don't have it. I wish we did. I would love to get on to deliberations because I think we could go on for probably the next three days with you asking or answering questions for us. But I think the next part will be deliberations in what we're going to do with 3.6. And I just want to say I appreciate, again, the tenor today, your candidness with us. I know you can't make commitments to positions and stuff like that. But we are also trying to protect certain offices that have critical services for the citizens in our county. So anyway, that said, I'm done.

Elizabeth. Chair, can I quickly, very quickly, I know you want to get on with your day. I appreciate what you've said. I appreciate the committee. I appreciate the conversations we've had and the hard work we've done over this past year. to repair relationships and to have a shared understanding, so appreciate all of you. I just want you, I mean, as we talk about what can you trim, and you're always in the back of my head, just so you know. And so from last year. And so I hope that we've demonstrated our commitment to doing our part and to... Stretching the dollar as far as we can go And our commitment is to continue to do that to continue to work with you And I know you have difficult decisions to make everybody wants a piece of the pie But we appreciate the work you're doing here Thank you Elizabeth

I can respond to the question Commissioner Savas brought up about the individual report versus the program page. That would be great, thank you. Yeah, and actually the numbers tie out completely once you add what's not on here. So we provided during the break a breakout buy position. We were asked to sworn versus unsworn. And when you do buy individual employee, there are general personnel costs that you don't tie to a specific individual. So these are the costs that we know when we do budget how much that individual's gonna cost. And then in our budgeting, like Commissioner Helm, you pointed out, you have the line item details. So in personnel, you're also gonna have overtime. we don't budget by individual person over time. We do not budget vacation payout cause that's a, that's an assessment, I guess. Uh, we also, um, unemployment not by individual and workers comp not by individual. So those four categories are overall and they total $44,136. So if you add all the individual amounts plus the, division or program group personnel costs, it does come to the 2.331081. So it ties out. But this was a report to demonstrate sworn versus unsworn. And the other program is a complete roll up of personnel. You'll see that there on page 69.

Commissioner Savas.

Thank you for that explanation. The other handout was this one, and so for fiscal year 25-26, I think I already know the answer, but I just wanna just say it, just wanna just hear, that includes, that 82 includes the additional four million we contributed?

It does not, because it is a one time, it's not ongoing. so what what year did the four million get attributed to it'll be uh it'll be this year in quarter four the supplemental budget will come to you in june so what we're doing is to tie out with the roll-up page at the very bottom it shows for the current fiscal year is 82 802 or 82 million 802 000 and then the 90 is the budget in the yellow of general fund plus the 3.6 So we wanted to keep them consistent because the 82 is ongoing. The 87 would be ongoing. The 4 million is not ongoing. So it would not have the COLA attached to it or applied to it.

Okay, so we're going to, maybe I'll just ask a question differently. The final budget for 25-26 will be how much roughly?

Approximately $87 million. I don't have that exact number in front of me. And that will include the one time.

Okay. So the delta of $8 million does not include the four?

Correct.

Correct. So the $8 million is ongoing?

Mm-hmm.

All right.

It would be ongoing.

It's not 3.6. No, it's also the.

We had added in 1.6 million for the court staff as well.

Okay, so does the 3.6 go on top of the 90 million?

No. No, it includes... Take the 82 million plus the 1.6 times the percentage. The COLA. COLA plus 3.6 million. And that gets you to the 90 million. Clear as mud. Mm-hmm.

All right. Thank you, Sheriff. I think we will let you go.

I want to clarify because that confused the hell out of everything. I asked for this and I probably shouldn't have done that. What the Sheriff got last year adopted was $82 million. This current year, the Board of Commissioners added $4 million so the Sheriff could finish the fiscal year without having to lay anyone off. So 4 plus 8, that's $86 million to finish this fiscal year. But that was one time only the $4 million, so we're going back to the original number of $82 million plus 3% plus an additional $1.6 million for the courthouse deputies came to $87 million, which you see in this book today. I added if you give 3.6 million plus the 87 million that I proposed, that equals 90. Does this clarify it all? That's what this is trying to show. So the 1.6 million is the 13 deputies again?

It's for six months of the 13 deputies.

But it becomes ongoing because it goes into fiscal year 26. So you can say it's one time, but it's really ongoing. It is built into the base. Correct.

Yes. This is my point. My point is that we committed the money for the 13 deputies last year. Do you want that to stay?

I don't know.

Right? Yeah. And there's nine vacant positions.

Why?

So where'd that money go?

Correct.

I want to know where the money went.

I don't know who can answer that question.

I don't know who can answer that either. I don't know. Just part of the concern is that we have these It's just this looming thing of unfilled positions. We authorize positions to be filled for whatever reason. It's beyond just providing the funding. It is probably really difficult in the Portland metro area to still get anybody to want to do law enforcement because we created a hostile environment in the Portland metro area for law enforcement. So a lot of good men and women don't want to do. Law enforcement is probably really hard to recruit. I don't know if that's part of it. But we do have a lot of positions that we have opened up funding for that still continue to go vacant. and then we continue to have them, it's 44, it's another 10, it's 20, and then it's, you know, hold the position. What do we need? We already are having some of the best outcomes in the nation. So what do we need to make sure it still functions well without having all these positions hanging over our heads? But that question never gets answered. I guess we, but we have the authority to fund up to a certain amount, at least the amount we fund now on average, does produce pretty phenomenal results.

Mr. Karn?

I'll keep it short. I think Commissioner Savas brought up a good question and certainly I think that needs to be looked at as a citizen member and members of this budget committee I mean, this meeting is recorded. That's a huge number. We can't just leave that alone. We'll probably have to look at that later. However, I want to make a statement. Sheriff, before you walk out, I know you feel you get beat up every year. We ask a lot of questions. I know you respect this group and this committee with what we have to do. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the public. I know you respect that. At the same time, I appreciate and you had alluded to it earlier that this process and so did Commissioner Savas and others has gone a lot smoother and there's less animosity and the tension in the room, I think it's palpable, you can feel it, it's better. So thank you for your graciousness towards us and we're sorry for beating you up and we wish Lee, you the best in the years to come.

Thank you very much, really quickly. I appreciate that. I know my team appreciates that. And we all have the same shared goal, which is to serve the public to the best of our ability, to give you the best bang for your buck, and for us is to demonstrate what we're doing for you and how we're doing that. uh... and so that's our commitment and uh... we all have that shared commitment and so but i think you as a public member for being here and giving up your time you're retired uh... you know i believe you're retired as well and so thank you so much uh... uh... and uh... for me as uh... i don't actually forward to this every year i do uh... because it's a chance to show the public what we're doing with the dollars and we should lean into that conversation and have the hard conversation. And that's what I'm elected to do. And so thank you very much. I really appreciate sincerely all of you and the commission and finance team and administration.

I recommend a short break and then you begin deliberation.

You read my mind, sir. A five minute recess. All right, we will reconvene. And I think I would like to start by asking each of the commissioner members to take a minute and kind of just give initial thoughts on if you want to make adjustments, where, if you don't want to make adjustments. So if we could start at my right with Commissioner West.

Right off the gate, oh my. Commissioner Helm, I think you were super correct. I had so many highlights in this line item about why we weren't going to get through it. But there are 50% increases. This one has $3 million increases from the previous budget. This one's $45,000. This one's $391,000, $3 million, double. Why the increase? I have all these notes. We were not going to be able to get to all those line items. But they are questions for sure. A couple things I think are clear is, and I'm going to throw this out there, we do need to go over at least these 16 positions and figure out what we want to do. DA Wentworth said I could say this. He was watching. There are three specific positions that you heard me and have seen me advocate over for the last few days. They involve victim services, victim advocacy, one of them is tied to the FJC, important programming we care about. We did not get a yes or no firm commitment from the sheriff that if those three positions were funded that she would make sure that they stay established doing the work that is important. DA Wentworth text me with an exclamation point and said, give me the positions, I'll protect them. Personally, that was the answer I was looking for. Specifically on those, and then we can still go through and figure out where we can find common ground. The only place we got that commitment from was from the elected official, the DA, our great DA, who wants to see us become the gold standard with victim services. I'd like us to maybe do the easy thing first, make sure these three positions are funded. We moved these positions under the DA's office so that we know that they are protected because we have a commitment that I was told to share. Um, and then we also talk about his additional comp. We all have the common cause to at least find him the other 500,000 for his, uh, for, for what he needs to run his office. That is not to fund these victim positions. It is to fund the other needs that he has within his departments. I think there is money here to fund these three, um, uh, positions that I'm advocating for. I'll start with that and maybe open up the conversation around that. Um, but I really do appreciate DA when we're stepping up to make sure that we continue to advocate for victims in Clackamas County. Um, and those positions would be managed under the DA's office if you guys so agree.

All right. Uh, Ms. Rader.

I'm going to pass on my comment.

Okay. Commissioner Helm.

So just to clarify, Commissioner West, you're talking about $500,000 in addition to the increase that he's getting this year of, help me out, Gary. He's getting an increase of 6%. 7%.

So this is page 43 of your binder under the district attorney's office.

He's getting a 7% increase in general funds as opposed to three. He's getting up to seven.

Right, but you're talking about $500,000 in addition to his 7% increase.

Yeah, his ask that we've been talking about is an additional $500,000 to fund the physicians in this department.

So what does that make his overall increase then? So why have... I'm not opposed to committing the three positions. I'm totally good with that.

There's two things that are separate. Originally, these three victim advocacy positions were under the sheriff's department. They were in her. receive layoff notices. So the shift to protect those positions is to make sure that they are actually going to stay within doing the work in the county is to move them to the DA's office, still fund them. Um, but that's, that's, that move is to protect them that had separately, which he talked about separately was the $500,000 that his department also needs. So it's a, it's two, it's yes to his, it's two separate things. question then so they're two separate things so are we taking money away from the sheriff's office then to fund those three positions we would move over the funding would well we have the 3.6 we have potentially other line item funding from the CCSO office and different staff positions that we could shift over there are other there are other positions in here that we probably would all agree you know may or may not need to be ELIMINATED, BUT THE MONEY IS THERE TO FUND THESE THREE POSITIONS AS A PRIORITY. IT WOULD BE 9%.

IT WOULD BE 9%. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH ARE THE THREE POSITIONS TO FUND THEN? DO WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING.

WE HAVE TO CALCULATE THAT QUICKLY HERE.

SO WE WOULD BE GIVING HALF A MILLION PROBABLY PLUS ANOTHER, WHAT, THREE TO 400,000? To fund those three positions?

They would, it would still be funded regardless. We're just shifting the positions under his authority.

Two positions. Three. It's two, it wasn't one under DA and two under...

It was one under PNP and two under the FJC.

It says three altogether. Two plus one. Yeah, two plus one equals three.

We're still funding those as we were, but we're just moving them to the DA who said he'd protect them and would be able to take on that responsibility in his department.

Okay. Go ahead. Elizabeth keeps looking at me.

I think he's just going around.

I'm just curious, in addition to the 7% increase, he's already getting what extra 500,000 is for.

If I may.

Yes.

My initial ask was that each of us Provide thoughts on if we wanted to make adjustments where or keep it the same. So if you could do that, then I'm happy to go into the details of each.

I agree with Commissioner West that I would like to move those things over to the DA's office. Those are adjustments that I would like to make, yes.

Okay. Any other potential adjustments?

open to it but nothing else we'll see okay uh mr caton yeah it's my understanding would be uh the da 500 000 would get two more positions and then the other three would be additional to move from the sheriff to the da if i'm understanding that so that would be additional funds. I'm in agreement to consider the 500,000 to the DA for those two other positions and then the moving of the other three would need some more conversation in my mind whether or not we want to move them out of the office of the sheriff or not or move them to DA. I understand and I appreciate wanting to protect them and make sure they're funded. I have some further questions around the information we have. It looks like those were funded or are funded in the sheriff's office, but there's confusing or conflicting data that we still I still have questions around, and I'll leave it at that. Chair Roberts?

All right, just real quickly. For a number of reasons, I would strongly encourage that we leave the funding of those individuals under the sheriff that are the FJC for a number of reasons. And also, it's my understanding, too, that it's not a victim advocate. It's a support person for the director that runs the program. The second thing you also have to remember is CCPOA members have great benefits. I believe and I might be wrong but if they go to the DA's office they could be under a different Union and if they are the benefits are dramatically difference which would could be a very reason why that person might not want to take the job or take another opening so you could actually lose that person who is doing a fantastic job because she can't afford to take a cut in wages so I just want to tell you there's a a dramatic difference. Everybody wants in the CCPOA contract for a variety of reasons. And I would say that you could actually lose those people. So with that, I agree. My suggestion would be to give the $500,000 to the DA. give $3 million to the sheriff to keep those 16 positions. I wholeheartedly believe she doesn't want to lose those positions as well. She was a director of that program, knows how important it is, and I'm confident that that she'll make the decision to keep those positions. So that's where I'm at. One last thing to throw a monkey wrench in this whole thing, which I apologize for. Throughout the year, we actually have so many amazing people come to us. with their handout for dire needs. And last year, Commissioner West had somebody show up, pregnant women in shelter housing, right? And the list goes on and on. We had a senior, 80 years old, come and say there's a shortage for food for seniors in Malala. I could go on with the list. And we basically so far have been telling them, Pretty much no. We had the SNAP funding emergency. We bailed some folks out, which I appreciate the entire board stepping up, but we used to have a program that was here at the county that I believed in it, and it was a grant program that they set aside some amount of money fingers three four hundred thousand dollars and basically throughout the entire year if there was somebody in dire need uh... staff would research to make sure they're valid non-profit uh... who's at most risk you know uh... it's one-time funding this isn't repeated funding and instead of having people kinda coming at the end just uh... kind of last minute hit us and give staff a chance to research it so Part of the discussion was to bring it out here. We can push it down later in the year. Or we could talk about it more and set aside a little money for it. I mean, I believe that's a more structured way to help those in need. And we just don't know what those asks are. And I would say that when I talked to staff at the county, they said it was an amazing program and it worked really well. So with that, The program was limited in 2022, just to let you know. So I think I said my thoughts, and I'll pass it over to you quickly.

Right. So for myself, my current inclination is to not increase any department's budgets, to allow that money to essentially serve as contingency for future unexpected need. And... Since you mentioned the benefits for the CCPOA, that reminded me, we've got information on some of the results of the last contract raising costs fairly significantly. I don't want to see anybody laid off, but at the same time, if costs are going up that much without a significant increase in revenue, you can't maintain staffing levels.

That's just a fact.

I don't see how we can really avoid that long term. That's my thought on that. Commissioner Schroeder.

Yeah. There are a lot of thoughts here. This is really interesting. I would be fine to give $500,000 to the GA. I'm not against moving those positions from under the sheriff to I think that's a better spot where they belong. That's just me personally thinking that. I understand that they may not want the jobs, but then that would give the DA, if there's that big a discrepancy, then they move or he can hire other people, which I don't want to be heartless about this, but that's a possibility. Not against that my biggest can I I also vetted the idea the three million to keep those 16 positions now The thing I worry about is I'm not quite clear what happened to the four million We we gave the folks to get them through the end of the year and why did that happen? so essentially this last cycle then we've given a 400 because I didn't I

had a deficit and I'm like where did that come from because we thought we had fully funded to the point am I right Gary last go-round that we give an adequate money explain that to me a little quickly last last budget year again I proposed a budget for the sheriff you disagreed you reduced the amount of general fund the sheriff's office received because of that she chose to keep 30 plus positions vacant and for this current fiscal year And we didn't realize that until about halfway through the year. She realized there was not enough to fund about 15 critical people. They would have to be laid off by the end of this month, by June. So that's why I came with support with the sheriff to say, give her the money to at least finish the current fiscal year so she wouldn't have to lay any people off. That was what the, up to $4 million was the approval to finish the current fiscal year, not having to lay anyone off, and keeping the 30-plus positions vacant.

Yeah, so that was last year. But why? Were they not, I mean.

That's for the current year right now that we're still in.

Yeah, now we're talking about the current year right now and potentially giving another 30 million. I wouldn't be adverse to kind of holding on to that and perhaps as they need it, if they come back to us again and we get some clarity. about what they're really using it for. You know, that might be a solution to keep the door, not slam the door shut, but keep the door open for continued conversations about, you know, holding that back. That's kind of a, Kenny, what you said, you know, we could keep it on hand. We could use it for the sheriff, you know, as we move forward, but maybe the time is not the time until we get clarity about where You know, we're going to do that. So that's kind of where I am. I definitely think the DA needs to be supported. I'm okay having it moved, the Family Justice Center moved over to the DA. So folks, all right.

Mr. Cronin.

That's it. I am... in full support of giving the DA's office the money they need to continue to operate. I think that the DA's office has shown exceptional work and was very eloquent at describing what they can get done with the staffing that they have and their success rate. So I fully support that. However, beyond that, I think there's a lot of committee members here that still have a lot of questions. And they don't feel comfortable leaning either way until they can get those questions answered. And as a committee, I think that's our due diligence, our charge. The public is leaning on us and looking at us to make sure that we can make informed decisions on their behalf. And if it requires us to ask more questions, dig a little deeper, to get answers, I think that's an appropriate thing to do. So that's where I'm at.

Commissioner Savas. Mr. Rote.

I was trying to keep myself calm. I'll get there, but I'll let Mr. Rote go next.

Mr. Rote.

Actually, a question for Gary. We've talked a lot about the sheriff's office and the DA's office. Remind me, were there other offices or departments that had requests similar to the DA's office and the sheriff's office for additional funding?

Several of the departments led by appointed directors that report to me did have requests, but they've agreed to live within their means, and they're not asking for them. But yes, every department has needs. You've heard that during your presentations. But none that are asking for those funds. So it's only the elected offices. I heard the assessor told you about potentially up to 11 FTEs that he would need to be fully staffed based on the state. I forget the term. There's a state assessment for all assessor's offices in Oregon. He's 11 FTEs short. And I think he produced that number in an answer in an email. Yes. So there's definitely a need there. He's not asking for them, but he needs that. The other electeds, of course, could use more, but they're trying to live within the means like everyone else. So no, that's a long answer to your question. The other departments have needs, but they're willing to live with what they have. Thank you.

I am inclined to... to afford the District Attorney's Office that additional $500,000. I think that's valuable and important. I have some operational logistical concerns about transferring the employees. Two of them are POA members. One is an EA member. They're in various employee unions. I just don't understand operationally or logistically the possibility and the function of how that would even happen. So I'm not sure. Financially, I'm fine with it. Logistically, I think there's some concerns that we probably should vet before we make that decision. But financially, I'm not against that. It would, the predominant, most of the staff at the FJC are still gonna be seven investigators. It's still gonna be led by the sheriff's office, as Chair Roberts said. I mean, this is an important model. It doesn't break the model, but it does preserve those functions that are highly related to victim's assistance, which is the job of the district attorney. So moving them, if it's feasible, I'm not against that. In regards to the sheriff's office, The Sheriff's Office went through a long, as they described, a long and painful process where they identified 16 positions that they may have to lay off. They were careful to restrict those positions to have the, as she said, the least amount of impact on what we call priority or core services. I know they didn't do this on a whim. There was a lot of effort, painful as it was, for them to do this. So if the Sheriff's Office is going to experience cuts, I trust that those layoffs are, in my mind, as reasonable, unfortunate as they are, real people, real jobs, but have the least amount of impact on the priority services for the Sheriff's Office. I can't get to where, I can't give her $3.6 million in my mind to just retain those positions. And part of my concern is earlier this year, the Sheriff's Office came and asked for a $4 million supplemental budget. And when you go back year after year, thank you for your help, Cindy, this averages $3 to $5 million every year. So we say that the $4 million supplemental that we gave the Sheriff's Office this year was a one-time thing. It's not a one-time thing. It is an annual thing. supplemental budget to the sheriff's office, and we can have them give you the numbers. It ranges between $3 million to $5 million year after year after year. So knowing that that's going to come again this year, I'm less inclined to provide, we need to make the cuts, the sheriff's does. Things are expensive. Costs are outpacing revenue. We can't change that. It is the reality. And the reckoning has come when we can't keep kicking the can down the road. It is painful. It is unfortunate. But it is now. So that's how I feel about it.

if you're ready. Otherwise, I was going to see if Ms. Rader, who passed one, if you want to go last. Did you have a comment you wanted to make on this?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Well, I was just going to say, Mr. Kern, that I really think what you said is important about what our role is here. And especially as a citizen member of this body, We have so many questions and that's our job is to really see where there are holes and issues and concerns that are meaningful. And I have so many questions that can't be answered in this time frame. So I can't, I couldn't vote for any change either.

Okay. Commissioner Savas.

Yeah. You know, I've been through, you know, 15 budgets as a commissioner, not to mention my other years. And often, there's a sense of doing, I know it's a lot of work and a lot of commitment, especially I really applaud the volunteer members that are here as part of a budget meeting, taking their own personal time to be here and do all this work. I think no matter what we do, I also believe that each of you want to do good work, right, and you want to feel good about the end product and the work, and I think that is, that's why you're here, and I appreciate you all, so I just want to say that. There's a lot of members, more than ever, members of our community, whether they are former employees in different departments of the county, where there are present employees of the county or citizens that have never been part of the county that have a lot of eyes and questions and concerns, especially now because of the level of anxiety over economics, right? I'm sure there's more people right now that are listening to us than there were last year and the year before and the year before. So a lot of eyes are on this, I know that. So with that, I appreciate some of the comments about getting the work right. And I want to applaud staff for answering the questions that we started out with. And I think when I hear some of you say that we have a lot of questions, I think it's not as though we want necessarily more material. I think we want really legitimate responses. I'm not asking for material. I just think that when we ask a question, And we ought to get a response. And I did go through the website again for the dashboard at CCSO. I could not find anything that led to KPIs about the questions I asked. There are KPIs, not KPIs, there are dashboard elements that are there specific to the city, specific to unincorporated, but not consistent with the question I was asking or the context of which I was asking the question. So that's why I wanted to start out after lunch with going through just tell me what that department does, how you doing, to get is it something that we want to continue to support knowing these economic constraints. When I started out saying about 15 years of budgets, my experience is that we all want to go home. We all want to be done. I get that. And I'm a workaholic, so I probably have a work ethic, but I too want to get it right, right? And I want to be able to set ourselves up for better success next year and the next year and put ourselves on a trajectory that we can be responsible and continue to provide Services in the county every department including CCSO, right? We had a member of our our Community who I don't know if you all got this. I think you all did From mr. David Neal when he gave it a chance to even talk about it. I Want to talk about it. I was ready to talk about it. I in the right time and context, but we couldn't get there, right? Or we're not there yet. So I'm not saying we're not going to talk about it, but I think this does raise a question that I want to get to. I think we covered a lot of the public comments we heard last night. I appreciate all of you and all of that. I did ask a question yesterday. when, to Mr. Williams, when he was presenting the question about the levy, right? And my question was, okay, here's the delta, here's the math, what's the rest of the money for? And he broke down insurance and things like that. Well, I said, well, please get that to me. I thought that would be here today, but it was not. So I am not just looking at this as a, as a budget process, I see it as not only as an opportunity to better understand how we tackle all the funding streams that make the budget whole, which is the levy, which is critical that we get that fixed. But I want to understand it. and I think we all do so we can how do we sell it back to the public when the voters to get and I think confidence in what we're doing here and and consistent responsible answers to the questions we ask Are part of that in order to build that trust we have a lot of work to do Collectively right all of us have a responsibility to try to do the work paint the picture and Legitimately into how we're making this better better and better product how we're being responsible with these dollars. This is a lot of money It's a lot. It's a lot of money I'm prepared to do the work. I'm prepared to roll up my sleeves. I I cannot just Continue to add 3.6, and then the 1.6, which I just learned about today, which I thought was embedded in there. 1.6 for what I was explained to by Under Sheriff Eby. I have a lot of respect. I'm not questioning any of his words, actually. I trust everything he said. Okay, they're staffed. Budget book showed 33 positions that are filled. The critical positions for the sworn are filled, as I understood it. And the non-sworn are filled as well on the balance. And we're going to give 1.6 more on top of the four on top of the 3.6. I'm sorry. I need explanation for that. That's a lot of money. And so it seems like we're double paying lease of the 1.6, we're double paying for something that doesn't appear to be broken. I don't get that. And why didn't we know more about that 1.6 until today? I thought that was last year's work. And again, I think Mr. Rhodes touched on it. Every year, it's a perennial three, four, five million, right? And I can't ignore that. That's why at the very very very beginning of this budget process when I pointed to y'all about seeing on the budget line Really not just the amended budget for for the last year, but what our starting point was What do we actually budget and then have the amended budget and that would show? Just what this man spoke to But we're not given that I Yield back

I think commissioner West was that.

Yeah. I just want to get a chance to clarify, um, uh, regarding potentially shifting the operation piece of, um, uh, victim advocacy work under the DA. Um, and I think Gary has some, some clarification for us that could be helpful. and then also what that might look like. So I don't know if you could help answer that question, Gary.

District attorneys, employees, those that are represented are in the Employees Association and Sheriff's Office. They're mostly the Peace Offers Association, although there's some Employees Association also in the Sheriff's Office. These positions that we're discussing for the Family Justice Center, there's one, if I'm correct, one is an Employees Association, but the others are Peace Officers Association. It is difficult to move unions between different work units. There would have to be an agreement between the union to do that. and then we might run into equal pay act issues where if there's an employee in one union, if there's an employee doing the same classification in two different unions and then you merge them together, that is a issue with the state equal pay act. So all to say is it's possible what you're suggesting, but I need to do a lot more work with human resources to see how we would make this happen. Okay.

Chair Romer.

Yeah, I'm not gonna go on and on about that, but I can just tell you that there's a lot of issues when you move it. Who has supervisory authority? You can't have the DA's office supervising the sheriff's office if that's how it's set up. So there is a chain of command and supervisory authority. And again, it's my understanding, it's not a victim's advocate, it's a support staff or the director. So that's, I guess, the first thing I want to say. And second, I guess, here's kind of my, Appreciation, first of all.

I'll just kind of go back in last year's budget.

When the budget was presented, Gary had a proposal. This budget committee decided not to fund it. And I knew, based on those numbers, it was going to have a devastating impact on the sheriff. And there was a lot of confusion about the numbers. I don't need to place blame on one or the other. But the direction was go forth and hire. And the fact is we couldn't go forth and hire because the money was not there. And that has been a huge vacancy throughout the entire year. And so I can appreciate, you can do things for a while, but again, I believe we're creating a bigger tsunami. And that is, she has cut overtime by two million. She's got 44 frozen positions. She cut 12 out of the ELD. She cut vehicle purchase. She's cut training. She's cut staff and Has made a dramatic reduction in the operations so my question to each and every one of you is Who else in this county has suffered that impact and I will tell you that when I look at this the county as a whole is It's disappointing because you can't put all the onus on just the sheriff's office. That if we are suffering these impacts, you know, we all have to kind of take a piece of it. So let me just go over, and this was provided, how many positions have been eliminated. DTD, there's been one. H3S has lost a lot of positions, and I've talked to Mary about this, 45, but those are state-funded positions that have been cut, and some federal dollars that have impacted us. North Clackamas Parks is a special district, right? That's really not, that's in a different deal, but they lost 1.8. And PGA has lost three. My understanding, and I could be wrong on this, but in the last five years, we've added 10 people to facilities. And so, and there could be good reason for that, but... When I look at this, the number of staff over the course of years, and I'll tell you one department I'm absolutely worried about, and we're hiring a new director, and that is juvenile. In 2018-19, juvenile had 55 positions. Today, they have 39. They're basically 16 people short. I guarantee you Juvenile has got issues with protecting our young, vulnerable population. I don't know why it's continued to go. I've had a lot of questions to figure out about that. I know they helped step up to fill some shortages, which I can appreciate. And so I just point out how this, the board and the budget committee has stepped up in a number of ways. So if you look at between 2018-19, and I gotta make sure I'm on the right line item. Today, we've added 18.3 positions to the DA's office, a 23% change. So I do think the board has been very supportive of adding positions to the DA's office, and I have no doubt that they needed those positions. But I guess my concern, right, is that If we don't step up and fund this to some significant degree, number one, we're going to lay people off. And I value each and every job that people do, and I hate to see anybody being laid off at this time. And I do think, and I've talked to Gary about this, I do think over the course of this next year, we can look at tightening our belt in certain areas of the organization. so that there is more of a holistic approach of looking at how to balance this budget for the future. So again, I really, I guess I'm more pleading for time to let us work on some of the issues that I think we can get to a point where I think Gary and I both want this, where, hey, we're giving you a 3% or 4% increase, and you live within those means, and then if something comes along, we can add another one. But we're really not at that point yet. And so I just see that this has been a tough issue. I knew it was going to be tough. And most importantly, again, I'm gonna give a shout out to everybody here that you're all working hard, I value your input, and really just having open, frank, honest conversations is really kinda how we move forward. So with that, I'll yield back to you there.

No, thank you.

Just to clarify, I was incorrect. The District Attorney's Office does have some Peace Officers Association employees, POA, so that does make it a little bit easier.

So we could move the POA folks over there.

I mean, you still would have to have an agreement with the union because I'm still worried about some Equal Pay Act issues, but I mean, we can work those out, but I just need to...

Well, but if it's going to cost you heartburn, I need to know this.

It doesn't matter what my heartburn will be, but I just need to make sure we're doing it correctly if that's what you decide to do.

And I agree with Craig, but I'm wondering, it's not that I don't think that we should get the sheriff more money. I'm just thinking the timing. now given the questions that are unanswered and the issues that we haven't done as deep a diver as like to I think it's would be prudent to just keep it there for now and we can continue to work with the sheriff and say okay yeah because I'm concerned because of what you said mr. Rhodes that it's every there there seems to be this supplemental and I think we have to get to the bottom of some of the things that you pointed out maybe need to be looked at.

Not to say no, but just hold our powder dry. Pardon me? We need to go yes, no, yes, no on these 16 and then look if there's other areas in which we need to make decisions. But these people have layoff notices. Their families cannot wait for us to not do the job during budget week.

What do you mean?

These 16 layoff notices have gone out. It would wipe out operations for victim advocacy as one of them, as some of them. We have to make a decision on these 16 positions.

MS. So you are saying that the compromise would be at this point in time, even though there are unanswered questions, to give the DA $500,000 and potentially move some of those folks under his auspice, but give the sheriff $30 million now.

No, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying that.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying yes to the DA's $500,000. I'm saying we have to figure out what to do with these 16 positions. At least three of them and maybe all four of the ones on victim advocacy, that goes under the DA who wants them. and has said they will protect him, there's a pathway to actually like, he already has POA positions, the logistics is gonna work itself out, but those positions, they're facing on having no, this is the way it is right now. We're talking about like, they either go to the POA, they either get funded and they go to the district attorney, or they potentially get completely laid off and nobody has a job. That is what's before us right now, not the logistics and the scare tactics and we can't, yes we can, we can figure it out. issue is is like we have to look at every one of these critically today and there's probably others and make a decision on how we want to protect them whether it's time to trim that fat or what we need to do financially we this is what the budget committee is for we don't get to punt uh gary do you know if county council has any any input on this did you want to say something billy okay yeah

I just want to point this out because under Oregon law, the BCC, the Board of County Commissioners, sets the budget, right? The sheriff has authority over organization of the office under ORS 206.210, which I can read to you here in a moment if you want. Under this law, the board can't interfere with how the office is staffed and the duties that are assigned. And I'm not sure I want to ask this question because I heard different information about these three positions. They're not victims' advocate positions.

Not all of them. No.

Right? Three of the ones considering that I've got layoff notices are victim advocacy positions. They work, and one of them is with the FJC.

I'm sorry. The sheriff's actually still in the room. She's shaking her head, and I did hear her say that one of them was not. I mean, Sheriff, if you're here, do you mind coming? Can the sheriff address this and answer your question?

Thank you. I hung around to help you with this. One of them is to actually assist the director. It's a management analyst position that helps to run and operate the center. and manage the partners at the center. The other is one of two office specialists that greet folks and help bring people through the door and get them where they're going. The third is a person who works with victims from parole and probation, post-conviction, and that's what you heard the district attorney talking about. not at the FJC, at Parole and Probation, with a general funded position, non-mandated position of services.

Thank you.

But that comms – am I – Sheriff, really quick? And – Sheriff. Okay. Is that – is it not correct that that comms and correction is an advocate? That – is that not correct?

The Community Corrections? Yeah, the Community Corrections is an advocate, correct? Yes, it is an advocate that assists victims post-conviction with folks, you know, offenders are on post-prison or state supervision.

And the other positions, they're all operational, but the other positions are FJC operational, correct?

They're FJC operational under the director who is a sheriff's office employee. I as a lieutenant ran the center as the director. And so that is a manager of the center who manages the entire operations and works with the partners there, helps to obviously set policy, run the center, the day-to-day operations.

Yeah, and I think just to provide some clarity is just that what makes this so complicated is you have parole and probation, which is all of these employees of parole and probation, right? And what you're asking to do is pluck one of those employees out of parole and probation and move that employee somewhere else, right? And under the direction of somebody else. And so to me, it's almost like taking a deputy and putting them under the supervision of somebody else, which... there is a structure and control of command how you want to run an organization. And to me, it does create a lot of conflict. I can only imagine some of the issues that Gary's going to have to deal with to try and resolve it, because I could just see some personnel issues that arise trying to make this. Now, it's not that we can't look into this. I mean, if this is a direction that folks are interested in, then hey, we'll take a look at it. But I think to just Kind of do this a little bit knee-jerk reaction of transferring all this at this immediate time I believe we need to have staff do some research and kind of maybe bring it back And so we can kind of get all the other questions answered And I would like to remind you the management analyst who is

the Assistant Director of the Family Justice Center. I believe I have funding for that position and have worked with HR to start taking that person off the list. That's one of the two at the Family Justice Center. The second person is a second office specialist person who gets people coming in and triages where they need to go.

Thank you. I believe, did you have anything else?

Okay.

I do, I do. So taking a position and funding it under another department is legal, correct?

Honestly, Commissioner West, the way that's phrased, I think that would need to be researched. So does that mean like if, you wanted to take someone from HR and move them to, let's say the sheriff's office or the DA's office, can you do this? Because that seems to conflict with the assessment of the statute that I cited that the board doesn't have the, can't interfere with how an office is staffed and duties are assigned. But we're not, we're just moving. You're over the budget.

We're just taking the budget line item and putting it under another department's, okay, giving the other department the budget to do it.

To me, and I'm no expert on this, so let me say that up front, like every other question that comes up, it's worth researching. That's a separate, in my view of what you just, how you stated it, that's a separate legal question. reassignment of staff positions from one department to another. How does that fit in with the question of other than who pays for that employee's work? That falls within whatever budget is approved. for whatever department you're talking about, but the question of legal authority to, in effect, take from one department and reassign it to a different department, that's a separate question, in my view.

Administrator Schmidt.

I can add, except for the sheriff's office, any other department, I have the authority to do that under the county code. I can move FTEs at any time with your budget approval, or you can direct me to do that. The anomaly here is the sheriff's office. As Mr. Williams has just said, Oregon statute is very clear, and I've told you as well, your authority is the total budget for the sheriff's office and the number of deputies. So these are not all sworn positions, so they're technically not deputies. So you can't direct how to structure them in the sheriff's office. You could eliminate them in the sheriff's office and give no budget authority, but then give budget authority to the DA's office. That's a workaround, but that's another one option you can do. Probably the only option you could do.

But that wouldn't necessarily ensure maintaining the same employees.

That's correct, because those employees would lose their jobs, and they'd have to be rehired at a new job.

I believe Commissioner Savas is next.

Yeah. Well, I didn't want to talk about this. Um, my card's been up a while, but I would did want to just following, uh, chair Roberts comments. I, I, I feel compelled to say, um, after all these budgets and watching the years of cuts in departments, um, that, you know, when you look at whether it's the treasurer's office or a and T and you look at what they're, you know, what their ask is, um, all these departments have shrunk quite a bit. quite a bit over the years. And it's not reflected necessarily in the vacant positions or even in the ask. And you also need to put scale to it. So to say, for example, the sheriff's office in numbers, and you take a department that's a fraction of the size, 500 employees, 600 employees, compared to a department that has five, and you're talking about open positions or laid off positions, put it in scale. You gotta put it in scale. The treasurer's office, okay? Five employees, right? We are understaffed when it comes to even an auditor, let alone all the functions they have. A&T, they're understaffed, right? Scale, put the scale to the number, whether it's dollars or employees, and say, geez, scale-wise, they've taken big cuts. Sure, it looks smaller, but from a scale standpoint, it's kind of unfair to say that it's, you know, this one department's taking the biggest cut or not getting this or that. And how do you slice and dice it? I will tell you that every department that I've talked to about this particular issue, about getting a fair share or getting parts of the general fund or getting support or help, it's been compromised. And I think there's, I won't say resentment, but it's often said the sheriff's department gets what they want and we take a cut. I just wanna say that because I know there's people that have been very passionate about this, past and present, department heads, staff that work in those departments So I'm just speaking on their behalf. Thank you.

So this is in the packet you were given this morning, page eight. It actually shows a list of all the FTEs of all departments for the last seven, eight years. So this is hopefully a helpful document. Here's the data, black and white. FTE count by year for the last eight years. You can see exactly who's gone up, who's gone down. Page eight. The packet you were handed this morning. Thank you.

I just want to clarify something real quick.

As we are still wrestling with this FJC stuff.

So currently, all under the CCSO, you have one director, one manager, two receptionists. There's four total positions, three of them that you deal with. That's the operation piece of it. We have already had laid off an FJC manager, and one FJC receptionist has already had a 50% reduction in his operations. Parole and, I'm sorry, the PMP advocate was laid off, the only victim advocate doing post-conviction work. The big crux here is, We have the DA who promises to keep the work intact and have no commitment from the sheriff. The sheriff's here. If she just committed to keeping the positions, yes or no, the conversation probably is over. But that's not what we got. We did not get a yes or no commitment to keep the positions. We do have said from the elected DA, let me save and protect the positions. It's already had significant cuts. That's why I think we should continue to look at moving the operations under the DA who already also has POA members.

Commissioner helm.

Yeah. Um, one thing I learned during the work group is that the sheriff's department is different. It's special. It's different. And we, it's really, you can't compare apples to apples. with the other departments, their costs are running up to 14% more than the year before. And the revenue is not there. The other departments are not running at those cost increases. So you have to take that into account. And so what happens is you have to compress to make up for those cost increases, you have to start getting rid of people. And it's not right. We would love to fund it, but the more it costs for each individual person based on the contract, the COLA, the PERS, the The uniforms, all those costs, technology, the other departments don't have. And James helped me with this during that. The working group is like, you can't compare them. They just have so many different needs. But my question at the very end of this working group was, I want to fund the sheriff's department. But what is that going to cost, right? And I don't... At the rate it's going, it's not sustainable because of those cost increases and the revenue is not increasing at nearly, nearly the number that it's costing us in that department. So I just want to say for clarification, This does me no good whatsoever, this how many FTEs and stuff, because these other departments are not running at up to 14% increases in costs like the Sheriff's Department is. And that's through no fault of anyone's, except technically maybe us, because we approved a contract apparently three years ago. As Cindy said, I don't know how many times during the meetings, there's only so much money. There's only so much money. So it's very hard when you don't want people to lose their jobs. These positions are so important. But to Angie's credit, she's shaved in as many places as she can. And I think she's given a lot of thought. She's given a lot of, I'm sure, heartburn over this because it's not an easy thing to do to eliminate positions. But my suggestion, and I kind of don't want to, I would, I'm okay to give a portion of this, 3.6. I'd like to fund the DA's office. I'd like to fund the two sworn positions that are out of the 16, whatever, I don't know what the number is, if an officer costs $600,000 a year, or $300,000 a year, I'm willing to go up to whatever amount that is. to save a couple of those positions. But not to get in your head again, Angie, but there's always fat to trim. And as you said too, James, these are tough decisions we're having to make. And the path we're on will basically be all we have in the county is a sheriff's department because that will be the end result because they're growing at such a greater clip than every other department in the county. And it's just not sustainable. So anyway, back to you.

Chair Roberts. Yeah. I always agree with you on a lot of issues.

You don't have to.

Not every issue. But I do. The one issue I want to point out, and that was, you know, I think this is where this board has to really be committed one way or the other, is that when you negotiate a contract with one of the bargaining units, right, and you want to give them, which they did in this case, 18.5 million over three years that are compounding, then you have to recognize that we should fund it. Don't negotiate a contract you're not going to fund because what you are doing is you're going to have to lay people off. And that's exactly where we're at. That's really trying to be transparent in this. I mean, I would never sign this last contract. I know the sheriff never signed it. It was absolutely astronomical. I love the employees of the sheriff's office. I want them to have great pay and benefits. I want them to come here and work. But the fact of the matter is, if you don't have the money to pay it, then guess what? We're here laying people off. And I would much rather have somebody have a job and not a big increase so that I can keep all these people working. And to me, jobs should be the top priority. I think that the reason I asked the sheriff a couple of those questions when she came up here is hypothetically, the reason I'm asking her that is, As a sheriff, you don't want to give up your constitutional authority to make decisions where to put people. And if she makes that commitment, she's kind of given up that authority. And I think that part of which Mr. Williams is talking about is the statutory guidelines. Gary and I were talking about it on break. I really believe, you know, hypothetically, if we give you this money, are you able to fill these positions? And her answer was yes. And I just recognize that she does not want to give up that constitutional authority that she gets to dictate where she puts people. And there is good reason for that. I mean, any kind of disaster or thing could happen where she suddenly needs to move people up. She has the ability to pull deputies off the street and put them in the jail if she has to open more jail beds. And you want the sheriff to have that kind of mobility to make those critical changes to keep our community safe. So that's really where I feel like where she was at on that. And kind of the, I'll continue to come back. I really would strongly encourage us, if the majority of the folks want to move the funding over to the DA's office on the advocates or whatever, I would just strongly encourage to dedicate staff to look at it and bring it back at another time so we don't end up having to somehow shift gears suddenly or make a decision that we later learn is wrong. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Commissioner Schrader, I'm just good. No, I'm sorry.

Billy. Did you want to say anything? Okay So where are we? Diana, I hear you saying that 14%. Okay, so that explains a lot because the cost up to 14%. So I think we're all in agreement, right, that we want to give $500,000 to the DA's office because he's run a lean, mean machine and he needs it. It sounds as if transferring people over, that isn't under our authority. Is that what I'm hearing, Billy? We can't do that.

That's my reading of the statute.

OK, great. So statutorily, we could make a suggestion, but we can't really implement it. So that's interesting. So for me, the final question is, there's been some heartburn over the budget and where it is. I'm not adverse to giving the sheriff the money. I don't know if we should do it now. or just sit on it and continue to ask questions and get answers. Do you see what I mean? I'm not precluding. I'm not saying no. I'm not saying yes. I'm going to do like wait and see and try and get some of these other issues answered. And then we will have it in reserve as necessary if the sheriff. What do you think, Diana? The sheriff needs it. Why are you asking me?

Well, I'm asking you because you're my combata. I like a cushion. I think it's smart to have a cushion. And I think it's smart to have a reserve. And I agree with Kenny that there's just things we don't know about. I mean, there's things we can't predict. And we have a lot of different people asking us for money. And I think we can do it later. I don't think it – I'm fine to – passed this budget today, the way it is, and with the adjustments made for the DA's office, but I think we should sit on the other $3 million for now. 30 million, 30 million. Oh, it would be. Three. It's three.

Three, sorry.

3.6. 3.6, sorry. I'm tired and I'm not a numbers person, but 3.6.

I believe Ms. Rader is next and then Commissioner Sala.

Okay, I would just like to say in the three years that I've been here, even when we pass a budget, there is one, two, three supplementals that come up. So I don't have confidence, a lot of confidence that, you know, even if you add the money that you're not looking at another supplemental down the road. And I think, to your point, again, a supplemental looks like a one time, but it's not because here it is added to this year's budget. So instead of looking at three million, you're really looking at nine. So I just really have a problem adding a lot to this because it's out of control. I really haven't seen any adjustment in spending. If I had confidence that we could answer these questions, and there were controls, then I could vote for an increase. I've been here three years. I haven't seen it once. So I think you really, if you add money, you're gonna add more money.

Commissioner Salas.

You know, there's a lot of things why we're here. There's a lot of reasons why we're here. Sheriff Roberts mentioned one of them about the contract. And there is a portion of that. I think the biggest eye-opener and discovery, again, giving credit to Patrick Williams, CCSO, and under Sheriff Eby, they have really turned the finances around and discovered that they weren't properly, prior to them, weren't properly costing out internal costs. And so when we looked at the budget or we looked at finance or we looked at the contract, we did not ever have a clear picture. So how can anyone make a good decision if the numbers that we're seeing and the budgets that are presented don't have an accurate reflection? I go back really almost probably exactly a year ago. I sat here and say, what is the cost per deputy, a loaded cost per deputy? And I just did the math and I rattled out Four different numbers, five different numbers, anywhere from 213,000 per deputy to 278, I believe is the highest one. Well, guess what? The reason I raised that was because I didn't have a sense of understanding. Knowing there's different ranges in pay scales, yeah. But the reality is that what we learned in the work group is that that number was way higher, right? So you take the highest of 278, which was a guess, that was a wag on my, that's just rough back of the napkin stuff, 280 versus 345 or 350,000, that's $70,000 off per employee, roughly, across the scales, right? $70,000. Oh, my God. I mean, I know to some degree, I will say that Sheriff Brandenburg inherited part of that lack of financial structure. It should have been resolved a long time ago, especially when it came to the levy. I raised that years ago. In 2018, I raised it passionately. And I think processes like this help turn the ship around and it was difficult last year but you know what What happened last year by raising all that, having those difficult conversations, you know, again, giving credit to Mr. Williams and Mr. Eby, they are now on the road of trying to paint a clearer picture. But I don't want to assign, frankly, blame to a contract negotiation, which, sure, I'll take some responsibility for that, absolutely. But it's only a portion of the challenge. And if you don't have accurate numbers in the first place when you're in the room, you don't have accurate numbers. And so... If there's, what I can support today, if there is a motion, I kind of hearing, just take, just gleaning from here, if there's a motion to support the DA's office, not just to give them the money, I know that's not what anyone meant, but to fill the positions that he lost through attrition to the tune of around 500,000, I could support that. Um, and you know, and I can, I can get towards approving the budget minus three, uh, 3.6, not, not adding 3.6, but I, I am baffled, frankly, make someone make the case for me. There's 1.6 million need for, for the courthouse. I don't see it. I didn't hear an ask, I heard that they're staff. Granted, it's seven positions or nine positions down from whatever that scale was, but I also heard the sheriff earlier this morning say that all the departments are above the minimum staffing levels. So how do I reconcile that? So if you're above the staffing levels, then why are we adding more employees?

Commissioner Schrader and then Commissioner West.

Do you want to go first? Sure.

I'd like you to see us put some meat on the bone. We deliberated a bunch. And I think there's a couple hard things we have to do. One, we have to talk about 16 positions. They have layoff notices. We need to make a decision. We need to talk about some known administrative fat that we think is there and make some tough decisions. I won't vote for any budget as it stands today unless we do that. I'm a no. I'm not doing another supplemental, again. It is unsustainable. I don't know if we do a line item and we sit here and be like, let's go. And we do some of that line item through some of the program stuff. But it's a lot of feels. But we need to make black and white decisions today to say, hey, it's hard. Let's kick it down, kick the can again. I'm a hard out on that. Listen, maybe my last budget meeting, I'm not doing that. So if you all want to do that, you can tell that to the voters. I won't have to. But we have 16 real people with real positions. A lot of work was put into this. We owe it to the respect to the work that was done by the sheriff's office and to these people that work for the sheriff's office on making that decision. I have a motion that addresses what I think is some additional bloat within the administrative office of the sheriff. I think there's room there to be able to cut. And I think that we need to talk about whether or not we are going to do some form of line item or look at specific programs while we're here. I won't vote for anything that doesn't do that. If not, you just wasted my week.

So, so Gary, earlier I asked just to build on commissioner West here. I'm sorry for jumping in. I'm just going to jump in. You're good. No, please. I, I thought again, whether it's line iteming the positions or slide ID to me, line item, the program that that was our budget authority that we could do. And the sheriff would be. Restricted to that or constrained to that and it seems to me that whole conversation about the FJC We said we're in a fund the FJC for X and we're gonna fund all the programs for xxx We've got the authority. So tell me I'm wrong. I Asked that question earlier and I think that's what mr. Commissioner West heard all of us heard that we could line item That's our control. So why are we not talking about that?

I'm waiting for you to direct us to do that. So I Uh, again, looking at Mr. Williams, uh, the, the board of commissioners sets the budget for all departments, including elected officials, including the sheriff. You may choose to budget down to the line item of any department, how much pencils or office supplies they have. That's your authority. But again, as you, for the sheriff though, you can't tell her how to structure her office, but you approve the budget for her office and we can line item line item her or any other department.

That's the answer all, all, all along since this morning.

And I said that on day one, but we'll reinforce it now.

So moving along, here's what I'm going to ask. OK. We seem to be on board with the DA. Should we at least make a motion now to fund the DA's office to the tune of, I would like to make a motion to fund the DA's office to the tune of $500,000. An additional $500,000. Yeah, an additional $500,000.

I'll second.

Okay. Let's at least get that out of the way. Is that a motion? That's a motion.

Yeah, I'll second.

Okay.

All right. Moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Is that specific enough? Is that exactly how it should be?

This comes out of the 3.6, correct, Gary?

Correct, yes. Out of the 3.6 million, I'm making a motion to give $500,000 out of that 3.6 to the district attorney. Okay.

Mr. Rove.

Second. Just for clarification, was that the number, was that the ask, or was there a more specific number than? No, that was it. That was it. That's it. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, who gets to call the roll?

I do, but I want to make sure there's no more discussion first.

No more discussion.

I know most people were on board, but we had one question, so. All right. Can we, I see no more discussion. Can we call the poll, please?

Mr. Rhodes. Aye. Commissioner West. Aye. Mr. Karn. Aye. Commissioner Savas.

Aye.

Commissioner Helm.

Aye.

Ms. Rader.

Aye.

Commissioner Schrader.

Aye.

Ms. Lee.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr. Caton. Just go with it. I'll say aye. Apologies. Chair Roberts.

Aye.

And Chair Cernak.

Nay.

Motion passes nine to one, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Okay, so the next question, do I mind if I say this? Do we, let me just, discussion. Do we want to take some of that money and delegate it to the Family Justice Center for those positions? Any ideas? Go ahead.

We need to go through this list. I said it 10 times. We need, right? Are you saying no, don't do this? What do you think? We need to address these 16, and they're on it.

So what I heard from Billy and the county administrator, you can defund programs. You can't defund positions. So you can say, we are going to reduce the amount of money going to this program. And then it's up to the sheriff to figure out what to do with the rest of it. But you can't direct her on what to do with positions.

OK.

So I can't. We can't say we want this money.

We can't say, like, X, Y, and Z position, no money.

No, you can reduce the amount of money going to the Family Justice Center program.

Or increase.

Or increase. You can change the amount of money going to that, but you can't say this position versus that position. You can just talk about it in terms of the dollars. Of dollars.

But we don't know that dollar amount for those three positions, do we? Yes.

Even if we did, we could give it more money and it wouldn't have to go to keeping that position. Correct.

Because there's no commitment to keep the positions that we're trying to say. There is with the DA. That's the truth.

Commissioner Savas.

I move that we direct staff to bring us a line item budget by program. Second.

For which office?

All programs for CCSO. CCSO.

Do we have that already?

We had a... You actually already have it.

That's what this thing is.

Is that by program?

No, this is all rolled up into one.

Oh, my apologies, my apologies.

It's not by program. We do have a question.

A motion has been made. Yes. Is there a second? I second it. And there was a second, so we get to talk about it.

Does it need to be a motion, or can we just get that information?

I'm trying to move it along. If we make it a motion, it happens.

Okay. Commissioner Helen.

Every program, line item?

There's not that many. There's not that many programs. There's less programs than there are line items.

Okay. All right.

23 programs.

Question.

23 programs. You said question?

Question.

Yeah, I have a question. Would that be different than pages 69 through... Or in addition to 69, page 69 through 90 of the sheriff budget.

Yes, it is different.

Those are essentially the programs.

Those are the programs. When we say line item, we mean every line, office supplies, printing, travel. Oh, I see. For a program. It would be this for each.

Will be included in the materials and services.

And you want that for each detail, right. Understand, I agree.

You want that level of detail for each program, correct?

Yeah. I guess that's a question. I mean, if someone wants to make the amendment that they want it by line item, I was just trying to move it along. But what level of detail you go to determines how much paper that is, right? So if it's by program, at the very least, it would look like, let's just say this page. If you're happy with this page 69, is that what it was? If you're happy with the way that page 69 looks, you want that level of detail, be 69 pages, or not 69, 20 pages that look like page 69, structurally. Yeah, I call the vote.

I want to make sure we know what we're asking for before we vote.

Yeah, because, yeah, okay. I just, can I make a comment?

Yeah.

So I'm assuming my, I might make a suggestion if we're going to do this, that we do it tomorrow. It sounds like we're going to have to have another day. That's what I really think. I think that's wise. I think we're all tired. Um, you know, uh, we had an extra day. Am I correct, Gary?

You have all the time you need to finish your discussion.

We could be here forever.

You could be here all weekend if you need to.

Like Groundhog Day, yeah, right? So we can, I guess we can do a vote for this, but I don't think we're getting to it today.

Well, we can make that decision depending on how the vote goes. Right, exactly. So let's call the question.

Mr. Caton? Nay. Commissioner Schrader?

Nay.

Ms. Rader? Nay. Commissioner Helm?

Aye.

Commissioner Savas? Aye. Mr. Karn? Aye. Commissioner West? Aye. Mr. Rhodes?

Aye.

Chair Roberts?

Nay.

Chair Cernak?

I don't want to make a choice. This is our job. It's okay.

It's okay to be on my team.

We should be in a human comedy. Give us a detail.

That's all right.

That's glorious. Vote your heart, Kenny. Vote your heart. Vote your heart.

I don't want one piece of information before I vote.

We'll have that tomorrow. It's okay. We'll have it tomorrow.

Aye. Motion passes six to four, Mr. Chair. Absolutely the right thing to do.

Can we get a clarification?

So my suggestion is we're going to do a line item, which is every line within the 24 programs.

So you don't want to know just what the M&S budget is. You want to know everything in the supplies budget and all the detail in the supplies budget.

Not the detail, just the line. The document we gave to the board already, but by program. Can you show me the, when do you have the document, please?

Oh, it's in, I have a, well, it's in this pile.

Just like that, but for all the programs.

Okay, but this is, this is exactly what, So this is very, very, very, very detailed. And so you want to get into that level of detail for every program.

Why don't we ask the person that made the motion what level of detail he intended for?

Yeah. As I kind of mentioned, I was really looking for the minimum level of detail, but I'm willing to go the other way if you all want more detail. I'm flexible there. My issue was to move it along. The answer to funding the FJC is when you provide the funding for that program, the funding is there. In this case, the sheriff chooses not to spend that funding for those positions, then there's nothing we can do about it by state law.

So don't you just need... Can I just ask again?

But the money's there. Will we be appropriating the money, right? That's how it gets done. That's correct.

Yeah.

That's exactly right. So let's solve the question on the detail level. So what are our options, Gary?

I feel we have it, but my staff doesn't. So what's your question, Cindy?

The question is, do you want to know how much in the FJC program they spend on materials and services? And do you also want to know how much they spend on dues and copies?

Yes, Cindy. Yes. Yes. With this chart for every program in the Sheriff's Office.

Okay.

Is that what you're looking for, Commissioner? Is you're looking for this for every single program? This is yours. This is more than tomorrow's worth. This is Saturday and Sunday and Monday.

No, I'm going to say it again. So the level of detail I was expecting would include, I'm going to read it right from page 69, okay? Those items spelled out on page 69 that are relative to the budget, right? So that would be personnel services, material and services, capital outlay, debt service, all that stuff. That's it.

So we look at 69 through 90, those specific categories, right?

Each page, the information is right in front of you, actually. What you would see tomorrow in the level of detail would be reflective of what's on these pages.

So I'm sorry, that's what these are. For example, materials and supply shows every line and how much is in that line. So this is what I'm hearing you're asking for, Commissioner. I just want to be clear.

Well, you're right. You're right that the materials and services is all of that. All I'm saying, can we not just do program level... Budget line item for materials and services as a whole just those two those those three words materials and services at that high level Which is this piece of paper right here?

Yeah, you've got the roll-up Categories Actually what we could do I think this is all here and I think that we looked at it and saw some issues the money being a little more than we thought it should. I think that we looked at this, Ben. So maybe this is what we can do tomorrow.

So we can go through this tomorrow, right? Not this plus this for every...

I'm hoping that we could just do... You're right. Just the ones you have in your left hand.

Is it that or maybe instead of printing them all? You have them. You have them. You have them already.

In the books. In your budget book. You don't need to reprint anything. No. No.

So it's page 79. JFC is on page 79.

Correct. It's on another page, but the programs are 69 through 81, I think. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. So we don't need any additional printing the stuff we asked for at the level you intended is in the binder already Is that correct? Okay.

All right.

I want to

Any adjustments outside of the sheriff's office that we want to discuss, I'd like to knock out now. Cindy, do you have a point? Your card's up.

Oh, no, sorry.

Okay.

I'll bring up that grant program again. I'd love to hear the input of the group of whether or not they want to look at this down the road, just bag it because of the finances, or is it worth entertaining? I'd love to hear any input from colleagues here.

I'd like to do it down the road. I'd like to get through the budget first and not add to it.

All right. So we could have staff work on it and bring it back. Does that sound good? Yes.

Not opposed to it. Not opposed to it. Just want to get through this.

Do you want a motion related to that or just have staff work on it?

Do you need a motion?

A motion is not necessary. I got it. We'll bring this back to the Board of Commissioners in the next few months.

Chair Cernak and members of the committee, I have a doctor's appointment in the morning. I'll be here nine-ish, roughly. So, excuse me.

So, Chair, what time do you want to start tomorrow?

Well, 9 would allow everyone to be here. Your appointment's at 9?

No, my appointment's at 7.45. Oh, so you're going to be here at 9? Let's just start at 9, then.

Is there any interest in continuing at all tonight any further?

My thought would be, could we knock off the rest of these that we don't want to make any changes to or an agreement on? And that we can make a motion to approve the budget of the remaining

I'm sorry, no, we can't do that. You do a single motion for the entire appropriation and expenditure for the Clackamas County budget, so you do need to decide what the Sheriff's Office funding will be before we make that final motion.

We could knock out any other changes we are interested in before we deal with this. My understanding is we can look at this, but we don't necessarily have to approve at the line item. Is that right? Even if we're looking at the information.