County Council - public_hearing

Let's pray Heavenly Father Lord we just again come before you today to ask for your wisdom and your guidance and

And, Lord, we just are so appreciative of you and all that you do provide for us. And we pray that you would just give us, again today, as we did yesterday, some unity and thought. And, Lord, we're just so grateful for you and these folks that are here today to serve our county. Lord, bless them, I pray. In Jesus' name, amen.

Okay, I giggled. I giggled with unity. Just so you know, Mr. Bill. Crosser and ring. Agreed. Five times yesterday on something.

Bill, five times.

Five times.

We still didn't get a storm and a good rain.

No. Right? The good Lord was looking at us.

It's getting awful hot out there, though.

Oh, you tell me. Where I was at, the heat index was 103 degrees.

Oh, fun. According to the news last night, the hottest, the warmest heat index in northeast Indiana was Auburn.

And just remember, we're only 17 days away from home.

Right. Well, on that new slice, we're going to go ahead and get started.

OK, so I handed out two pieces of paper that do not have a color tab on them. Bill, the colors are for you, so we can tell you which tab to grab. But the non-tabs. OK, so if we start with the one that has the green writing at the top. We were supposed to do our non-binding reviews in August and I totally forgot about them. So, I will remind you that this is something by statute that you guys have to review. You look at their max levy and what their credit breaker loss will be and you either are supposed to give a recommendation or say that you have Reviewed them as submitted and then I send all the units a copy of our minutes after you Well, there's nothing you can change There's I went through the amount of time it took me to do this and what you guys have to do is insane because there's Like four different reports for every unit That I pulled together.

Otherwise, you'd have a stack of paper The civil credit loss is a circuit breaker loss.

Yeah, and the fire credit loss is Those are the circuit. So these are all DLGF estimated values that they have out on Gateway for everybody. And it just says that you guys have to review them and either recommend not what you're going to recommend because you can't do anything. The prior years, you guys have just motioned that you approved them as submitted. And then I sent everybody a copy of the minutes because there's not really anything you can do. The airport isn't on here because they're obviously a binding, and Fairfield isn't on here because you'll end up voting on their budget at the end of the month.

They don't have any list. There's nothing listed. Could that fire all be under Smithfield? That's probably right. One of the things I will say is the fact that these are non-binding reviews that when they originally did this in the legislature, the intention was the county council had an oversight everybody within the county and could Try to exhibit some control but when they made it non-binding It as Susan said there's absolutely nothing we can do it. They've worked with the DLGF. They've done their budgets They've submitted their budgets, but we still have to look at it and And so County Council Association has been complaining about this for a number of years because if we can't do anything about it, why do we have to look at it? That being said, going to the must committee, you will start to have some kind of control over it because it will be up to the County Council to assign the different local option income taxes in that. So you will start to exhibit some control over the township and cities and towns that are not creating their own, like Auburn and Garrett most likely will. I would make a motion that we approve this report as submitted.

I agree. I mean, I second.

All those in favor of approving non-binding reviews, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion is carried.

Okay, so the second page I gave you is a history of CNAVs and the differences in growth over the years. So there was discussion yesterday about what our CNAVs were for 27 versus 26. We're growing at a 2%. The growth quotient is 6%. So I reached out to Jeff because I wanted to be able to Explain and I don't even know if I really can explain it. But what he told me is We will we will go we always budget to the max levy so no matter What dollar amount we would approve in a general the only increase in to the taxpayer is an average home that would be like $177,900 AV, they will increase by $7 a year. But that's going to happen no matter what, because we budget to the max levy. So we'll budget to the max levy, and then the difference of whatever we need from the max, what we get from the max levy, and what we've approved is what would come from our cash reserves. So, if County General, if we went with everything that I had showed, the million for highway, the 700 some thousand for share of pension, all of the building, maintenance expenses from other funds and whatnot, the taxpayers will still only see around $7 per year for 177,900 AV homes.

If you've not read it, and I read it again last night, in the latest issue of the County Association's book, magazine that just came out, read Jamie Boesler's explanation of taxation. That's probably the most concise explanation that I've read in quite some time. Jamie's experience is not only as a county assessor, a school system finance officer, a county council member, and she was the chief of staff to the DLGF. So she has the background. She has the experience. She's explaining it rather well. And one of the things that we've been talking about at the county association level, not just the county council association level, is one of the reasons that we're having this structure change is because if we don't budget to the maximum levy, other units within DeKalb County would be able to absorb some of that. So as has been noted, counties generally across the state have kept their rates very low. It's others that have gone up and down quite a bit. It's one of the reasons that part of SB1 includes a prohibition against schools having repetitive bond issues. Because what they would do is if they had a short year, they would file a short-term bond to keep their rate up. And now... They can't do that year after year after year. Now if they do a short-term bond issue like that, they have to wait a full year after the first one's paid off before they can get a second one. So hopefully trying to keep the rate down. And it has been counties across the state that have been more, I don't want to call it the better stewards, but they've been the ones that have tried to keep the controls down. It's it's all the other units that are making but read that read that article by by Jamie It's it is one of the better explanations of local taxation Further is because Amy was asking and I was trying to figure out how to explain it.

So I asked you Thank you Next order of business we need to decide whether we're going to include the million dollars Or cut it to five hundred thousand dollars there if we stay at a million dollars that'll give us roughly 30% We're savings versus 28% if we cut it to five hundred dollars, excuse me We talked about this yesterday pretty extensively and I think everybody's It was kind of a push as to which was better. So, Rick, anybody else got any further questions before we call for the question?

Just the same point that I made yesterday. What I'm trying to do is I think the way to go is to keep as much money in the commissioner's lighted fund to pay the bond payments for the highway department in the future. Because it doesn't then it doesn't have to come out of County General once that once those funds in lighted are gone Then that bought that eight hundred and eighty thousand dollar light payment has to come out of County General every year I would like to Save as much in save as much into the lighted fund as possible and that's Not moving A million dollars over to the highway department. I would compromise and do 500, leave 500 in the lighted fund and only move 500 to the fire department. A better way is to not move anything.

The county general?

Yeah.

So you want the money to come out of lighted and not county general?

The million dollars for the highway department. Uh-huh. Take 500 from light at 500 from County General Payment I'm taught. No, I'm talking. I want to leave as much money in light it for the bond payment Okay, I'm talking about the million dollars that the commissioners have been moving to the highway department every year for operation for operations so and I'm just I'm thinking both ways because I'm that I'm reading on the back of the green sheet and

and read Susan's note that she recommends keeping it in general and not in lighted. I guess can you explain to us why you think that from that other point?

Because we have worked so hard to get our cash reserves and we know that things are changing. We are also in the middle of a total not knowing what's going to happen in the future. We're able to fund it now and we know it's going to have to happen. I think you need to move forward with it so that the bond payments are a big deal because we don't know what's going to happen when legislation changes and the last conversation I had with the state and DLGF is whatever money is that the commissioners still have in their lighted will remain there whereas whatever money we might have still left in like Public Safety lit There's a 99% chance. They're going to say that that money has to go to a different fund or it has to be moved or Something it's not going to just be able to sit there where the commissioners will have the ability to Hold on to that money so that they can make this And that's again the best way is to make the whole million dollars out of general I'm trying to give a compromise so we could do 500 and 500

We can if we can do it all out of general that'd be great I Just had a couple comments as well Just understanding what the budget is for lighted right now and what that looks like in the future and So we understand a couple items have already been moved out of the lighted fund so the EMS which was $325,000, that moved out, right? So the commissioners have moved that out of lighted into general, as well as security dollars. That was $35,000, I think we said. So we're already moving some money out of the lighted fund into general to help stabilize that. And you said the cash balance right now is $2.5 million. Right? Yeah. With $3.5 million budgeted for next year. I don't know. I just feel like we need to have the numbers so we understand exactly where is the lighted fund? Do we need to move it? There's also $1.5 million in there that's kind of a discretionary fund for the commissioners to use. So there's also that money in the lighted fund. I'm not sure that we have to move it at this point. Again, I guess I'm taking the opposite approach of we need to move anything right now. Can we just stay where it's at? Just because of the uncertainty of the... And that gives us then the additional... Oh, what was that? I think the cash reserves then go up to 30% if we keep it in the lighted fund. That gives us an extra 2% in the cash reserves, which... I'm a little more comfortable with having the extra 2% in the cash reserves. That's my thought.

Any further discussion?

Just in the future, as Susan's already kind of alluded to, pretty much everything's going to move over to the general fund. A number of these other special funds are going to go away. So it's going to end up there in the future.

We want to make a motion.

And I just also want to remind everybody that the percentages that I show here are just our target that we target for, but we always end the year way higher. So I can't just change it, but if it says 26%, we're likely going to end probably at 40%. We always end with a lot more, because I can't 100% plan for how many unspent appropriations that we'll have until we get to the end of the year.

I'd make the motion that we just leave that $1 million and pay that out of the lighted fund.

We do the $1 million what?

Keep that. Just leave it in the lighted fund and pay. Keep the $1 million in the lighted fund. That would be my motion.

Okay, do we have a second? Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay, we have a second by Chris Kraft. And Susan, would you restate the motion, please?

Motion was made to pay the $1 million highway operations out of the lighted fund 1112 where it currently is being used.

So we're keeping a million in the general fund?

No.

We're not? OK.

The million is not going to the general fund at all in that motion.

Right. Take it out of the light. OK. Any further discussion? I'm going to wait till Amy comes back before we call for the question. Any further comments?

I was just going to ask you what the price of gas was in Iowa.

404. 404.

Roads are empty between the wheel tax and gas prices.

No, he's driving out there You know joke about this being 20 20 this so you go to Waterloo to Sioux City.

There's no town on I'm 20 They're all one or two miles away from 20 and haven't filled out to 20 You know, that's kind of the way I 69 south of Bloomington is there's nothing close to the I 69 And it'll be years before there is anything out there.

It was 404 in Iowa and I want to say 457. I never filled up Illinois because I saw that was higher. It was 457 or 447 in Illinois.

We've gotten them. I mean, taxpayers have gotten a great benefit out of the suspension of the gas tax. Here now, you know, and it's a good, like we talked yesterday, It's good that we have the reserves at the state level that we have because that's the only way they're going to be able to send money back to the counties and cities.

Amy, we're going to call for the question. It is that the motion we have is to pay the $1 million out of the lighted fund and not the general fund. So it's been... properly seconded and we'll go ahead and we'll call for the question all those in favor of paying the million dollars out of the lighted fund and not the general fund signify by saying aye aye aye so we have what one two three okay and who didn't know the motion was to keep the million in the lighted fund

Spend it out of the lighted and that would take our cash reserves to 30% Yes So the question was not called for the other side What now you only called for those in favor you didn't call for the others?

Can we back up and do a roll call vote on this? Okay, let's do a roll call vote on this one.

All right Chris yes, Amy. Yes Amy prosper Amy Demski Bill

Yes a Motion passed Susan we go to the airport now It was 42 No, the airport isn't until 930 I

It's a public hearing scheduled for 9 p.m. What else have you got?

Rick, you got anything? Anybody have anything?

Amy? Yeah, so Dottie reached out to me Last night and said hey just there are there are a couple employees that she was And I won't we won't need to talk about it today I guess that's up to the discretion of Dave But we there are some issues that could pop up based on the raise that we talked about and She would like to have at least some input at some point or if we had questions about that I don't know if we want to do that today, but I

That would be an issue for them.

Well, what kind of issues? Because if that's going to affect all my numbers for budget, then I need to know that.

That's a good point. And I don't want to talk about individuals in a public meeting.

Correct. No, I think, if anything, we would need an exec session on that.

Can we have to talk about individuals or positions?

Well, if we're going to talk about positions...

I don't know what the issues are, so I can't answer.

Now, to call an exec session, our next regular scheduled meeting is September 30th, correct? So we could... But Susan needs to know before that.

She'll need... Yeah. Can we call Dottie and ask her if we can discuss the situation and not the individuals?

Is it going to impact the budget?

I'll ask her.

Okay.

think it would be wise yes I think a lot of them as I'm thinking through it a lot of it is more situational so I think we could talk about the situation rather than just be good to hear from her on those things okay to hear from Dottie on a stand in recess yes we're not going to officially come back I

Yeah, no I do but I need to run home I forgot to take my injection this morning before I left the house, so I need to run home Oh, yeah, we're in recess I'll be right back We'll leave a light on for you Rick, please do I might need it I

I didn't realize Amy left I Okay, so I talked with HR and We can discuss some positions I am Having HR come over after her meeting Because we need to revisit one area. However she

I had been listening, and for the facilities director getting the large increase last year, then you guys decided to keep it the same for this year. And she wanted to remind us that the VA director was the same way. So if you use the same logic.

Susan, I don't mean to cut you off, but I think we better wait till Amy gets back on this explanation here.

And I already talked about it, but did you okay? I'm sorry then go ahead So that was her but she wanted to mention because that was a large increase there was another Increase at the highway department for someone that went from an hourly position to the assistant however If you figure it out, yes, as the assistant, he makes more per hour. However, now he doesn't get overtime. So in reality, he's going to actually end up making less because, I mean, there's any given time that some of those guys, especially during the winter, can make an extra $3,000 to $5,000 extra just because of all the overtime they have to put in. So she mentioned that. Not sure that that one's actually an issue, but she just wanted to mention it. Otherwise, there hasn't been anybody that has really increased a lot besides...

Does the assistant get the 80% of the department head salary?

In the highway?

I mean, that has been a...

Probably it's been the norm for like the elected officials.

I was gonna say that's been the debate, you know the I think the logic is the same whether it's an appointed department or an elected department, but We essentially only really apply it to the elected departments.

Um, he actually gets Well then So, but yeah we can Sorry Amy I didn't realize you left and so I I'm just had explained to them the concern be between the large increases for facilities director and VA director. So they were waiting until you came back. And then I also explained to them the highway situation on that hourly and getting overtime, not getting overtime. So I didn't know if you have more to say.

I didn't really have a whole lot more to add to that. I just thought it would be helpful to have Dottie here to just help explain all that situation. So next to her, and I've heard back from her. So I thought it would be helpful to have her here. She said she'd be more than willing to come over today to answer some of those questions, whatever we have.

She's going to come after her meeting. OK. If we want to wait. She was coming over more to revisit the facilities director and EMA director.

I had here on the front very more revisit that situation yeah and just know in the past we've run into just different situations where it was like oh we need to fix this or come back and fix that like are you nodding in agreement with me I think that I think as far as the VA director I think we we should follow the same logic we followed

With the facilities director. I mean, you're going to have one method of operation for this group but not for the other group really isn't fair. I mean, if we did it for one, we should do it for both. As far as the assistant in the highway department, you know, again, we talked about this a little bit that the guidance we've always tried to stick with was 80% of the department head's salary was what the first assistant would get. But we've really only ever applied that to the elected offices, not to the appointed offices. And I think it should be the same across the board. But he's already making more than 80%. So I just leave it. 80% is that like a statutory is that something that's is that just something the Cal County has done that has been something that I think you'll look if you look through a lot of HR issues with a lot of companies that's been the Theory because you're trying to train somebody Be able to step into that department head or that elected officials job Immediately and you want them you want them to learn how? and be capable in most of the, if not all of the functions of the actual department head.

Right.

So it's...

This had given us that guidance also. This has? Yeah, because when we first started with this, we weren't at 80%. Okay. I think we slowly worked up from 70 to 75, 80.

And I'm not opposed to it, obviously. I just know we've bumped into it a couple times of just, oh, it's not, convenient here because it just makes it a little bit more difficult.

Yeah, those kind of situations seem to come up.

Yes, yes.

I don't want to say frequently, but periodically.

Yeah, I feel like every year we've had...

There is an intention behind it, is to make sure that, you know, such as when Susan took over for Jan. Right. You know, if she hadn't been learning and dealing with the things that the auditor was dealing with, he would have been lost, and we would have been lost. So we were trying to build their knowledge and their abilities up. And I think that's happened. You weren't the only one that has. Well, actually, Jan jumped in when the previous auditor left. So it's happened two in a row. I can't think of any other ones that that happened with.

Yes, they did.

The room was contaminated.

I had it, but I no longer have it. I graduated from all my watches.

I know in Ben's situation, we talked about that when we went through his budget, and it was a retention thing that, you know, we had lost the last one, and this has a really hard time keeping somebody of high quality in that position in that industry, you know, because there's so many opportunities. Yeah, and like I said, I mean... And we don't have an engineer.

Right. So... And like I said, he... Most likely, we'll end up making less.

But hopefully, I don't know. I don't know. Will he still go out and plow roads or whatever?

He will, but he is exempt. He doesn't give.

I understand that. But will he still go out and do it?

Yeah, just like Ben does.

OK. And Ben does it also. And Ben's on salary. He is making more than 80% of . It is what it is.

I think those are some of the topics we could address them.

Patty said she's on her way. Do you have any feeling on the VA? Following what you did for the facilities director?

Which is freezing them. They got a large raise this year, not Not doing it again.

Hi, Donnie. Thanks for coming over. We've got a couple of minutes. We're going to do a public hearing with the airport, so before we can get to you.

At the moment, we're discussing VA and facilities director. I don't know if you have anything you want to input. I explained what you and I talked about.

Oh, good.

Well, yeah, we changed, oh, let's see, when it came to the veteran services officer, we didn't change any classification there. But the employee who was, I would say, granted the position had been the, sorry, the first deputy. And so then she negotiated a starting wage with the commissioners that was a bit more than what the commissioners had originally offered. So that person, in effect, received a raise already this year. There was no change in classification for the original position, which would be the Veterans Services Officer. So it's a little bit different than what we had with Larry because or with the maintenance. The facilities manager position was really created and a current employee who was doing the job was granted that position and then also given a raise. And to go along with that position. So and that did go through the job classification subcommittee. Let's see, then another position. Which other position might you need some information on?

Well, the first question I have about the VA. Gosh, thank you. That higher salary is it within the guidelines of that particular class? Yes, sir It did not take her out of which was one of the issues with the other Is it's different classes and whatnot? So now so it is what it is within that class it is Mm-hmm

It was just a starting, and what I always suggest whenever a new employee is starting in a position, they're doing the job with maybe very little experience, and so what you want to do is you would like to do a performance evaluation after a while, and then perhaps bump them up. If they are doing a good job, you want to reward them for that, and so then you would you know, provide them a raise in pay. And again, you know, within the classification that, you know, has been set.

Okay, Dottie, I'm going to stop it right now. We're going to convene the public hearing for the airport. So we are now in the airport public hearing. Do we have anybody in the audience that would like to address the airport?

First that first I'm gonna read in their notice a taxpayer their form three They have a budget estimate for rainy day seven hundred thirty one dollars seven hundred thirty one thousand five hundred Their Airport Authority is eight eighty six zero six five and their kum Airport building is ninety five thousand is what they have put in and I believe Russ told us that They weren't, like, whatever they've done, it did not increase any of their rates. Okay, so here, he says the levy remains unchanged at 706301 for 27, actually a decrease of $18. General fund and airport building unchanged. Rainy days, not levy supported. So they were under their max levy in 26 By a little over three hundred nine thousand and they'll be under their max levy by a Little over four hundred and eleven thousand for 2027 a little under what a little over four hundred and eleven thousand Anything you'd like to add Do we have any public comments?

Do we have any public comments? Do we have any public comments? Hearing none, we'll close the hearing here regarding the airport. Hey, Dottie, if you would like to continue on there, please. Didn't mean to stop you there.

So we had that. We've already talked about maintenance facilities, manager, director. Another situation that we had mid-year was in the highway department, and one of our Well, our assistant superintendent retired and one of our employees took that position, was promoted. That position went for that person went from a certain wage, an hourly wage, and that person was eligible for overtime. And as you can imagine, the highway department at certain times of the year puts in a lot of overtime. This particular individual had a couple Bi-weekly pays that were five thousand dollars plus We there were a couple others that were over three thousand dollars Because of all the overtime because of the snow removal or whatever the situation would have been With this person moving into a salaried exempt position Yes, if you were to calculate the the salary bi-weekly Yes, the hourly wage is that Eight dollars, I think more per hour However, the person is not going to be receiving any overtime because when you are salary exempt you do whatever it takes to get the job done and You're not paid any extra you don't get overtime. So that individual is actually going to be making less if you think about it I a little over

$4.

$4. Okay. Wow. Okay. That was far less than what I thought. So that may, if, you know, I know if you use the same logic where we had the facilities manager not receiving a pay increase, and if you use the same logic for each of these positions, well, in this particular position, you may really need to think about that because this person is

all likelihood going to be making less than what they made on the road without that they certainly did yes yes mm-hmm and this person is no longer I mean because he is salaried correct I work 50 hours this week to get the job to this pay period to get the job done or this week Next week, I only work 20. I don't have to take vacation. I don't have to take any other time off. There are other advantages. There are other trade-offs. And he's already, at the rate that he's at, over the 80% for the department head.

One of the bigger differences between the facilities and the VA is those prior positions didn't get overtime anyways, where the highway position, he did get overtime. In my personal opinion, the highway one is different than those other two, and he should be able to get the 3% increase like the others, but that's not my choice.

When did we say that he couldn't get the 3%?

We didn't, but they're talking about using the same logic as the facilities director. And I'm expressing that I feel that his is different in the move.

And I'm going to say that that decision's already been made previously that it would be more than 80%. Correct. So I don't have a problem with giving him the 3%. That's not an issue. We've already decided to break that rule. I don't see any reason to rehash that, given everything that we've talked about. But he's still salary exempt and not going to get overtime.

I think the, unless there was something when I ran out, but I think the VA one is the one that you probably need to decide. I mean, I know that it was decided to go the 3%. Probably need to actually specify since that one is like the facilities director.

That one's yours.

The only other one we could think of that made a big move was in development services. We did change one of the GIS not the administrator, but we have two of the GIS individuals, and the one person, we did change the job description. It didn't change the job classification, however. They stayed in PATC, so professional, still in the C category, to make that position over the new enterprise system that we have to create when the city of Auburn is releasing us from all of the development services, planning, zoning information that we had shared for years. So that, when I took a look at the numbers, the person is making exactly the same if you took a look at the hourly wage. We only changed it really to a salaried exempt position. So now this enterprise system position has a little more flexibility, I would say, and is able to or will probably be asked to come in over weekends to take down a system or add to the system. And so that was the whole logic was to make it so that, well, If the person worked 60 hours a week one week due to all of this extra work, then perhaps they could take some time off the following week because they are salary exempt. There was no change in pay, no change in classification. So that one wasn't even on my radar until I thought about it last night. And so those are really the only ones that I could think of that made big changes when it came to either a classification or a job description change or a big bump in wages.

So some of these pay raises and changes happen with the commissioners wanting to give people increases or negotiating pay and stuff. Is there only one? And the one that we left out of the 3% that's out of the job classification range, pay range, are there other ones that we're talking about today that are out of the range?

No. Those are the only ones that, you know, that was the only one, yes, that went above. And then we had to kind of backtrack, change the job description, and then move it into a different category. really against the judgment of Wagner, Irwin, and Shealy, our consultants. But we made that decision internally.

And so is he within that range in the other category? Yes. So everybody's within the salary range for their category.

And that is a very important point. County Council Association has been battling over the last few years with commissioners wanting to take away the ability of the council to control certain salaries and really making sure that people are retained in the classification and salary range that we determined is extremely important. We're just now going through another lawsuit where it has been determined that the sheriff has the ability to determine the salary of a particular individual within that department. And we're fighting that, actually, that state law that should have been

Talking about we as in the County Council as in the County No, it's not us.

It's what's going on across the state in Trying to chip away at the powers of the council to control expenses and salaries of individuals This happens to be a new lawsuit about matrons and One county's being asked to pay close to over, I think it was over $100,000 because of somebody not getting what the sheriff thought they should get. But we need to make sure that these people stay within the range that we determined. We've given the commissioners the ability to negotiate within certain ranges, but that's

Determining what those ranges are our responsibility of the council and that that really needs to be Yeah, very close So my follow-up on that just trying to think about this logically if everybody's within their range in their classification No matter how they got there Then that's when we increase everything three percent the ranges all go up that much so everybody's still in their range and So you're actually, by telling, picking one or two and saying you're not going to get that 3%, you're actually taking away that incentive or that raise that they were given earlier in the year for performance or job duties or whatever. You're taking that away. So.

Right. That way.

It doesn't seem right.

You really should do three. If you're doing 3%, you should do 3% across the board. And then one of you should. Explain to the commissioners who will do their job evaluations and determine what pay they want out of that salary what? You're thinking was Because they're the ones that are going to tell us how much they want to pay out of that range

Because when the ordinance is created, there's an up to amount actually on there. Now we have a lot of department heads that feel that their people across the board should hit the top all the time. And there are others that actually take my advice and they decide based upon the performance of the individual employees that they will change. They will change them.

But in my business I've given performance raises during the year and then everybody gets a Coley raise at in January 1st And I've never taken that Cola raise away from somebody I gave a nice bonus to because they're doing a great job or I added duties to so this just something to That's the whole point of doing the ranges and

you bring somebody in as a new employee or promote somebody to a new position, generally you'll start them at the lower end. And in many cases, as Dottie alluded to earlier, maybe 90 days into their employment, you give them an evaluation of how they are performing in their position. And if everything is going well, you might give them another raise at that point. If there are things that that employee needs to work on or correct, you would make that into an action plan for that employee and then do another evaluation maybe at another 90 days. Because when you walk into a new job, you're not gonna do everything perfectly. There are going to be things that you want changed. But that's one of the That's one of the weaknesses of county government. And I think we've made some changes over time, but just because a person is a good road deputy or a good jailer or a good office worker in a particular department does not mean that they have the ability or the skill to move up to the next level of being a supervisor or being the actual department head. We don't train people. In private industry, we do that all the time. We're constantly training people in HR practices or management practices to build them up. We don't do that in county government. We do a little bit now with the leadership training that NACO has put on, but not everybody's taken advantage of that. number of number of people have but It's we have an expectation but quite honestly some of the departments don't have to follow it and a little bit to Rick's Comment

Shortly after I started, we had a department head who had a long time employee, 17 years, the employee retired. Hired a new person, totally not a county government employee, and started them at the same rate of pay that that 17 year veteran received. I brought it to the attention of the department head and the department head said, well they're doing the same job. And I said, I don't want to, you know, fight with you. However, I totally disagree. The person who left was hopefully doing the job with 17 years of experience. This person you have coming in is doing it with zero years of experience. And so here you had a 17-year veteran and you had somebody coming in. And then they're making the same amount of money. And I just felt that that did a disservice to the employee who left us, who retired. We were counting their experiences nothing. I'd like to say that you hope that the person had 17 years of experience, not one year of experience, 17 times. And sometimes you have that and that person should not be rewarded for just sticking around the department head should have gotten rid of that person Long before the person ever received, you know, they're you know, 15 years of service, you know award or whatever So, you know that's been that's been a hard nut to crack Here in county government also.

Well, you know one of the reasons that we brought Wiss in was we had long-term employees doing a, I'm going to say a very work intensive job, wanted to change to a different department where the work was much less intense. And she wanted the exact same pay as she was getting in the first department. No, I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works. But that's the way it operated at the time. That's one of the reasons that WISP was brought in, and we do classifications of employees and pay ranges for those classifications.

And longevity pay helps address a little bit of what you're talking about, which we implemented a couple years ago.

Yes.

Yeah, that does. That does help. We're rewarding, again, we're hopefully rewarding those years, years of experience, not just because they've been here.

And they get something for longevity, because we do give longevity pay now.

To everybody but elected officials.

Right. No, elected officials don't get that. But, you know, this again, this is something that is important for the council. This is the only point of control is the council. The commissioners can't do anything about it. Each one of the elected offices can pretty much handle their office within the guidelines that the council has established. So the council has got to put those parameters in place and maintain them.

OK, any other questions for Dottie? Anybody? Dottie, thank you.

Did the discussion between the two, EMA and facilities director, get done?

The EMA position was never brought to the job classification subcommittee. So the job description has never been reviewed. At the time the The facilities director manager position was reviewed at the time like I said that was kind of a Afterthought commissioners wanted to go ahead and do this and give the $10,000 increase But we really needed to change the job description. So that went totally through the job classification subcommittee We have not reviewed the EMA position.

Susan, anything else?

I mean, not unless you guys are going to discuss that with the factor system and all that. Otherwise, I don't know if you guys are changing your Motion from yesterday on the increase?

Rick, anything to add?

To not exclude the At this point, I don't know. I'm surprised. I thought the EMA position had been through the job classification.

We have lots of documentation. And he submitted a new job description.

But did WIS review it?

It was never discussed whether or not to, no.

Anything else, I think that should go to the HR committee and that should go to WIS.

The current individual in that position did all the paperwork, did the change form, gave all the information, but it has just not gone through the job classification subcommittee.

We good for now?

Good for now? Yeah, but I do suggest that that job description go through with HR committee.

That will not impact this year right now? No. No. OK. Any other questions from the council? Thank you for coming over in short notice, and I think that's a valid point that the job description goes to Many so I Will resend it all to you guys so We can please watch for those emails.

I this is gonna sound horrible, but You guys are very very hard to get a response from or job job classification very hard I normally end up sending you all a text to look at your emails.

And just saying.

Thank you, Susan, for just saying that.

I went through a lot of this yesterday. If you don't send me an email or a text that you sent me an email, I might not see it.

I know. I try. However, I won't always be here.

Thank you again. Thanks, Scotty, for coming over. Thanks, Scotty. Moving on here. We have had the the airport public hearing on the budget We can't approve the budget or disapprove it here. We do not need to wait till this afternoon.

So Susan okay, so what normally happens is We so I have the ordinance numbers listed there. So You guys have given Jody and I all the direction on what you the changes you want and To come before you and final numbers for the meeting on the 30th Normally you guys at least approve The first reading of our process and then we put everything together and then you do the second We always stay with the adjustments we talked about you're gonna add the adjustment I had asked Jody earlier

spreadsheet the Excel spreadsheet that's on SharePoint That we is this oh this large Document you're going to update that on SharePoint. So at a later point we can Okay, so

Moving along now, we're ready to adopt the airport budget on first reading.

Yes, and that is ordinance number 2026-OCC-13.

I had a question about their budget. So pull up some documentation. It looks like their budget actually, did it increase about 2.5%? I had the budget numbers last year at $1.6 million. This year, basically $1.7 million. some change, 41,000 extra, so.

Okay, I'm just gonna read out his email. He says, just wanted to let you know that our budget is all done in Gateway and we have had our meeting with DLGF. The budget and levy are also approved by the board. At the time, I wasn't sure if the levy would stay flat, but we were able to keep it the same as 2026. My statement for the council regarding the budget follows. Our budget amounts for 2027 are $731,500 for rainy day. In 2026, it was $735,000. $886,065 for general fund. In 2026, that was $840,660. And $95,000 for the airport building cumulative fund. And that was the same $95,000 for 2026. The levy remains unchanged. At $706,301 for 2027, a decrease of $18 for the general fund and unchanged for the Hume Airport Building Fund. The rainy day fund is not levy supported. For 2026, we are at $309,208 under our max levy. And for 2027, we will be $411,480 under our max levy. Thank you, Russ.

So according to those numbers, the airport authority, that did go up that much.

The general, that's probably what they call their general.

Yep, the 40s operating.

40, so it went up. So yes, it did go up with no effect to taxpayers.

Last year they lowered it a point.

I believe so.

So this year, they just kept it level. They didn't change it any, but this is the amount coming on the same tax rate as coming in at a higher rate.

Any further discussion? Do we have a motion to approve the airport budget on first reading only, or on title only? First reading. First reading? Yeah. Hey, we have a motion to approve we have properly motion and seconded any further discussion All those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed It is approved six one Yes, and I've said this to that then before mr. Randy I've been here six years every year.

They say they're working on a Reducing the amount of money that they need from the council from the from the local taxpayers who really don't have any Use they don't use the I don't say use for it, but use the airport And I've not seen a plan in place ever My vote is no Okay, thank you.

You know just comment on that the airport is used by many of our businesses and but in by many of our individuals if the Decision was made many years ago to make it a county Airport Authority and they have made many many improvements Without I don't see any money coming out of our general fund and I think this is actually one of the smallest smallest tax rates and that that we have so it is it is vital to the economic development of the Cal County and I think that they should And they are working that way. They are working that way.

That's great. I would love to see that.

Okay, Susan. Next thing is the ordinance number 2026-OCC-14.

For the county.

Pardon?

For the county budget.

For the county budget. Okay. Okay. As Susan mentioned, for the county budget, ordinance number 2026-OCC-14. on first reading only. Do we have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve that with the consideration that they're going to make the adjustments we talked about the last two days. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Are we done going through this then? Is that what we're saying? We're voting for this and we're done going through it? We didn't go through it.

Do you want more discussion?

It seems like the department had spent a lot of time going through it, and so it seemed like we should at least look at it as a group.

I remember we discussed yesterday that if anybody had any questions about different departments that they would bring it up. And we did go through. There were a few that were brought up. There was a few that we talked about. And I wasn't here for the presentation.

And Bill wasn't here, so I feel like we're

So what was that one that was The County sewer district and there was a consultant hired and what was proposed in the budget I thought was more than what that consultant but Susan explained why it's like that I have a line item for the Oprah sewer district and

It's like three hundred thirty five thousand or something like that and that is because We are a pass-through entity for the federal okra funds for that project. So they do their project their work they submit to draw out of those funds to okra and then I Have to give them their funds because I have the money. I have to give that to them. So I have to have that line item and so that I can pay them out.

And there was a question yesterday about drug testing. What was that? Remember, there was a $700,000. It was. It was.

That was a grant. That was a grant, one of Susan. OK. Yep.

Yes. Got to put it in there. But if they don't get it, they don't get to spend it. We're hoping that they get it.

And if you don't put it in the budget now, you're going to have to do an additional appropriation later.

Yeah, which we did not want to have happen. Right. So Veterans Corps has basically the same thing, drug testing. Right.

OK. Any further questions?

I got a question. It's probably more for you. Since you brought it up, the airport. Where do we, where's our deal on why don't we see, I was on it, and I argued with Steve for a long time, the Northeast Indiana Solid Waste District. I don't see that in our budget that we spent up there. That should be another deal that should be self-efficient, because they send you, they do your fees and stuff. Why don't we ever see that in our budget? Because Steuben County controls it. Yeah, but we have to still pay for it.

We do, and probably should have a report from them as to what they're doing, but Steuben County does have control of it.

Still, they take money out and tax their people, and we have no control of that money.

Well, and it will, but, you know, I've had a few complaints about it. I've given them to Amy, and those complaints have been addressed, whether or not it's because I gave them to Amy or that I complained to a couple of Steuben County commissioners, I don't know. Anyway, they were hearing it from from two sides. I hope but That is one of those issues that will come up as we look at the must committee because each one of the four counties is going to have to determine whether or not they're going to give any of the local option income tax money to the solid waste district and I think that we need to will need to coordinate and Who's doing what? Because if we give something and Steuben gives somebody something, but Noble County or LaGrange County give nothing, I think we would go back and change our minds of what we were going to do. You've got the cities in there, too. That's true. That's true.

What they're doing and stuff, that's a lot of money. It's kind of like the...

Like the comment that I made yesterday about offices in the courthouse not being opened at lunchtime we're you know, we're here to serve the public and When does the public have an opportunity to come to the courthouse if they have to do business? Most likely before they go to work after they go to work or during the lunch hour well I don't want to, I certainly wouldn't ask that we open the offices up at 7 o'clock in the morning. That wouldn't even hit everybody that starts work by that time. But at least at lunchtime and staying open until 4.30, I think it's appropriate. That people can get in. Well, the same deal with the Solid Waste District. I should be able to take things up there on a regular basis at a time that Have free you know you can only you can only take the electronic items up there on Fridays I think from 8 to noon Well most people would have to take time off their work if they're gonna do that But why aren't you doing that on Saturday? Who's not and somebody's not looking at serving the public?

And so you wonder who they serve themselves or the public but anyway, yeah, it's like it well I They did try, I have to say, when I was on the board up there, I first started trying it Tuesday night. Well, that didn't work. It wasn't satisfactory for them, so they quit it. But, see, on Friday afternoon, I think it would be better for Saturday afternoon because people are off.

Yeah, Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon. We're getting a little sidetracked here right now. Really? So we have a motion and a second on the floor right now to approve or deny the county budget ordinance on first reading. And that ordinance number is 2026-OCC-14. So I'm going to call for the question. I think Social Security had gone down too, didn't it?

Those will all change again because I have to account for the increase that you guys just did. So those will all move again.

Anything else Amy Okay, we'll call for the question all those in favor signify by saying aye aye those motions carried 6-1 Susan anything else I

The only thing is I'm going to clarify again. Are you changing the motion from yesterday where you excluded the one position from the 3%? Are you still excluding that one position?

And that position is in the correct

The position was approved to move in the higher WISC category by the committee based on job description changes and recommendations from commissioners. Correct? The one position that you had decided to not allow the 3% increase that is the position that Was taken outside of the WISC study and the committee approved and recommended to the council who also approved So currently it got moved it got moved from exec a to exec B but he's within the he's currently within the salary range of exempt B and

Because I want to address the point that Bob Kraft made.

Yes, he is.

He is within that spreadsheet. Then I would stay with what we decided yesterday is not to give an additional raise. Is he still going to be? Let's wait a minute. Let's back up a minute. In giving the 3%, we're moving the ranges. Right. Will he still be within the range?

No, because the ranges will, I mean, the ranges will move. It's always an up to, but that's where I had said a little bit earlier is that position, the department head non-elected positions are the ones that the commissioners have to do the job evaluations on and determine what that wage is going to be.

So... Well, if, and thinking this through... the range moves and the current rate the current pay rate is now outside of that range he has to get that he has to move when the range moves that I do agree with so but does he does that mean a whole 3% I don't know I don't know what that range is offhand well

We had to get him to fit.

Right. And we want to keep him in B. So for 26, the B amount is $83,456.

For 27, the B amount will be $87,679. The 3%. Anyways, so it will be an up to amount. So when you ask if he'll be out of the range, nobody's ever out of the range because it's an up to amount. But with the motion yesterday, you're specifying that one position. no matter what, cannot get the 3%, whether commissioners want to do it or not.

I'm just trying to... Oh, I understand. I understand what the issue is. It just... It's probably best that we rescind what we voted on yesterday and address it through Wiss and the HR committee for the edit position.

Yeah, we did.

And that's why, and we brought it back to the full council. The full council voted to go ahead and move into that other category against Wiss' recommendation to accommodate what? Yeah, right.

Right. What I'm saying, we rescind the motion about not allowing that individual to get the 3% raise. Rescind that. So he's going to get the 3% that's going to be within that range, which is in the packet, but then address the issue again through the Homeland Security's Place whether or not he's a or B That's what I'm You know that was decided earlier in this year that we would leave it the way it was but if it if the Homeland Security's job position and job description did not go to Wiss and did not