County Council - Regular Meeting

Start with the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Tammy is still uh at her daughter's or her son's I think son got married in Jackson Hole and I think there's there it's a long way. It is a long way. Uh looks like first on the agenda would be Nicole.

Good morning council. Morning All right. In front of you, I have two CF1s. Uh the first one is Reeve Properties. The assessor's office actually had received that one um with their business personal property filing. Um so it was received back in May. They didn't give it to me till after when they gave it to me when they were going through their paperwork. uh CF1 states they have 36 employees versus SB1 has 19 and they are year 9 and three of 10 years. And then the second one is SUDEDA. Actually that one was approved back in April meeting. Um I spoke with uh Frank at Nexus and he said that that resolution was not expired. So, um, cuz I originally had it as resolution 2012-11-12 was expired. It is not. So, I would just like a verbal to say that um, it's not denied that you're going to approve the abatement. That's

Did we leave it pending with you at a point or No, I just had marked it as non-compliant per se because the resolution was expired, I thought, but I was wrong. And so I just need a verbal saying that um they are in compliance and the resolution is not expired. That's all I need. Are they in year 10 or something? They are they're in multiple years. Okay. Yeah. Probably. What resolution? What do we mean resolution expired?

Um so whenever abatements are going through the process, they have a resolution number and so we track those resolutions per year. And so I had thought that that particular resolution last year was the 10th year of it and it's not. It's actually got two more years left on it. Oh, okay. That was so uh does someone want to make a I'll make a motion to approve the CF1s for Reed Properties and Suda. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. And then one last thing, Deborah Kins wanted me to let you guys know that 70 Connect 3 has yet to make their economic development agreement payment.

Okay. And uh they are appealing their assessment for 25 pay 26. Is that and that's in violation of the agreement? Well, so much. Is it over what it's supposed to be? Um I I'm not 100% sure. I'll have to look at what it is. I just got brought to light yesterday. The abatement application says, and they sign it, that they cannot appeal their assessment unless it raises over 5%. But the economic development agreement differs from that. Well, um, we're going to we're going to go through our process. To me, the EDA is a commissioner

form, a commissioner's decision to do, and so they I would think would have some thoughts on all of that. Are they working with them?

Yeah, so Jeff at Nexus who works with the assessor's office is working with them right now. Um I had originally sent him the abatement application of what you stated and I said this is what it is. Well, they were responded back from 70 connect saying well the economic de development agreement says this. And so I just sent them the economic development agreement. Um and so they're working on that right now. Um, I told them I said I have been g given guidance that the abatement application is what I have to go off of regarding uh the percentage for what they owe for their economic development agreement. Um, so they're working on that right now, but I just wanted to let you know or we wanted to let you know what was going on and they have yet to make a payment.

I haven't seen the EDA on that, so I don't know. Does it reference appealing?

It references a price per square foot. So, I would have to look through it, but I think it was like $52 a square foot is what it had said on there. Um, and there was a percentage if it was within that percentage, but apparently it's more than that percentage of what they have priced it out at. And their argument is is well, their building's vacant, so it should be less than what the assessor is pricing it out. um if it's been vacant for very long, they they have the ability to appeal their assessment for um economic obsolescence. And that's probably what they're doing is they're wanting a reduction because of the empty space.

Um I guess um would be okay if we reach out to Scott Bey just Yeah. What I was going to suggest is that we just table this particular request until one month and we'll hopefully get It's really not a request. You just said that they're just making us aware that they haven't made a payment. So, well, you don't have anything formal. No, we're trying to do right now anyway other than figure. So, you're not talking about pulling the abatement because

I have not put their abatement on the property yet because I because what had happened back in the June meeting was it was said the the payment would have been made within a week or two of us walking and so I was going to add it then. Well, we have yet to make it and I've not added the the abatement on the property yet. Oh, it start hasn't started yet. Yeah. Well, let's give it another month if that's okay. Unless I didn't think there was anything in the EDA agreement about um assessments and appeals.

Yeah. Well, was that one of the first ones? Because the very first one was GDI and then um a commissioner went back to people who already had approved abatements and started trying to renegotiate EDAS. Is that one of them? That is one of them. Yes. So, yeah, it was messy at that time. Yes. Sounds like to me we better let the commissioners sort some of it out first. I was thinking so, too. Yeah, that's it. You sign this real quick. Okay. Yes. Before you leave because I may leave and not think till I get home. Exactly right.

Yep. See you later. Okay. Uh we've got plenty of time between now. Now we got Kayla next. Kayla here. I don't believe she was

she passed out some papers. Did Jim have a budget meeting update? Pardon me. Oh, I think we have seven minutes if Kayla doesn't show up.

Approve the minutes, but we'll go ahead and go down to some of the action items. Um Jim, do you want to uh give us the budget meeting update? Uh, sure. Number one, we reviewed the uh fund balances and everything looked good. Uh, two, uh, FSG went through revenue projections and changed the revenue projections for 2026 drastically. We had been looking at a net uh uh increase in revenues of a little over a million taking into account the uh SB1 stuff. uh S FSG is saying basically we've got $36,000 of increased revenue for 2026 nothing which was kind of major. Um, we did change uh let economic development uh in that the the highway put about $3.5 million more into the lit economic development for 2026. Um suggested uh FSG is suggesting that we pursue excess levy appeal for 2026 and I think that's another thing on the agenda.

Um, also FSG uh gave us uh a summary of looking forward uh to the jail lit operations uh fund and it shows that in 2027 we're going to need to put more money going to come up short. Um and uh the auditor reported that the senior services uh reimbursement uh has only been made they've only made one payment whereas they should have made. So the state is uh not supporting so far uh the senior services. Um um we talked about the um we introduced the 2025 geo bond. I think it's on the agenda today to take the next step. I think that was it. If somebody else has something,

I'm senior services. Someone spoke with them about getting caught up with their payments. I don't know their heard anything. Don't know anything. Nope. Did you know something wrong? I do not. And it's hard to get information. Um, thank you, Jim. Um, Kayla,

morning. Morning, Carol.

Couple months ago, I came to you guys for um additional money for my legal services line item. As you know, I'd kind of gone through my my budget already um due to some pretty big uh redevelopment projects. U I did take some time, went to the RDC, got $10,000 uh paid for by the RDC for legal fees. Um but uh still I'm still pretty well out of money in my legal line item. I've also exhausted my contractual services line item and um really anywhere else that I had any any additional funding stashed to pay for legal services. Um on the top sheet that I've given you today, I've shown where I've spent um money over the last six months. Um one outstanding bill that I have still and an average monthly uh legal bill of $10,000 to Brandon Morlock. um my budget request based on that information um is a big scary number at least in relation to my budget of $62,37325. Obviously that's a lot and I know we're in a tricky time. Um so even if it is a matter of coming to the council on a monthly basis and requesting um you know invoice by invoice my legal bill um be paid, I'm happy to do that. um or uh whatever this board sees fit. Um I uh I Rhonda uh Cook is here today from Brandon Warlock in case you have any questions for her. Um, I think I would also say we've talked about ways to better track when a uh a matter is related to the RDC so that we can more accurately track when we can go to the RDC for funding of our legal expenses.

Um, but really uh this has been a difficult line for me to predict. Well, I mean, we we could look at a flat rate um with the law firm. We could also probably what we really need to do is put out, you know, a request to get bids. I don't think we've done that in years and to see if we can find a a cheaper alternative because our legal fees are just out of control. And I know they've done a lot. I'm not going to deny that. But I think the hourly rate they're currently charged, I think, could be a little less. Um, I know I know if I was not here and I was bidding, I would I would put a a smaller bid and not by a lot, but a smaller bid in. Um, so I I think that's a possibility. We also have Scott Banky. I don't know if he has a lot of knowledge in that area. um probably not at the level that Morlock does, but uh but I mean I I think we need to look at other alternatives and options and there and there is you can do a flat rate with them and say the only problem is that could get scary or get too high but then you could just every year say okay all law firms in the state want to bid go ahead and bid and we can take the people that have the right experience with the money not just not just take somebody that does family law and wants to do planning and zoning but somebody that does planning and zone I think the people that we have now, they were approached, I don't know if Kayla was here then or not, but they had been approached about the flat rate for the whole year and they were absolutely a no-go on that. Now things change. Maybe they would consider it now. I don't know, but wasn't that long ago.

$10,000 $10,0004.65 that you have on the average monthly basis based on seven months includes the outstanding invoice. That's But then you add it back again. added in again under the budget request. So, wouldn't that already be in the U 50,000 that you're saying for the last five month average?

No. Um, I took it out of that amount. I only included five months at that average. Since I have that outstanding bill, I counted it in at its true value. So I I rather than adding in um 10,000* 6, I did 10,000* 5 for August through December and then added July at the true amount of that invoice because I know that amount. Um so that's where I got that. It it is correct. Now I I could argue that December's bill will probably be due in January. Um so that might not be paid this year. Um, so I might have overestimated by one month or $10,000 there, but I thought that would probably be safer anyway.

Well, I would like to see uh I think we have to act on this, but to suggest that they start maybe looking for quotes for 2026 would probably be a smart thing to do just to, you know, kind of like I check my car insurance every few years, you know, go out and get prices. So if that keep that in mind that um I mean I I don't know but I I would think it would be at this point for our county it would be tough to get a single onetime fee per year because we're the fast growing county in the Midwest. So it's like those it would scare the tar out of them thinking okay they could have to do three times the work if we got something

that's the risk you take when you do flat fees right. So I think that's probably not efficient. It would be maybe for Rush County but not for Hancock County. Well, you get a lower rate though.

Maybe I could weigh in just a little bit. I think that there have been uh some extraordinary expenses associated with the growth. I know that the plan commission has needed separate counsel. Sometimes I have a conflict of interest because the way it's set up for me as a county attorney. So, and I know that Rhonda has done a lot of good work um support of various projects that have, you know, had to be reviewed and looked at uh by the county and I think that, you know, those fees are built in. So, I'm not sure that that's always going to be the case, but I can't imagine her hourly rates not competitive. I know that I do litigation for the county at a significantly reduced rate. um especially in comparison to what we pay some of the larger firms to do our work. I try to do a lot of our litigation so that you know we can save money. I know I save more than than what my salary is actually for the county and litigation fees. But the going rate, you know, even here in the Midwest is, you know, it's $500 an hour at least for a decent experience. I do the litigation for 250, but that was I'm okay with it because that's part of what we all agreed to a long time ago, but it's hard for me to to, you know, say look at it and and Scott knows this, too, where you've got a lot of these projects and things that just require, you know, another set of eyes, too. I'm usually I mean, I'm involved in a lot of that, too. So the county doesn't get build hourly for that for me, but we do need a good lawyer on the other side to kind of advise the commission.

I I wear a lot of hats. I try to do all kinds of different law firm, whether it's employment or contract or litigation, you name it. Uh but some areas like what what we have with the plan commission, Ron has got expertise in that area. Is there a case that was particular this year that drove the expenses up to litigate or is it just a month by month typical month? It

depends on the month. Um we did have the stone land modification and uh the surge project which we did take to RDC and got some funding from that. Apart from that, I would say that um that there were some changes in uh state law this year that required Rhonda's expertise to make sure we were in line. Um as far as our um notices and agendas go, things like that. She's been helping us as well, making making sure we're we're keeping up with that information. Um, so no, I mean it's we try to track our fees as well and make sure that there's a balance between obviously fairness to our our local uh resident and how much we're having to spend to hold a meeting and really review a petition and for legal expertise. Um, but no, I would say the two big ones we managed to get some money from RDC to cover those legal.

Yeah. And you're constantly as things come on that involve something that could be RDC payment ongoing keep that back to the RDC cuz as long as we can pay it legally it should be paid through that but you can't you can't do stuff out here. Well, is some of this due to the like the data center project? So why wouldn't that be RDC? It it it probably was. And that's why I said she got $10,000 so far this year from from stuff associated with the tiff districts, but she can't do everything any I'm assuming this stuff is still outside of the realm.

Yeah, I would say a couple big projects. Unified development ordinance is a big one. And maybe and maybe we could have used Banky for that one to save money. Um and just use them for a little bit of it. Um I think I think you know we approved 100,000 for the for that organization to do it. Um we're not extremely pleased with how that organization has performed but it's cost us a lot of legal fees which we did not calculate when we approved a UDO for 100,000. What project was it? We passed it what two years ago almost now.

Yes. The unified development ordinance cost $73,000 approximately. Um, and then because the year ended, that 100,000 we had banked into it, some of that went back into food and beverage or the general fund. Um, and so it was kind of cut off at that point. Um, anything since then I've been paying for through my legal services line item. Oh, so the day is for 62, 37325. Is that correct? Yes.

What do you think? Uh, I don't think it's a a good use of Kayla's time to come back every say the rest of the year, but maybe we do want to talk about it again. And I don't know if it's up to this body whether shop, you know, Scott's over there though. Well, we be it would be what I'm on the planning commission. We And I think we just need to tell her, you know, let's just I mean, to be fair, I mean, here's the thing. Warlock's office and Rhonda herself, they're very generous to Republican party here in Hancock County. So, I think it's only appropriate to to do a fair uh bid out there so that we say, "Okay, not only the one of the best, but they're also one of the cheapest." And so, that's what we really need to do.

Are all the bidding though for any contracts or anything still have to go through the commissioners? Yes. I think I think the planning commission would probably do it first and then go to the commissioners to approve it. To approve it. Yeah. Okay. I think that's how it would work. Yeah. Because say we're not involved in any I agree with Keely about the repeat visit. Um, I think you have laid out a pretty good reason that it's going to be a continuation for the rest of the year based on what we've already been doing. Well, but the 62 covers the rest of the year, she thinks. Yes.

Yeah. And like I said, make sure you anything that can be uh, you know, the that the RDC can be responsible for, make sure you bring that to the RDC. There will be stuff coming in the next six months that the RDC is going to be involved in again. I'm sure the um there's not enough money to do anything with anything today through food and beverage. It's capped out for right now. So, if we're thinking about approving this, it's come from somewhere else besides food and beverage. I

I would be keen on, you know, if this was any other department, I'd want to start building the actual need into county in general. Um, even if it's not TIFF related, it's fair to say that almost everything is economic development in some way. Um, so I don't know if if it economic development focused funds to cover kinds of costs. Could I say economic develop the or the general?

Yeah. And then that kind of puts us vague later on like why how did we spend all this money six months no one remembers out of general. You know what I mean? Deb would know what I'm flexible on. I'm assuming I'm assuming you you pay attention. So yeah I said Deb would know would know. It can come from general fund too. Yes. Yeah. I Yeah. I would uh so do we do we have to appropriate in general or not we don't have any

have to appropriate it. So what what we've got is about at this moment about $90,000 unspoken for beverage more as the but it's it's dropping. So we just don't have we're tied in food and beverage but it's you mean from appropriated money in food and beverage? Yes. from appropriating balance. I I say we do something else. The fun balance is it's a fun balance. It's tight also. But general fund. Yeah. We just have to go ahead and do a thumbs up. Tell me where where it's going and then that's the recommendation.

Okay. Well, I would suggest we give the thumbs up to appropriate. I mean, I don't know if you want to do this exact amount or if you want to round in county general being as this is not a oneoff onetime expense. I don't know that I food and beverage and even if we appropriate, you know, if it gets November and December and we've appropriated more than you need, anything that is RDC related, I really would like to keep all that going there just so we can keep track year to year of how much of those costs are.

Well, and if it's if it comes from county general and she does not end up spending it all, it will roll back to county general. So, it it'll it won't sit there. just I would say I think Keelley made a really good point. I think a lot of those fees are related to e you know whether we have to do additional work. It's just part of our growth and it makes absolute sense to try to fund that with those types of funds. There's ways to do that I'm sure. So well

the RDC is one of them. the economic development income tax although it has a healthy balance I think we've started talking about budgeting trying to remember what it was three and well four over four million for 2026 right budget budget yeah so I feel like even though that balance is healthy we have started putting more in economic development income tax so yeah and that but that too is in limbo if the grants don't come. Well, the uh public hearings have to start in three minutes, so we can wrap this up. It's a thumbs up. It's not a vote.

Yeah. Yeah. So, we just have to agree to advertise. Is it prefer general or economic development income tax? I'd say county general is what the auditor suggested. Okay. That's all. Uh we have thumbs up to um advertise $62,37325 as an appropriation from general fund to the planning department legal additional appropriations. That amount again 62 62,37325 cents. Thank you. So we we have um we're moving forward. Thanks.

Thank you. Appreciate it. No problem. still have three minutes. Does someone want to uh approve the minutes? Approve the minutes of July 9th. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. I own the yes on that. I didn't say anything.

I I did pass out. I did a a summary of the last two years of um you know we took over the uh radio uh financing of all public safety uh entities in the county. And so this is a list of the uh radio and radio equipment that through uh 911 we have supplied to each of these entities. And you notice the total is 2.6 million. That's like a million three per year for the last two years that we have supplied to these entities.

Has it been consistently taken from the same fund to to pay for this? Have we consider uh this is no coming from the 20 some of it came I think from the 20 bond bond. I know some of it was from the 23 bond. So that maybe the 22 bond too. Yeah, we give Greenfield 370. Okay. Um before we start uh public hearings, can I ask a couple clarifying questions on those items? Can you remind me um the supplies for field officer 3500? Deb, can you just remind me what that is on this additional appropriation?

Yes. Well, we'll discuss those when we open the hearing. Okay. Yeah, because you can ask we can ask questions. have questions on a few of them. I just didn't want them to get through the process too fast to ask questions. Yeah. No, we won't. If you need to ask questions happen. So, the information that Jim gave us was just forformational purposes and Okay. What did seem in what kind of prompted me to do that was in the combined meeting we had some people from Sugar Creek got up there and didn't understand where their radios were coming from.

It looks like we had a lot in 911 was the financing all of it. Oh, that's a lot for two years. I'm I'm surprised. Okay, it's 9:00 so we're going to start with the public hearings now. Uh, first on the agenda is behavioral health corp fund 25509 for $3,500. Is there anyone from you guys that have anything they'd like to say? Um, I'm opening the public hearing now. I speak to Mr. Shelby's radio about last week. Well, we're doing the public hearing right now. So, no,

but you you can once we've started at 9:00, we have to finish. So, is there no comments regarding the uh behavioral health court 3500 council questions? Yes. Can you remind me what that was? I'm I'm kind of going don't really remember myself other than it was for supplies for a field officer. So, I'm not sure if this is grant money that they're um additionally appropriated or not. I was thinking it was grant money that we just had to grant money. Okay. We didn't get usually the small That's why I just couldn't remember and wanted to be sure.

Well, I have I I kind of tried to keep my notes so I can comment on it if you have questions and I didn't have anything written down there. Sorry. Well, if it was a grant, I I probably didn't ask a lot of questions if it was grant funded. Yeah. Any other questions? I'll close the public hearing and um make a motion to approve fund 25509 in the amount of $3,500. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Next on the list is fund 4618, principal interest with the RDC. Uh $325. I'm going to open the public hearing for public comments. I don't see any. Is there any questions from the council?

Want to explain any of it or do you I don't know what the $325 it's it's a rounding error. No, it wasn't. We have the cash in there, but we were instructed not to put that on our our budget. So, we knew that we have $325, so we just have to get it appropriated. I don't know why they did this that way, but that's what they did. Yeah. Who's they I'm going to say that was DGF. Oh, okay. It's $325. Yeah. Let's all go to lunch, but it wouldn't pay for it. No, it wouldn't even pay for lunch, though. All right. Do we have a uh I'm going to close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? Motion to fund 4618 principal interest over CMount $325. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.

Next public hearing will be for fund 4908 EDA payments of $150,000. I'm open that uh to the public. Is there any public comments and uh questions from the uh council regarding this? Yeah, I'd like to comment that I think we ought to use EDA money for our own purposes. That's it's basically tiff money and it was intended uh initially for uh payment I thought uh for the addition of nine uh new deputies uh for the county that were due to um increased activity on the west side. We've absorbed six of those deputies into our budget. Three of them are still on the RDC budget and kind of the discussion at the time was that the first priority ED EDA money would be for uh payment of those deputies at least a money I think is for us that is a county and not for

Yeah. I was I was trying to remember, but we we were fairly specific when we drafted the first EDA about I mean I think we were brought in our language about public safety, but at the time like Jim said, we were adding deputies and we're like, man, it's going to take a long time, but this money is supposed to help pay for the sheriff's department. Does anyone remember something? But but hasn't EDA money also been used for Buck Creek? All the firefighters they added? No. No, not yet. Well, this is the first time that EDA's had any money in it. Yes.

That's why it hasn't been slated for anything else. I I I I agree with what Jim says, but I think this first time here, we're already too far in. the commissioners have control of this money. Okay. Um now we can agree not to even pay a budget. So we that's the only thing we have is we can say no but we can't tell them how they can spend this money because that's how the agreements were set up. There's nothing in that ordinance that says that. Kim no it's it says commissioner council right but the commissioners also control the RDC. We have to appropriate it. It's definitely

Well, and something else I was curious about cuz I want I was here then and I want to do what I said I was going to do, whatever that was, and it's been many years now. So, well, this this matches what what the thing says, fire and safety or you mean the EDA money was Oh, yeah. was I mean, it matches the It's not that they're doing something that's not allowable with the money. No, of course not. No, I think Jim's point was that it should be directed more to the uh unincorporated areas and and I think it's good that he raised the question so that township because that's where in the future it's thought of

but but this but this is this is a fire you know big firetruck ladder you need to have every department you know the big ones Buck Creek has one Vernon Shur Creek Greenfield because they're all going to the EDA area when if the if a fire ever breaks out you're going to need them right I know that's Sugar Creek is available for that. Yes.

And I'm not I don't have any cons with this particular request, but before we were to proceed with anything else, I don't see it as a decision of the commissioners because this is the fiscal body. And going forward, like I said, I don't have a problem with this, but going forward, I would like to reference what we said we were going to prioritize because I'm pretty sure we said the first thing we were going to do is with it and then maybe we didn't say that and I remember wrong. But secondly, going forward and this has come up with the opioid money. This has come up with grants, you know, money to nonprofits. Going forward, we need a process if we are going to give away money by which there is a window in which anyone can apply and requests can be benchmarked against each other to say we we went through a fair process in deciding how to allocate funds. It can't be first. It can't be first come, first serve. Yeah,

I'm fine with that. Well, then this is a good red flag for for this scenario, you know what I mean? Um to say, okay, in the future, we've got to have a little bit more thought on what what these dollars these dollars aren't coming in. We need to set our parameters. Okay. But yes,

the the EDA is an agreement. We don't have an agreement. The council doesn't have an agreement, I don't think, with anybody. The commissioners have an agreement with people. Maybe the RDC has an agreement, but the RDC is controlled by the commissioners also. So that's where the inline some of the now that's why I'm saying I don't really want to tell them now that this amount of money can't be used for what is because it it is a viable use and it you know for the scenario but we do have request from Buck Creek County multiple requests on there as well. Yeah, almost a million. They're they're doing it. I thought EDA money was for operating cost.

I looked at the it doesn't say that specifically, right? It can be used for operating cost also. The other the other money before the EDAS couldn't be used for operating. This just added operating to all the other things it could be used for when they did the EDA. Why isn't the RDC then since it's a capital expenditure? Why isn't the RDC? This is coming out of the RDC. No, no, this is EDA. Well, I know, but the EDA budget is inside the the uh the RDC stuff. Well, the EDA payments was to assist with Hancock County's operational costs for serving

our employees. So Deb, where's this EDA money sitting right now? Yeah. Why didn't they out of the RDC? Won't this take most of the funding the commissioner? That's what I'm asking. If this is a capital expenditure, we could always do that out of the RDC. Why is the 150 not coming out of the the RDC instead of Gilly? Can I answer that? Yeah. Yeah, please.

Thank you. I don't know how he knows. So this started almost 3 years ago and we are following the procedures that you guys set forth for us to come make this ask. It was put to us to come and ask for a major capital asset, not little expenditures here, little expenditures there. Um I think Mr. Fisk and I had that conversation. It was better to ask for a large capital asset as an outlay so that it was a program. And not only that, we went one step further. We made this so that it was a capital asset for the county. I want to be very clear. I'm not up here really on the behalf of me as fire chief for Sugar Creek. I would be supporting Mickey here. I would be supporting Flory. I would be supporting any of the organizations asking for this. This is a need for the county, not just Sugar Creek Fire Department. I want to be real clear about that. And then I want to clear up one other thing. You asked me about radios last week, Mr. Shelby.

Right. I went back and researched that because I didn't have your answer that day. The truth is, the truth is is we bought all of our radios in the beginning, Sugar Creek. As a matter of fact, we have donated our radios to the county. They're sitting at the dispatch center right now being used for EMA. So, no, you did not buy our radios originally. We purchased our own. This says we bought $60,000 worth. Well, I'm sure through the process now you have, but originally your ask was, did you buy your radios? Yes, Sugar Creek Township did buy their radios. What year was that? And you're not going to gone.

2012 or 2013, we bought all of our radios. Since we've upgraded since then, we gave all of our assets to Hancock County to be used for EMA and extra radios. They are sitting at dispatch currently. Yes. Now, I do have a great working relationship with Mr. Jukanis. We do work together to do that. But no, the your question was, did we buy a radio? Yes, we did buy our radios. Okay, then let's circle back around to this request here. The reason that the capital is not coming out RDC this year because it's not there $150,000. The RDC budget this year is is is below our risk tolerance. Yes, it

it's still going to have an ending balance, you know, but we have a risk tolerance that that Gary follows and we're below our risk tolerance because of all the stuff we've had to push in front to get done, the roads and all those things in a couple years, then the risk tolerance is gone. You know what I mean? Chief, let me be clear. I don't want to not help. It's just a matter most appropriate place in my mind. And and I 100% agree with you guys. We as the fire chiefs would like to know how we make those asks and what avenues we go. And I agree with you that if you guys had a set standard that we followed, we would follow that standard. I'm sure any public safety would. We would love that, you know. So, I 100% agree with you on that.

I recognize that no matter how much we help Buck Creek, if something happens in Buck Creek, it's going to require, as I said last week, we're there boundaries are boundaries, but in Hancock County, we're blessed. We don't follow those. We help each other, you know, we there is no border wars. So, could the RDC reimburse the EDA pay? Because it is a fact that we said, "Well, we don't need money for capital. That's no problem. We can do that with what we've got. We need money for non- capital." And that was the whole purpose of EDA. But the reimbursement won't come for a year or so. Yeah. Right. But can it be reimbursed? And Deb, that's a question. I

Does that require a resolution? I mean, it's a Scott question, I guess. I I'm pretty sure it could be reimbursed. I would want it in a resolution just so it doesn't fall through the cracks if you plan on Right. And can you make that for We've already done the budget for 2026. We make that reimbursement for 2027.

I would be I would even be okay with that. I just hate to We started this for a reason and then right out of the gate, we're diverting from the reason because the budget's low somewhere else where we normally would fund that. and and that's and that's fine and I'm not against it, but I would like to do what we said we were going to do with this particular fund. And if that money could come back later, even if it is in 2027, I would feel better about it. I agree with that. I I think we uh did not do a good job of uh writing out what we want to see the EDA money go to. You're learning. We're learning.

You got to realize money to show up and now that it's here, we're unprepared. the inventors, the inventors of the EDA and now that the laws have changes, there's been so much in this and the and and the EDAs that were originally set up and everything, even those changed and those people are not available. They're not available to come up here and talk to us about what their thoughts were. Some of them are in prison. So, we got to deal with with the aftermath of all of this. With that said, with that said, I think that we could do a better job of giving direction out to the uh emergency management or not emergency management, but the different entities that do public safety.

Would a resolution be drafted before we vote? Would we have to defer the vote until after the resolution? I think it should be done contemporaneously. That'd be the best way. I think Deb's right about that's the way to do it. And if there was a slight delay for us to put in writing that two years from now, we're going to reimburse this fund from another fund. H how does that affect you? So, to be honest, we we're just trying to get this project done because we're trying to work through the Senate Bill One stuff. We're trying to get things cleaned up, old projects done, new projects moving forward, laying out our budget. So, I mean, we would really like to

end this debt. You know, that was our full intention of saving the money, selling part of our rescue, and then this money going forward. It's just payment of debt, though. Yes. So it's good monthly.

The way the system was set up was that uh with the RDC capital money because it was all capital then uh they were going to set aside about half a million dollars per year for requests to come in from the public safety, you know, outside of the county. and they would have that fund to disperse the next year. That's the that's the system that's set up. Now, we've gotten away from that in that they've already spent $700,000 a year operating for Buck Creek. So, I guess they need to explain, do they still have the half a million a year coming from RDC? So, it was about two three years ago. If you remember, there was a three-year agreement uh signed with Buck Creek

to bring their system up to speed, right? 750,000 a year for like three years. At the same time, they still have the half a million a year in capital that they are using as a fund to respond to requests. No, bonding for the school eliminated all right the money. Well, no. Yeah. the the the school that 500,000 for everybody then turned into 750 for Buck Creek. The school gets 250. Um sheriff, the sheriff's department gets um

I don't know exactly now. You know what I mean? I mean, I have to look exactly cuz um the new request, but so the that one original, hey, we're just going to take 500,000 give to everybody. Um when I came on the board two years ago, the commissioner says we're we're not going to Buck Creek has the the the big biggest need at the time and they requested 3 million and we give them 750,000 for 3 years um in an agreement and we're still in the in the middle of that agreement, but there is going to be money available for capital expenditures still in the RDC budget. it. We have to get by the current projects first that's been set into motion. There's, you know, a a long-term program with Cordsville that's tens of millions of dollars. There's all the things that they're doing, you know, the roundabouts and all those things that have been set into place. This is kind of the pinch year for that stuff, which we should be spending that money. We shouldn't be sitting on $10 million. we should be down to where it's a risk tolerance situation until we get caught up with the roads and everything that we promised two or three years ago everybody we would

when you get into a cash flow u uh situation you just what you can with what you got right at the time right and that's why I said it isn't a an a problem to reimburse the EDA rather than looking for other places to get the money from it that that is a Wait in the future. I don't know why we would even have EDAs. Well, we because it's it's redundant now that the law has changed. We we don't now. I'm going to close the public hearing and did you have something Mickey you wanted to add? Thank you, Mary. You're welcome. Thank you. Want to make two points about the EDA

money um and Buck Creek RDC money. Um, number one, um, as I understand it, ED money, EDA money comes out of Buck Creek Township and and is to be used back in the taxing district. Now, we have no pro I know it's supposed to be for roads and public safety and schools and and that particular use is to help support um public safety in our township. So, I'm all for that. Believe me, I'm in line. If you set this precedence, I'm in line because, you know, we are behind on everything. The other um point that I'd like to make for the RDC money, again, RDC money comes out of TIFF money, Buck Creek money, again, we're generating all of this money. So, while I am eternally grateful that we were able to hire six um last year, we're still way behind. So, I I don't want it to I don't want you to think of this as, you know, this is a a one-time thing. We We are in our budget trying to um make sure that we've got money. So, if that because you won't resign the art the uhou that our budget will take care of that $750,000. We are budgeting responsibly as responsibly as I can with the pool of money that we have.

Y

but we are still way behind. The one other point I'll make is um the EDA money. Ye, yes, sheriff falls under public safety, but we have nowhere else to go for any money to fund the fire department or the township. The sheriff has the entire county in which he pulls tax money for. I'm not trying to say that you need to, you know, diss the sheriff at all. I'm all for public safety, believe me. But it is a point that for for Sugar Creek to come, that is one of the only ways that they have to be able to get money to pay off to support public safety in the tip district.

But that's a state problem and they've made it a yet I'm holding the checkbook. Yeah. Wait, so are you suggesting I'm confused that that um you think that you should have had the opportunity no to or or you are supporting the request? You know what? I'll support they support us. I will absolutely support them. And I think that it I think that it is the way that I read it and maybe I'm I'm wrong is that ED money EDA money was supposed to go back to support the TIFF district. They support the tiff district. I see what you're saying.

So it it's fine. The sheriff supports the tiff district. I mean, you can make that argument for all of us, but my point is that the sheriff has the whole county in which they um collect tax money from and the townships only have the areas in which we you were the reason we have the EDAs because we couldn't hire fire personnel. Okay. It wasn't just police officers. It was fire personnel. we couldn't hire a fire person for you without the EDAs. Now, after we did it, the state said, "Oh, well, that is kind of stupid that we don't allow them use the money for anything but buying a piece of equipment." And they changed that. But the reason we have the EDAs is because the Buck Creek Township Partn.

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing talking about spending on capital. Yeah. So, uh, is there is there anyone is there any action that anyone could could you have the appropriate ordinance by the next meeting that could be or resolution? I'm sorry. Yes. That could be voted on to say that this will be reimbursed in 207 uh and then 2027 26 is done. Oh, okay. Okay. and that and then I would feel comfortable moving forward. That's fine. Okay. Me too.

Okay. So then what's appropriate since this was a public hearing specifically if we were to table this just one meeting um do you have to do you have to do another public hearing or you're allowed to table to a specific

Well, we have to vote on either we have to table it or we have to vote on it. So, if we're going to table it till our next meeting, which would be the the budget meeting, then um I would say it's just going to there won't be a vote taken today and we'll put it on the agenda for the budget meeting and act on it depending on my my interpretation and prior reading of the law was that if you table it, as long as it's not indefinite and you assign a specific date, revisit it, you do not have to readvertise it. Is my understanding? That is accurate. Okay. So I'll make a motion to table this particular vote until the first Wednesday of September. Second. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. So and I intend to be supportive when we have our other document in place. Right. So So what I'll do is have the resolution available that day as well. Yeah. We can vote on that resolution and then we can vote on the All right. The next on the list is um public hearing for fund 7201 food and beverage an appropriation of $650,000. Is there any comments from the public?

Council, any questions? Oh, did we did I hear it that we have not received senior services reimbursements? Do we typically would we have typically already received those? We have received first quarter. Oh, okay. But um but it's it's diminishing. It's not at the full 100%. It went down to 75 and I think now I think it's at 50, but I don't have it in front of me. Um that's all right. So we have received the first quarter. That's that's it so far. And they're it's low. It's a state thing,

but does anyone know if they were to do away with reimbursements, how much notice would we have before it happens? Is that a quarterto quarter decision? When you think it'd be yearly, but I mean to do I mean they're passing laws that are implemented in July. You know, I don't know what to Okay, there's no more questions from the council. I'll close the public hearing. I move we u fund the food and beverage fund 7201 for 650,000. Second. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Last on the list is a request of an additional appropriation of fund 8892. Uh the public hearing is open for title 4E foster care $4,000. point out from the public that have any comments on that council. Any questions? Close the public hearing. I move we um accept to fund 8892 title. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. That puts us at the end of the public hearing and we will have Bern Township Flora. Good morning. I'm here both um on behalf of Vernon Township as the trustee and as the executive of the provider unit for Vernon Township Fire Territory. And I'm going to um probably echo a little of what uh Chief Klene um talked about a few minutes ago just in terms of um maybe a framework for um funding in the future as I talk through some of these items. Um I'm here really to talk about the uh the CIP requirement and um but this I think leads to other discussion and um so I had the uh riveting pleasure of sitting through both ways and means and uh the transportation committees at the state house uh last spring. I know you're all envious. And um in the last session, the legislature required that township submit uh their capital improvement plans to uh the county councils for review this August and uh that we use a mandated DLGF form as part of the road bill. I'm sure everybody is very familiar with this. Um it was very obscure and it was so obscure that we all got um all of the

townships. We just received the mandated template at the end of July. Um there's a challenge with the template in that it doesn't calculate correctly. So you have received ours. um you will see that it has a negative 408615. It is incorrect. It's because it tabulates incorrectly. We can't fix it. We've let DLGF know this. So you can look at this. I'm sorry. Do you have these in your packets? No, I don't think they do have them in the packets. Did you bring copies of

um No, it was sent to you and I thought you were going to put it in the Sorry, that was my bad. Go ahead and print that top. Um, so you'll you'll get that. I saw him looking. I'm like, I don't think they have it. Okay. So, you're Deb, you're going to

Okay. Um, so I'm just going to give you the bottom lines because quite frankly, it's not that it's not that big a deal. Um, all of the townships are to get you their capital improvement plans in August. The purpose and the real reason I'm here is I I think what you're going to find is it it isn't that big a deal, but it's going to be a bigger deal moving forward. The point of this whole exercise with the road bill was to determine if there was extra money in the township budgets to help fund roads. And we are all required to set up road funds. So, Vernon Township set theirs up last night and um we we had our township board meeting. We have approved our capital improvement plan. Um we have uh $16,55 that we will put into the road plan. and we have already identified anou that we will do with the town of Fortville um for a sidewalk project and for drainage in our tiff district that we have that we share. So my understanding is the purpose of these cip and the purpose of having the county review this is that you understand what we are doing with our money. But you're saying that that is not completed yet. The review has not been finished yet or the numbers aren't calculating correct.

Um, we have we have done ours. We know what it is. I'm just telling you the DLGF's form doesn't work. Okay.

We have sent Deb our capital plan with the numbers that do calculate correctly. We have also sent you the DLGF form with the formulas that don't calculate correctly. Does that make sense? Okay. So, you've got our capital improvement plan. We went ahead and did it because we did not receive their form until last week of July. Yeah, last week of July. not enough time to properly get back to anybody and have your meetings. Ours happened to work. It happened to work because we had already done our capital improvement plan because we did ours back in the spring with our fire territory. So,

is it fully funded by your tax rate, your capital improvement plan, or has the RDC's in the district uh budgeted or or or none of this speaks to how it will be paid for? It's just the intention of the capital improvement.

No, our capital improvement plan. So we have been doing since year one of forming our fire territory and it is just a normal portion of our budgeting. How much money do we have and what are we going to do with our capital and how are we going to replace vehicles? How are we going to replace apparatus? Um when do we need a station? How much money do we need to save? Um we do not have a ladder truck. Um so we have been saving since year one. Um we have been focused heavily on our um insurance rating and we went from a 710 split which is not good. Uh to this past April we got a three which is a huge huge improvement. Um the one big thing we are missing is a ladder truck. Um, I was the reason I was so interested in going to Ways and Means and Transportation was the uh their analysis of our budget showed that Vernon had $5 million in excess. I was I wanted to find out where that $5 million was. Well, as it turns out, their analysis was our debt on our two stations and our payment on our um apparatus

assets. I don't know how they do our their analysis. I would like to understand that. Um and our savings interest Indiana, we have 1.68 68 sitting for our contract for our ladder truck. And you know how long it takes to get a ladder truck? Chief Klein does. Years. Years. Uh we contracted last year and we will get it next year. I it's it's uh disheartening to me that um

I know what the growth is up there in Vernon Township because I live in Vernon Township that you're telling us that the two municipalities RDC's are not giving or participating in any of the uh help that you need to Oh no that's no that is not what I said the RDC's do not that's who I'm referring to is

but the two towns have given substantially of their fire rate and if you look at the way our fire territory Tory is funded. It is almost completely from the two towns. The township is a tiny portion of our fire territory funding. And the rate, the reason that we were able to fund our fire territory and the reason that we have been successful in moving forward is because when we formed the territory, we were able to go from that 0.03 03 and move to the 0.52 that we have we have now. So no, the towns have been it not only supportive, but the two town council presidents sit on fire territory board and the two town councils vote on every single thing we do. Um

I was referencing the RDC's, not the towns. Yeah, the RDC's have not been supportive. I I as in as in requests have been declined or it's been mutually agreeable that since the towns themselves have provided the funding they have that it is appropriate not to approach the RDC or you've been declined by the RDC. There's been some negotiations that have been difficult. Why don't we leave it at that? Okay. Yeah. At this point, what is your fire rate? Just curious. 0.52. Pardon me. 0.52 52 52 cents per 100. Okay. I have a couple questions. Oh, sorry. I thought you were done. Go ahead.

And I'm surpris you said that uh some money is going for roads. So, we will put $15,000 in the road fund and it will go towards anou with the town of Fortville. townships were doing roads and so the trans yeah the the new bill that went through the house bill that I was that I was referring to um that went through in the legis this past legislature uh townships are now required to set up a road fund really blows my mind with them already being strapped why you would be asked to give any

it's in the it is the I send an email to Deb which outlines exactly what's happening and it it is to it is to financially um pull away um funds from from townships townships. It's they hate townships. Yeah, they've made it perfectly clear they're trying to get rid of township. So what do they hope by creating this new requirement that you report your capital improvement plans to us? What is it they hope to achieve

through that process? That is a great segue to the bigger picture of why I came. Um is I so I think the first step in this as I said is that the county would be aware if there are any funds that would be available for county roads and so that probably would be more likely to happen with townships that are completely unincorporated. I have two towns so it is more likely that my money would be withus with the towns. Um, I think the bigger picture of these CIPs goes into effect once we move into the effects of Senate Bill One and we start looking at the impact of lit and we start looking at the realities of how much of our lit, not public safety lit, our lit, the township lit is funding township fire And so in my case, I transfer all of my township lit to my fire department. All of my lit is now going to go away in the future.

And that is how much annually? Um we're looking at almost a million dollars. Yeah. And that's 2.2. And that's not being replaced. That is just simply money going away. No. when I spoke to we're trying to clean things up, it's so we can overcome that deficit. I mean, we are strapped. Yes. All three of strapped.

So, so my reason for coming today was I believe the CIPs I I think you know what you're going to get from each of us. This is the beginning of the discussion. This is the future of the discussion and we need to figure out what the format is and and that was my question to Deb is how are we going to start having the discussion of where we're going with Senate Bill one. It's not really about the road bill. I I mean bluntly you're going to get peanuts from from all these townships. There's not enough money out there. They have tiny budgets. Um, and most of mine comes from two towns. You're not going to get that money. Um, even if we were dissolved, if you took Vernon Township alone, so what? The tiny money. So, I I really think we need to start looking at I I would encourage the council to start looking at these CIPs. Um I am assuming you're you are going to ultimately get them from all of the townships and that we would look to the county to say how do you want this process I assume you don't want them peace mill um and that's how you're going to get them right now and that there should be some sort of review process in terms of you're getting apparatus and operations and you're going to get all of these these pieces. We can do this smarter.

Does what would make sense in preparing for the future? Um, do we need a a professional in this space to do a study? So, options for the 10-year plan or I think so because um I know there's been the request for the fiscal study on fire. I would partner that with a look at um the impact on and I think they added to it the impacts of Senate Bill one. I think the commissioners funded okay

that study. I think the council needs to piggy back on that and start looking at, okay, how does that impact and how do these capital improvement plans come into effect and start looking at, okay, what are the real impacts? If the the commissioners said funded already from their budget the some analysis. So you said they already funded it, right? It's

Yes. So when we when we talk about council piggybacking, does that mean there is a need for excess to what's already been approved or I think a plan needs to come out of that because the reality is if you go back and you you're going to have to set a rate and you're going to have to be aware of what the impacts are there's a requirement to set a rate. It it includes the territories at point4 that let

Did you have a deadline that this was supposed to be presented to the council? I'm sorry. Did you have a deadline date that capital improvement plan needed to be submitted to the council? August. August 1st. August. August. So we August. You're the first, as you said, of of all the township. So, I think be good on our half is to receive the others and then maybe do a little bit of our own studying and figure out what we think we need to do. Gotten another one emailed and and there's so many tabs. So, it's been emailed to you. If you've got a copy there that is printed out, we'll take it and make copies of it. Okay.

But they're starting to come in now. I think it's new. So there may be some people that miss it. Um but they're starting. I mean I got hers and I'm like I hadn't even heard about this yet. So So even the townships with volunteer departments are supposed to do that or is this every single township? And if they do not submit their CIPs, if they do not upload them into Gateway by the end of September, I know they will not receive their budgets. Couple that don't. I didn't know that. So it's a very serious deal. Thank you. so much for this to us and and saying everything we needed to know because this is new for us as well. We didn't get the memo otherwise. I think a lot of people didn't. Had you heard that?

Yeah. I just want to speak to what Lory's saying also. Ours will not be done by August. It's impossible because our our accountant's not prepared to have it done by then yet. And plus, we have to present it to the DLGF by September. So, we're giving you numbers that we don't even know that are approved. So, the system's backwards. Would you agree, Fy? What's the punishment if they don't turn in? Well, I think this initial step, just like anytime, they're throwing these laws down. I mean, all of our um tiff neutralizations are going to be late this year because they've changed our deductions and and factors that we have to use. So, it's just that's just part of the growing pants. First year is going to be probably a little bit slower, but we'll get it. They'll get it to us. Okay. So I think you know to my point is

motion my reason for coming today was saying these are the changes that are coming and we need this is the process that's going to be forward. I'm bringing mine as the hey, we're here. We need to have these conversations. Road bill, township rates going forward. And oh, by the way, there's going to be a whole bunch more of these coming. Could we please organize this so that we're not doing this peace meal?

I probably should have just said that one sentence right in the very beginning. I hope this was what you need right now from the commissioners to move forward with a with a project to hopefully I think we've gotten a good start um in terms of that that hopefully will help inform the process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the time. was talking about this said

good morning. Hello. Hello.

Um should be relatively easy. Uh I did have a question in our 2100 fund. Um we had four positions that I had asked for more than 3% that were reduced back to 3%. Um, in line 113 0, I have the two salaries equaling 82,354. It looks like that is $1 more than what is put into. So to me, it's $1 short. And in the subsequent line 11602, there are two secretaries. I have that total as 87978 which is $2 short um of where I have it at. I don't know how I go about

correcting those errors in LA since that's now locked. Um but I wanted to make sure we weren't falling short on those appropriations. Is that for the 26 budget? Uh that's the 26 budget under 2100. Yes, sir. Okay. Reduced back down to 3%. So we re we we can still make changes, right? Yeah, we make ch if you make the motion, we'll make the changes. Okay. All right. Um what about this uh salary increase that was typed up the $600 that you're referencing in fund 2100?

So um I need to we did not get the grant that we expected in from the IDOC. So that affects uh 2100 as well. So there'll be a change uh in line 12003 in fund 2100. We will have to move that to $63,997 that will incorporate that $600 or whatever. Then we'll also have to change uh three lines in 9126 which is the IDOC grant for6. Total grant was reduced to $45,798. Um just so you guys are aware um the Indiana Department of Corrections eliminated several programs completely from their grant funding. Uh, probation across the state looks like it took roughly a 20% hit. So, I'm happy that we got anything. Um, I hate that we lost money, but I'm happy that we got something. Um, so we divided that 45798 up. Um, the salary portion in line 120003 will be 38,000. Even the FICA portion under line 12400 will be 3225.

The Perf line 126000 will be $4573. Say that again. I'm sorry. Need all three, which is 4500. 4573 and that should account for the changes we've seen. um that were affected by the grant budget. We're talking about two funds 2100 and 9126. Yes, ma'am. Um the change made in 101 with our office manager, you guys changed that in LA. So that is also reflected in the 140.

Any questions? Uh these are additional appropriations, correct? Yes. No, these are just budget changes. I said that incorrectly. We haven't approved the budget yet. So yeah. So this is just adjusting the totals to be accurate to be accurate. Yes. Gotcha. I'll put them down 144. Dollar here, a dollar there. Jim made a motion to second. You got to let me finish talking sometimes, Kent. No. All right, now you can say go sit down there. We have a first and a second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. Thank you.

Isn't it amazing? We had a dollar here and a dollar there. We got it correct. Right. But we got to read these into the minutes correctly. So, Well, you couldn't have read that back over. No, but I was still trying to get it to where Deb could get it into her minutes properly. You got it. Yes. Chicken. Okay, Sheriff Burkhart, it's clean as mud. [Music]

Good morning. You're going to donate the commissary to the county. I try to donate as much I can to things and purchase things. Um, you should have in your packet a letter um to request an addition to my comment area expenditure list um following that statute that the sheriff and the council have to agree upon. And so I want to add um onto that list cost related to performing actual studies for the Hancock County Police Retirement Benefit Plan. And the reason I want to do that is is I want to do some studies, but I don't want it to those studies cost money and I don't want it to pull it from the fund.

Don't you already do this like once every couple years or once a year? I know we did this when I was on the Well, depending on whether Well, this is a study to see if there's some changes can be made, you know, whether it's uh, you know, decreasing the retirement age based off of what I'm seeing with the mental health and public safety. you know, do some just some other things in increasing death benefits, um, colas. So, I want to be able to try to do some actuator studies, but each one costs a certain amount of money to do. And so, I just don't want to pay for it and pull it from the pension plan itself. I want to be paid for it separate, do it that way. So, that's why I want to do that. Commissary. You have sufficient funds in commissary. Absolutely. He's got a lot. Absolutely.

And we don't have to vote. You just have to make notice to us. Just have to make notice. They changed that. It's just got to be in the minutes that I did that. They don't require the resolutions any longer to do that. So, I just need a I guess Yep. approval to have it in the minutes. The record shall reflect. I make a motion. We approve it. Yep. Um, do we need a motion? Probably. So, just make a motion for the minutes to approve. It's in there. I'll second Jim's motion. Okay, we have a first and a second. All in favor? I motion carries.

All right. Thank you very much. Real quickly, I just want to um tell Jim, I know there was a conversation at the bud budget committee meeting on the level six formula and we talked about that formula 1.2 million that we used to give for level six money. Um the what the level six money that we used to get the formula I just wanted to update. So so that money so la so they go on a fiscal year and so last year in 2024 and July we got the 1.2 2, right? Which runs all the way till June 30th of this year. So, we got paid ahead.

So, now I start billing again because that's that they changed it. So, I start billing in July of this year. And so, I won't have any money in that fund. That's why there's nothing there because we already received it last year. So, I' I've we've done our first bill. We just sent it in and it was for 75,000. Uhhuh. And so I have no idea what it's going to be, but now we are billing back like we were before. So I just want to kind of let you know on like this calendar year. Do you have an estimate of what that will be? I'm sorry. Do you have an estimate? Well, I don't know. I mean, be great if I did 75,000 each month, but I don't know what month to month.

Yeah, it's going to be month to month. I mean, I don't know. It could change. So, I mean, if you take 75,000, if it was going to be that every month, okay, maybe you could figure off that, but I don't know that it's going to be that because it's about nights stayed by level six, right? It's how often we that's how many level sixes we can we have in our facility that don't go to DOC and then we're we're retaining them here because they changed where the judges can now send some back to the county versus send them all to DOC. So, if they stay here the entire time, we bill for the entire time. Yeah. The rate went from what to what? So, the PDM went to $42 from 37.50. $42 a day to It was 3750. Now it's 42.

Oh, it went up. I thought we were talking about losing level six money. Of the rate. So, the rate changed, right? Yeah. back in 15 when the state couldn't pay for it all, they went to a formula and they just and they based it off of I think I don't know 17 18 year I can't remember what year they based it off of but they basically just said hey we're going to pay you this flat fee okay and they've been paying this flat fee for the last three or four years well now that's changed and so now we went back to the billing process okay and so that billing goes back now it's the $42 a day which we're going to it's going to decrease what our norm normal normal was. Yes.

Um because now we're billing direct off what we had. But the rate itself didn't go down per No, the rate actually went up. So it went from 3750 to 42. And if you're 75,000 a month, why you'll be pretty good if that's what it would say. Now I said I can't guarantee that, but I know in July I just signed the first claim and it was for 75. Okay. Okay. Very good. All right. Just so you know, can you just hold level six people a little bit longer than Oh, that's up to the judges. It's up to the judges whether I hold them here, whether they go to doc. And so I'm being physic. I know. All right. Okay. Just thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. We have next on the agenda, Morgan with the community correction. Good morning. We'd had some issues with getting the numbers to fall in line with what we thought they should be for the budget. And we'd asked you to work with the auditor and get a new 144 submitted and that you both agree on the numbers that are in 144. Yeah. Deb, did you guys do that? We did. We discussed everything and then I got a 144 last night. Oh, I had printed that off and brought it down here, but I don't see it. We have it. We can make it. We can make

Yeah, we have it. We'll make copies. Um the my explanation I think Morgan's might be a little bit different, but I'm going to let her explain to you.

No, it's okay. So what I had what I had found is I had previously said that she could disperse some of her one you you had previously discussed that you she could disperse one of her employees that she was not going to bring in at the higher amount. So she took $5,000 from there and dispersed it throughout um her team. And then you had authorized $1,000 per six case managers to disperse throughout which kind of raised that before she applied the 3%. So our calculations were good other than the fact that it wasn't communicated from my office to Morgan well that she was different. She couldn't use any of that dispersement from that one employee. So, she had applied that to hers, then did the 3% making it look like 4%. And I explained to her that we had to remove ourselves from that.

Yeah. Cuz what we basically did was we did the we did everyone's and then the 3% on everyone's and then every single person including myself, we did the same raise for. Um, and so after we talked to Deb, we we fixed that. So, we should we I think we're good now. So, so I mean if but now that's the question that I had. If your intent was for her to do that dispersement, apply that thousand dollars, then do the 3% and fix her salary, then then we're good. If that was not your intent, then you guys need to have that discussion. So, the $6,000 was granted after the budget was um established for 2025. So, what we saw in the budget book did not include the $6,000. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. And that was the same with that extra salary because that we added that position in September. So it was after those budget hearings. So that extra salary wasn't in your budget books either because it happened after the fact. So we believe after meeting with Deb um that everything is correct at this point. And I haven't looked at this 144, but this was the only because you paid out two two funds and this is the only one that you changed, right? Yeah. This uh this is only for fund 1122. That's because the grant wasn't changed at all. It couldn't be changed. And we talked about that at the very first hearing. So the only changes were to this account.

And I just want to ask something else. Now, don't you rotate like every other year between grants? So sometimes it'll look like it's a lot higher when it wasn't. It's just it wasn't paid out of that particular fund the previous year. We used to have to send back anything that wasn't used. We used to have to send it back. But now what they do is they keep it in that account and we we rotate every other year different accounts and then whatever was left over they basically um just decrease it from our our grant amount that year to to make it equal. So that's why every other year it's going to show a zero.

Well, I just took whatever this was that you gave us and I corrected the executive director uh to uh 3%. That's what we did. Yeah. And then I just took the rest added it up comes at 421630 did 3% and I came up with 438 630. So, I don't know about whether that adds up to that or not, but and that's without those changes that you had said that she could make before that with that extra basically $11,000, right? That Yeah.

So, that's just in in how you want to look at it. This is what we came up with. But again, did you want her to do those things before she added that 3% or not? That's the That's right. where the discrepancies are. Um, you know, 3% on $6,000 is $180 gross dollars a year across six humans. So, I'm flexible and not getting in the weeds on that. Um,

well, I was hoping we'd have just a clear path that your numbers and any numbers that would ran through us would match up. And we do. We do. I mean, that's what we met with Deb on and Deb said that they do. So, I we do have that. It depends on if you add that extra money in or not. And I don't know how else to explain that. And that's up to you guys to do what you want to do there.

I I would be in favor. I mean, I think everybody recalls she came in, we talked about having degrees and higher educational attainment for some of the consulting functions they do with their clients. They moved that those funds, you know, across those folks. Um reducing the deputy director also to a case manager. Whether or not it someone wants to argue that 3% should or shouldn't have been applied to that 6,000. I mean, I'm open to maybe it shouldn't have been. I'm open to hearing that. But again, it's $180 across six people. So, We were told that first time

I'm thinking that the 3% would be applied to the 6,000. But I would think also that that $1,000 had been added into that salary. So then we could come up with a grand total times three like Jim was uh alluding. So um I don't know. Um you're saying that the fund 9122 budget was approved as presented. Well, it had to be because it was the grant. We couldn't make changes to the grant, which is what we just we discussed at the first budget hearing. So, all of the changes were just made to the one fund, not the other. 1122.

So, it may look like it's a bigger increase, but it's because we're the increase is all hitting the one fund, but it also is a, you know, the percentage is being applied to another fund that can't in correct. I would like to um adjust or make sure I on here. The part-time monies was at 25,000 and if you add 3% that the total for 202 we didn't add 3% to the part. Let me finish the that the total would be 25,750 for the part-time monies that uh would be with the 3%.

That's as I recall it being listed on the U budget book. Uh would you entertain a motion or there's still question? Does anyone have any questions or do you guys understand it? Agreed with the M180 just like what you said. I mean it's over. Yeah. If that's the only problem that we have is the $180. I think we're fine. Yeah. Yeah. Plus the 3 Well, that is the 3%. But uh beyond that, do all the other numbers line up? I guess it's my number. I wasn't aware about that. If you tell me 3% that's what it'll be in our

um now oh sorry real quick that one is spirit that should be 8750 right

let me just clarify the total 521 82 is it the 521828 8 that is with the 3% your 2026 salary column is the column that we're looking at with the exception of um Morgan's salary that needs to go down to the 3%. Okay. But the the 2026 salary column other than this number, the other numbers, if we're okay with the percentage on top, then those numbers you're saying are right. Yes, the 527 number.

Deb, mine has been fixed on on this that just got passed out. That that's it's been fixed on that. It's correct. Yeah, we were just putting everything side by side. I think you saw that. Pass that one. I don't know if I pass didn't get that. We just That just got passed down to you. Okay. I'm sorry. I do. I do. That's the only half. Yeah, I'm trying to think of of the clearest way to make my motion. Uh, so so the 520 Deb, you're saying the 527005 number is correct other than needing to reduce the top line to the 80 87.

Okay. So, I'll make a motion then that we approve the 2026 salary request uh as presented with the exception of reducing Morgan's top line item from 88,375 to 87,550. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Did we address the um part-time help at the budget hearing or do we need to address that now? I know we didn't discuss it. Okay. I I would just want to see that increased by the 3% as well because that's what we tell everybody else to do. Okay.

So, um we can have a motion on that. It should be uh part-time help for 2025 was 25,000 plus 3% would be 25,750. Is that fun 1122? Uh yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I make a motion we approve uh the part-time line item in fund 1122 by 3%. Robin's been so quiet. Second. Time for to speak. Don't push. She'll get there. Just count yourself lucky. Do I have a second? I did. Yeah. Second. Okay. All in favor? Motion carries.

So maybe next year we can make this a little easier for everybody. thing. You're welcome. I take a break. You need a break. Yeah, we have a request for a break.

All motion. I got a lot of minutes here. You don't think we broke enough? Okay. Uh, did anybody say they wanted a fivem minute break? Yes. Somebody made that request. I I've seen heads going like that. I'll second that. Okay, everybody beat it. All right. Oh, by the way, happy birthday, Sheriff. Oh, happy birthday. Should we sing? Should we sing, Sheriff? Well, somebody that can carry a tune can say I can carry a me.

I mean, I'm awful. Restrain mightily. There you go.

Uh, we'll uh get started at 10:15. We were supposed to meet with Morgan Walker or excuse me, 10:30. Am I 10:15? I was right the first time. 10:15 DD Allander for an employee discussion. I got a call this morning from the um from um Bill Spalding asking us to remove it from the agenda that they were going to have discussion before they make their recommendation. So yes, that's not here for now. And now we're ready for um I was looking for you. I couldn't see your head. The post Oh, I didn't I just didn't I was like I hadn't seen you. No, Lisa. I know. We can't see you. I can't I couldn't even see you.

Good morning. Didn't know she was out there either.

I am here about your general obligation bonds. So, you're one of your very straightforward. It's not a controlled project, so you're not subject to petition remmonstrance or referendum. Uh it does count against your debt limit, but you're well below your constitutional debt limit. So, there's no real extra procedures that we have to do for this. So, I did hand out a new timetable. The only changes are with respect to the notice of additional appropriation. Uh I had it to be delivered today, but your meeting's not till September 10th. So it can be delivered next week to be published on the 27th. My question will be the last time I had a additional appropriation hearing. You guys wanted me to put 9:30 in the notice. So I don't know what time you want me to put. I can put 8:30 and it can be sometime after that or I can set it for a time. So that's the only question I have on that

and I'm fine however you guys want to do it because you can go later just not earlier. Okay. This is the September 10th meeting we're talking about. Correct. Um I would say whatever I don't know if they've already started adding things to our agenda for I don't know what time slot would be. Yeah. You can tell me after. We can do 9:30 and and we can change some things around if we need to. Okay. 9:30 and then we'll we will deliver that notice then for you and I'll copy you and Deborah

9:30 okay so today we're only asking for introduction of two ordinances I don't know if you have ordinance numbers the first would be the the bond ordinance thicker not too thick actually thicker document um page pages two and three are the main sections of this ordinance they are the maximum parameter s that we were provided by financial solutions group. So the bond size is not to exceed 6.5 million. Of course you can come down from that uh before you do an actual sale of the bonds. Uh at the bottom of that page you'll see maximum interest rate page two section one. Um we're looking at 4 and a half% maximum interest rate. Um hopefully we get lower than that based on whenever the sale uh is not sell is not to occur until mid to late October. So I would expect rates have dropped by then but we don't know yet. So four and a half is the maximum though.

Is there an ordinance number

202-8 C? Okay. And then at the top of the next page, page three, you will see that it is to mature no later than 12 years. I think the amortization schedule Greg has shown you is intended to be 10 years, but it's got one payment that goes beyond 10 years. So I just put maximum of 12 so that they can play around with that depending on where we are at the time of the sale and it may end up being 10 and a half years or something like that. So maximum of 12. um callable after 10 years, which is your normal protection period for a bond purchaser. So that helps give us the best interest rates. And we did, you may recall that we did have you adopt a reimbursement resolution before you started providing funds on the fairgrounds. Um and the fairgrounds, you'll see exhibit A on this ordinance has the list from the board of commissioners. Um, I said one or more of these projects if if you so that you don't have to do all of them and I also added just all the the things that go and are related to those projects that are that you find you're needing for those projects. So, um, the specific projects are there, but we have a little bit of flexibility with respect to each of those, but you would be able to reimburse yourselves for expenditures that you made already to the fairgrounds if you choose to do that.

Good. Um, so that's that's flexibility. If you choose not to do that, then maybe your bond size is that you actually sell is lower than the 6.5. But obviously, again, we're here to provide you with the flexibility to make those budget decisions. I mean, now that it's all in place, I believe it was the reimburse. That was the discussion for sure and we put everything in place for you to be able to do that.

So that is the bond ordinance. And then would the additional appropriation ordinance be 20258D or I don't I don't know how your numbering goes. Okay. So then we also just we're just introducing the additional appropriation ordinance. I don't know if it's in your packet. It's one page. Yes, it's in there. Uh all it's doing is uh setting the date for the hearing September 10th at 9:30 for a maximum appropriation not to exceed 6.5 million. Lisa, can I just check for clarification? So, I have two that need numbers. Is that correct? Or are you saying three? No, two. Two. Two. Two. Okay. So, the first one that we did assign the number for, was it this one or It was the bond ordinance.

It was the bond orders, which we don't have because they're only introd They're only introducing 8- What? Yeah, we've got both of them. Yeah. So, that is 2025 C. 8 C. Okay. And this one would be Yes. I was I had them backwards. Thank you. So those are the just two straightforward ordinances that we just want you to introduce and then we will uh have the public hearing at September 10 meeting and hopefully adopt both ordinances.

Lisa, one question. So, one item mentioned specifically in the geo bond um which is the Lucas devices was given the quote the the price on those was a guaranteed price through a certain date that is likely to fall very close to the sale of this bond. Okay. Is there any flexibility? You can pay for it ahead of time and then reimburse yourself. These funds post or is there a 30-day window by which you could without a resolution for reimbursement? We already adopted the resolution. So, we didn't we didn't specify the resolution that you could only um reimburse for the fairgrounds.

Okay. It did say I think it's for it's broad for anything that you expend. Okay. Just want to make sure it's so close and timing. Gotcha. And we're not signing these today since we're just introducing them. So, it's just a motion to introduce. Shall they be and move them to? I think so. Okay. I'll I'll start with a motion to introduce general obligation bond ordinance number 2025-8 C. Second. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. I'll um make a motion to introduce um ordinance number 2025-8D. Second. All in favor? I oppose. Motion carries. Perfect. Thank you. I will see you on September 10th. Thanks, Lisa. Thanks, Lisa. Thank you. Thanks, Lisa. And that is the end of our um time slotted Wes. Um, auditor business. Do you have anything, Deb? Um, I do not have any auditor business. Hey, um, this is going to be our next Well,

oh, yeah, it's in it's on there specifically. Oh, it is. Okay. Oh, okay. What which one are you alluding to? The 27th pay. Just keep going down the list. Let's just go ahead and uh discuss that right now, then.

Yes. So Dev and I talked I know she's had a lot of conversations um about the 27th pay that we've realized falls based on the calendar year in 2026. Uh I suggested that we switched to being paid twice a month, changing payroll to twice a month, the 15th and the last business day of the month. Uh that would eliminate that issue perpetually. it would wouldn't cost any more money than what we already agreed to budget for the next calendar year. Trying to give everybody a a 27th extra paycheck is $850,000. So, I think it makes sense to just change to pay twice a month,

which we can probably do, but I believe state board of accounts, they recommend the 26 pays, and that's why we've always done it.

They do recommend that. I have had an opportunity to speak with other counties and no one does that just because of the complexity and there are several there there's times that people would go three weeks without a paycheck and then you're not compliant with the labor law for the 10 hours um of making sure that they're paid within 10 days of overtime. And that's something that Scott would have to to dive into. I'm not a legal expert in any way. I know Sherry's done some calculations based on FSG's recommendation. So, I I did hand that out. So, you all have this sheet. Um, but Sherry, did you want to talk to the twice a month versus she's got some this and this is Sherry Cole. She's one of my payroll girls and she actually was there when we actually did the benefits and a lot of the HR. So, she has some expert knowledge in this area.

Good morning. Good morning. She put a p a title on you there. She also worked for for Disney. She did their payroll. So yeah, she did payroll for Disney. So good.

If we pay 26 pays as we do now, we pay in a rears. Doing 24 pays is going to bring us up to pay current, which means there are going to be weeks where I have to estimate how much an hourly employee is going to work and their overtime and pay them before they've actually worked it. So, it it it brings in an element that I I would suggest we not get into if possible because right now we're paying in rears. We're paying what's correct and we don't have any questions about whether or not it's been worked. Yeah, I state board of accounts does not let us pay in advance. Something we should do not let us back in.

What would that that would be under what? By paying twice monthly. Mhm. Because you're paying about 15 days in that month at the first payroll and then who knows how many days could be. Well, I wasn't referring to changing anything about the way hourly people are paid. I'm talking only about salaried employees. And perhaps there are rules I'm not aware of that pertain to government, but every international publicly traded brokerage firm that I ever worked at paid twice a month. And I know they can't all be violating labor law unless they're specific rules for Indiana or Huh. That's that's not an issue.

Yeah, it's these are just the things that we've been being told. And I am not an attorney. So, I would I would defer to Scott. Stateboard of account says you can do it, but it's going to be extremely difficult and there are laws that you have to make sure that you navigate through those payrolls. Explain to me what's extremely difficult about dividing salaried employees. I'm going to let her explain that is I I don't know. Do you are we dividing them? Well, if we have we have both types of and hourly. Are you saying they'd be paid on two different time? Yes. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, the hourly I don't really care. We can't do that. We don't have the manower. We can't do that. We can't have That'd be payroll going forever. I mean,

we wouldn't have the manpower to do payroll consistently every week with the hired person. Instead of having one payroll system, we have How does the rest of the world do every company except one that I've worked for paid twice a month? Yeah. I I don't know if it's just because of government restrictions that us being a government office. I don't know. My I think my daughter gets paid. I think it comes down to those being salaried employees that are exempt that are paid twice a month. So a salaried employee is going to make the same amount. Yeah. Every on the 15th and the 20th. An hourly employee is always going to be different, right? Because the days they work are different.

But you're always going to have to do some manual data entry on that because they are hourly and they may or may not work the same amount of hours each week. So they're always Yes, ma'am. But we have actual data of what they worked as opposed to my estimating on Thursday that Joe worked eight hours and Joe pulled a 12-h hour shift with over time would be appropriate to estimate. Yeah, I was going to say I've been through the this twice and we found out that the hourly is really the issue and we can't have two different sets of

Right. Well, in in the absence of just paying a salary twice a month like I was always accustomed to, then people's checks are just going to go down in my opinion on the 27th pay. I mean, just saying, well, because the way the calendar falls, we're going to give you an extra paycheck that cost taxpayers almost an extra million dollars a year to me is not an option. So when you divide their salaries by 27 pays, even though they got a raise, it will appear that their pay went down next year. And as hard as we try to communicate that their pay is what they think it is and it's just divided by by more, you know, most people think paycheck to paycheck and it will feel like their their pay went down. And I'm okay with that, too. Um, I don't consider coming off an extra $850,000 for a 27th pay as an option whatsoever.

A suggestion that was made that I was told though that is something to think about is that we do fund a 27th and I think it was around $800 $850,000 to do that and then possibly caveat that with understanding there will not be any raises for the next year. Well, well, oh, that'd be a pay cut the following year if you did that. We'll become the most notorious gang of seven of all time. No, you can't do that. You, you know, Well, there are counties that are doing pay cuts this year because one, but we do have if you guys could Could Sherry walk you through? How's that a Because you're going to go from 26 27 to 27 and then next year you only get 26 of those.

So, that's a pay cut of a whole paycheck. Oh, may I suggest that there is another way to look at the 800? She's got a suggestion. Thank you. So, this year right now, you approved 3% over what we're spending this year, which is $653,000. This is on that sheet. Um, if we did an extra pay, it would be 838,000. So, you it's a $184,000 decision versus an $800,000 decision because you've already decided you want to do 3% over what we got this year. When I had inquired what eliminated by cost of a 27th payroll would be all that work for nothing.

It it would be the 838 but you've already approved 653 thinking we had 26 payrolls because you approved 3% over what we're doing this year. So you had that 650 plus set aside and I'm saying make it 800 plus and do 27 pays and the raises all incorporated in7 they're one extra pay that makes sense and then moving forward then you do what you want because this won't happen again till 2037

but I do agree you know these numbers compound the thing about giving raises each year in percentages is the next year you're giving that percent on top of the extra percent that you did the year before and the year before and the year before. So, it's just how investments accumulate. You know, if I put in $100 today, I'm making interest on that and then next year I'm making interest on my $100 plus my interest. And that's what happens with raises. And so, if we did a 27th pay after we've already agreed that 3%, we've held feet to the fire in July on 27 on 3%. Then I don't think we go over that now and then we compound on top of that with a raise next year. Like Mary said, I mean if we did a 27th pay, are we saying no raises next year?

Going to say, Debbie, what are most of the counties doing? Everybody runs into this there. There's the majority of the county is either doing the 27th pay or they're just carrying it out over 27 pays. And this would not be a pay increase. I would make the same amount every two weeks as I'm making this year. I just get one more check. Right. So then the next year you'd be looking at my rate and saying, "Are you going to give a percentage?"

But but I guess the thing is when you and I talked, I said, "Yeah, if we do the 27 pay, it's going to be another $800 some,000." Well, I wasn't thinking about what Sher just said. We've already agreed to increase that by 600 and some thousand at 3%. you add FSG's recommendation was to just go ahead and extend that to the 3.85 which is an additional 184. So that's really all we're talking outside of what you've already decided for July. So that's that's what we've got. But that's what the counties are doing. They're either carrying that out over the 27 pays or they are making sure that people are paid on that. want to do anything that reduces their check that they're already used to getting if we extend this out over 27.

Yeah, I agree. Because there's people out there that live check to check and it won't help them if they get the money at the end of the year keeping their lights on and you know everything going with their house, their kids and everything all year long if they're getting less money. Well, there's three months where you get a whole extra paycheck is the whole problem with bi-week. So, most people's expenditures are monthly. Your auto insurance is monthly. Your mortgage is monthly.

They don't pay them all monthly. They pay them there could be those spread over four weeks, four Fridays or four whatever. That those your light bill and your gas bill and your mortgage and car bills all don't come due at the end of the month. They come sporadically through the month. And with that, they need to have that consistent income. I see what you're saying, but you know, kind of as she said, you're talking about the same amount of dollars a year. Now, if you don't budget them appropriately, then I just I also don't want checks to go down. I I don't I don't understand how so many people do twice a month pay in corporate and it's impossible. Well, I'm saying it's going to be very difficult to be honest and and I that was my idea. I thought I I thought that would be a perfect solution until you dig into it in logistics and all of the the different ways that we pay people. We have we have much many more people that are salary and hourly than we do exempt and the exempt people that works well for them.

So on salaries let's say we decide to allocate 3.85% 85% do the 27th pay, their salary in the salary ordinance will go up by 3.85% this year, not by 3%. That's correct. Correct. And so next year when we do a raise, we're doing a raise on top, you know. We're raising on a 3.85% raise, not just a 3% raise. Correct. That's my point. I I get it. We are agreeing at the last minute to almost a whole extra percent of raise that we said was not merited based on inflation data and other factors just for a logistical issue and then that compounds forever.

Yeah. So people does the cost of living forever. It's not a one time shot. Yeah. I don't go with what now. I think we got to go the simplest way that make it so that going forward it's it's set and we don't have to remember oh seven years from now we've got to do something again. So you're saying I don't think you could change that. Well, and it's not the employees fault that this happens. If you go to two No, but we're talking about salary a month.

The hourly is going to benefit. Hourly people are going to benefit from having that 27th pay. They're going to get 27 pays. So we're going to have that added cost. It's the salary people where we say, "Here's your yearly salary." That's what we set it at. We set I don't look at weekly. Nobody I hope you don't look I don't care if you pay it once a month, four times a month, it doesn't matter. I don't care if I pay it at the end of the year, it's yearly. And so we do is we do it every two weeks. Well, if it's 27 weeks, then it's your yearly salaries over 27 weeks. I think everybody that's paid salary would understand that. If you don't, then you don't understand what a salary is. The problem is is that it will show on their bi-weekly check um a reduction, right? It's it's like we we we took one person from the audience, it' be $100 less just for that year.

Yeah. Just for that year. get another paycheck instead of it'll just spread out to paycheck. The the thought of having the raise and there may be a little bit extra taken out just to accommodate that 27th pay. Correct. That they take the Yeah. What? I didn't understand the last part. If they uh if we push all of the raise that 3% to the 27th pay. So it looks like you're not getting a raise this year, but you will be getting it. But it's a 27th, but it may also have to soak into what they're currently being paid to uh accommodate the total as a whole, right? Their deductions may change because of the raise is what

Sher, how long will if if we do it that way, how long will any somebody go between paychecks? Will it be longer? If we did the 24 pays. Mhm. Yes. But your checks go up though because you're going from 26 pays to 24 pays. I don't remember how we did it. So your checks all go and you get them twice a month. That's So one thing I want to point out bigger picture,00%

preliminarily approved a budget that is a millionome dollars more than last year and Greg Geras sat here last week and said we'll be getting $36,000 more in income than last year. So, we've already approved preliminarily a budget that is a millionome dollars extra over last year when we don't expect to get any new revenue and we have $21 million sitting in the general fund

and and that's fine and that's going to compound against that's going to amvertise against us when we have a budget that exceeds revenues and we keep raising it each year that will deplete that unless it unexpectedly revenues unexpectedly go up. From what I remember, seven years ago, we had the same discussion, same arguments. We tried to figure out how to change it. We did all that. I think they do it every seven years. It It's very sticky. We paid for it. Took money either out of rainy day or or um food and beverage and paid for it.

It wasn't rainy day, I'm sure. But the problem with that is we is the SB1 and next year they'd be looking at a pay cut most likely at the at the best a pay freeze. So that's how would it be a pay cut? Well, because because you're giving them 27 pays, right? And next year you can only give them 26. So if you say, "Okay, we're not going to raise it any," it's a pay cut. People on salary will get a pay cut. Hourly people don't get pay cut. They'll be paid. That doesn't change for them. It's that people that are salaried would all of a sudden see a pay cut. They're gonna and you know they're gonna throw go crazy at us. I don't I

Well, if if you given them a 3.85% raise whether they get it then or not. I mean it's still that they stop that raise but now could we and I don't know do instead of raising so you continue to compound on that do a a call it a stipen for the 27th day. I was going to say I know like he talked about I think maybe we did do they came up with the 27 out of something else we did we paid for it all at one time it was the only clean way we could think to do it seven years ago and if it's a stipen or if it's whatever then it's not compounding like

right it doesn't screw up anything for another seven years or whatever did you say the next one was I think it's a it's every 11 years 11 years but if you go that route. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you go that route, then it would be the $800 and some thousand that we're trying to give in stipens, right? Because we're not doing the 3.85% raise through the year and then you I did it twice. Why not fix it so nobody has to worry about it again? I don't know if you can fix it like that. If you go to two pays a month, if if we can do that, would

Well, that's what I said. She said, uh, how would you pay the hourly people on two pays a month? Now, we did dive into this because I thought I I was thinking this was a great solution. Also, what did you find were going to be the potential problems with that, Sherry? Um, well, it's the estimation of what people worked and we can't pay in advance. Um, I can't pay in advance. And also, um, and I I'm not 100% sure of the code, but people would get paid more than 10 days after they've worked for that money. A salaried person knows I'm going to get paid. I know what it is. an hourly person might have an issue waiting those 15 days to get another paycheck.

It also, and this is, you know, for the auditor's department, we would have to change allow payroll. We would have to change right stuff. It would have to all be reset. Um, and then our payroll processing time is going to be shrunk. It's going to become more of, okay, what do we think these guys, what's their schedule? What are they going to do? How much are we going to pay? We pay them. And then if we overpay somebody, now we have to make that up the next time and take that off. It just feels very sloppy and hard to follow for even somebody that does it every week.

Okay. I when we go on vacation or when we have people go on vacation, we have problems with the banks not being open because of holidays and things like that in my personal business and we have to estimate. It sometimes takes us two or three weeks after to reconcile. Yes. because we're guessing on overtime. We're guessing on things and so it it it is very convoluted and I only have 25 employees when we have to estimate and so I couldn't support an estimation scenario. I'm having a hard time understanding you wouldn't do that. I'm having a hard time understanding how a whole extra pay period only cost 185,000

because we're adding the 3% that to get to the total of 830. Right. I was only estimating you've already thought in your mind we're going to give them 3%. We're already planning to spend that 650. Right. But but just think about this way. 185,000 divided by 300 to be rough employees is $616. So, how on average for two weeks of pay is $616? [Music] I don't

It does. We're not talking apples to apples. And that's my fault. I'm simply saying, you're right. I can agree with you. If you gave an extra pay, you're going you're basically giving them a raise. I'm simply saying that by virtue of saying we're going to take 2025 and give them 3%. you've already settled in to $650,000 expense and by keeping everything the same, we'd only be adding another $184,000 to that 650 to pay that extra pay. Indeed, it would mean stay exactly the same as they were this year. So, nobody's pay goes up.

Nobody's pay goes up. They get one extra pay at the end of the year and that's their raise. We'll call it a stipen and that way it's can or cannot be rolled into the consideration of which will feel like no raise to the people that live paycheck to paycheck. Yeah, we have to resolve this today because Deb has to have this information to the state or we have to have a special meeting if we need to check into anything because yeah, we have to have it advertised by August 31st. Well, that um I I mean that psychologically and understandingwise, no. 500 people are not going to understand how come they didn't get a raise.

But twice a month pay even if it is convoluted. If it's a possibility, everyone's checks go up from what they're used to getting even at 3%. But there is an Indiana code that and this is the difference between the corporate world and government. And I think that you had asked that question earlier. We are prohibited from paying for anything in advance. And we would be paying for things in advance. Their salary wise hourly. Yes. Not salary. On hourly. But to separate the two, they'd have to have two different payroll systems running all the time. And that's just not It would It would be both. I think it might be both. we would be

cuz I was always paid for before not ahead, not current. I was always paid for before twice a month. I mean, I just know

you want to have that that law that you can't be paid in advance. I mean, like I said, if we if we want to explore this and look into it legally, I'm okay with that, but it's going to require a special meeting and some time. J every two weeks I've been there done that when I was auditor at one point in time and it's a nightmare. The other thing that she's talking about if you switch that way it not only affects their office it affects our office tremendously because we're the ones who are handling all the mistakes if if they're paid wrong and all that. We do all that. So you're affecting two offices when you make a change like that that's already set. Um, so, um, I would think maybe you might want to explore the, um, stipen. Um,

that would be my next I mean, it wasn't my first choice, but it would be my next choice because I don't see any other way. Yeah. I I don't think the I don't want to just raise salaries more at the last minute. Well, that's what you're doing. You're raising salary. You're about to add another 3% salary. But if you do it right, there's there's like her complaint is you do it once and then you've got a new system going. You don't have to do that. You're not going to have upset. But the argument against all of that is she can't pay in advance. So you cannot go to twice a month. We don't pay in advance now. Yeah. It's not just I got hammered on paying in advance because it was Yeah.

We're paying advance now. And if you pay it as a stipend, can't you leave what you already have approved the same for the 26 pays? And then a stipend doesn't modify what that pay period pay on the 144s is, right? Go on their salary. I mean, it would because it would be a stipen at the end of the year. So there's no recalculation at that point, right? I don't understand the paying in advance. We don't do that now. We did change from paying current to two weeks in a rears. Is there any way that gets paid forward now? We pay in a rears. That's how come we know how much

how many hours were used. If you go to twice a month, you won't know until after that after you've already made that payroll what how many hours were actually used. Do that. Can't do that. And what you're saying is if you change it once and cause more problems, then you have to live with that for 11 years. So you got 11 years of problems or um and and if you want to hire more people um to to because you you're in a perpetual payroll problem at that point. Well, I think it's a lose-lose situation with every other option because I'm not in favor of just

adding a more percentage to the salary ordinance than what we just went through. Right. And so even if we were going to absorb a one-time cost of a 27th pay, then I would look at one-time options and their checks do go down because the salary is now divided by 27 instead of 26. And even if you want to make it up to him somewhere in a stipend, you know, like you said, psychologically, no, it's it's a no-win situation if you make people's pay go down because psych because we we're struggling to understand it ourselves.

But it's not that the hours aren't there and the time isn't there. We're not making up this extra time. You know what I mean? It it has to do with the leap year and that type of stuff that's causing these calendar issues that's causing this issue. So it's not that somebody's not working the extra time. You know what I'm saying? Well, there's the same amount of days in every year except a leap year which is one day. I mean, but after several years that catches So that's why it takes 11 years for it to accumulate up. You know what I mean? You leap year and seven and the amount of time. I'm 11. Yeah.

Yeah. But I mean I this is exactly what we went through and we said okay just a one-time stipen before and so if we look at stipen when what are you proposing as the stipen? Well I Robin do you remember how and where that money came from before? Well, to me it's more of a question not not where it's funded from, but you would wait till the end of the year, right? You beginning of a year because it would take you all year to earn the 27th pay. You can't do that. And it would be at the end of the year in 2026 would get a one-time check, but we did it in January. Yes. Seven.

Seven years ago. We did it in January then. But up front. Up front. But you're you're right. I mean, I don't I don't It would take you all year to earn the 27th paycheck. Either that or it was earned the year before. We didn't do it and we had to catch it up. We did it. I think it's Yeah. You the paycheck we're so concerned about is the last one of the part time people, right?

What I've written down is so far two options. Pay twice a month, which would be 24 pays. But the feedback we're getting from that is it just isn't going to work. So, we ditched that one. And then I wrote down divide uh by 27 instead of 26, which would show a reduction in their uh bi-weekly salary, but there'd be 27 checks that catches what they're supposed to be getting. Is there a third option that I didn't write down? Well, the third option would be the proposed plan per FSG, which is to keep it at 838. And then the fourth option would be to do a special stipen at the end that Kent's mentioning.

Okay. So special and what was FSG? FSG1 is where they keep the rates the the salaries the same and it's just the raises that you get a 27th check which is a 3.85% raise. So that is increasing it's to 3 point to 3.8% as opposed to 3%. Right. And then Kent's suggestion my calculation comes about 6.9% assuming the stipen is equal to an equal paycheck would be a 6.9% raise the 3.8 8% which is our option three here is going to be the $600,000 raise and then an additional $181,000 to

I think it I think it's what's in red here I believe right 184,000. So those but the the reason that I'm saying the stipen is better than that is because then the next year when you give raises you're not giving raises off of 3.8% 8% you only give rates off 3%. But the problem with the stipen is it gives them a 7% raise or 6. But can I ask Kelly just had you saying a smaller stipen? No, that's that's at the end the stipen won't be a pay a full paycheck. Okay, so that's my question. It's a full paycheck. It's going to be 085 085. Oh, so you get a teeny paycheck in the 27. So you're you get 27 paychecks. They're smaller than you're used to. And

unless you're hourly. Unless you're hourly. Huh? Unless you're hourly, then you will get that 20 because you worked out it's based on your hours. It's not based Right. Right. Yeah. Hours can be I have a quick question for Sher though before we move on. You said you took an example of somebody in the auditor's office and you said it'd be $100 less. Are you talking a pay? Uh she gave you Robin $100 pay. But you're going to have to hold it for me. So you can't do it. No, that's mean

your salary gets you. I don't have one that's $100 less. Um the bi-weekly pay there. So in 2025 I'm at 16004. If you just take what you've done and spread it over 27 I'm at $15.91. So it's that's really what how much? 9 $14 a paycheck. It's it's the communication and the explanation that's important if you go that route for people understand I'm getting more money. I'm just getting it over more time. And did the deductions go up for the employees contributions this year? The deductions for 2025 for healthcare went up.

We we haven't decided this year, but it was anticipated we would bring it up, too. So, we're talking about what would be seen as two pay cuts at that point. Also, I'm listening to how the stipend or not a stipend. And if that's the decision that is made that there's a stipend, my suggestion for the sanity of our payroll department would be to divide it across the 27 pays. Like say my stipend minus $35 a pay period. So my stipen would be $35 on each pay. That's stipen money. So then they don't have to change the pay records in December when they're trying to get the pay records ready for 2027.

Makes more sense because I was just telling Jim the stipent isn't going to be equal to a paycheck or anything. So they're going to get less all year and then at the end of the year they're going to get some little check. So break the So break the salary into 20 the current salary we said break it into 27 weeks and then figure out a stipen amount to give all the salary to employees. That will be broken up. It'll vary by employee based on their pay because and because the department heads were allowed to decide how much they could give those people which would be as usual the people that get less money are going to get even less. The people are on the bottom of the pay scale.

Yeah. So the people who the departments were allowed to spread out that 3% for per for what you gave them. So not everybody is getting a 3% raise. they may get a 2.5 or a four depending on what the department had decided. So um that that's a concern to talk about that's the propens the base salary amounts for everybody would be that extra 085%. So this deals with everybody you can't tie this to the raise because the raise isn't the isn't congruent. Everybody got the raise. Some people didn't get 3%. Some people got one and a half. The department got 3% and the department right. So you can't tie this to the raise schedule

but they would still Yeah. We still you could take everybody in 0.85 if we do the stipen across for the year that needs to be on the salary ordinance as well. Yes. The stipen set separate. So Deb had to take it out for the next year's pay. It' be a lineup. The hard part is just setting it up. It's the same pay every week for everybody. Yeah. I mean how I mean for them once it's set up for their pay. Does your payroll allow you to go in and just say I don't add a stipen line outside of the salary equal to 0.85%. Does it allow you to do percents on stipens? Do an adjustment. We would program the adjustments.

Yeah. So they can put in the stipen because they do that already with several other stipens. I mean John's got a stipen for various things that they do. Um, so they can program it in to where your main salary is coming out of here, but whatever that difference for the 27th pay would be is stipen money. And if we do that one time when they're setting up the new salaries, that will save that's more efficient and saves money in the long run because we don't have comp time that we're paying the payroll department to get it all set up correctly. I'm I mean,

you know what? I'll make a motion that we do that and you guys can let it die or whatever that we um that we set up a a one-time stipen for 0.85 85 uh percent for all the employees and do it at the beginning of the year in 2026 and and handle it that way so they don't have to and I mean unless I'm not understanding how the payroll system our payroll system works. Your motion includes part-time employees are you just saying are you including those that they get too? No, part-time people would hourly and hourly and salary. When would you pay?

So, you would say full-time. All full-time employees. I'm sorry. Accurate. All full-time employees or hourly only parttime. The highway is hourly. Yeah, the highway is hourly. But they pretty much Would they get a work 80 hours? Huh? They get a stipen then. They're hourly. I mean they would because hourly they get paid hourly.

We would need to make sure that um the highway budget for salaries includes this 085% in the gener like overall because their rate their salary ordinance is published per hour but so that he doesn't run out of money at the end of the year in his hourly line. He would need that extra money because they're going to be paid for 80 hours extra. We have several that work um hourly, not just the highway. That's as far as full-time goes, that's the only one that um that it would affect for full time. Everyone else is considered salary non-exempt.

So, they're going to get their extra money anyways because they're going to get 27 pays based on the hours they work, right? if his budget is short at the end of the year. I mean, there's still so many days in the year, you know, so his budget should be and I know it may not be short. He may not be fully staffed the whole time. So, he may not be short at the end of the year if he's not talking about not adding new projects and stuff with the grants. So, um so can that's a motion on the floor, right? That's my motion. Can you read it out again or do you want to hear it again, Deb? Yeah, I'd like to hear it again and that way we can just make sure there isn't any last minute things that we need to ask in order to make sure it gets done.

Okay, so help me out with this again. Okay, that's full-time employees. The 085% set up at the stipen set up the beginning of the year. Um because it does vary between in each but it is and then it just spread out through the through the year of 2026 only but the rest of their salary spread over 27 weeks. Yeah. So you're going to do are you saying you're going to do it differently? One way with hourly and one way with the hourly shouldn't matter. They're just getting paid for their hours. Yeah.

Did that sound correct, Kelly? Or do you want I mean, you could look at it like they got a 3% raise and everybody else got 3.85 on a onetime basis, but I mean, this is the only for me reducing people's pay is not going to be um is not going to be something I want to support. So that's this is and this isn't adding another million dollar to the thing for $850,000. This is adding a stipen that's less than that.

And I'm okay with that. I mean, it's still going to be thankless because it's going to look like they didn't get a raise because they're getting a whole extra paycheck even when we make it right with the extra 0.85 stipened. It's going to look like their pay is flat from 25 to 26. Okay. Because it's all in the extra check. I I just want to say something here. How I feel. It's what they said. That's why the cost is only 180. Well, no. They get the 3% raise that we've agreed to be the the stipen would be the 085. And that's to make sure they get the paycheck they're already getting approximately. Yes.

That's to keep their paychecks flat, but they get a whole extra one bi-weekly. Yes. So, we will have spent however much how much were raises supposed to cost and how much do they cost? Now, I I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. I'm with it. Out of all our options that we've talked about, if twice a month pay is not an option, the next thing I'm in favor of is the 0.85 ceasing at the end of 2026 and not being part of the Let's move forward then with Kent's motion.

So, and they're pay something else. So the information that Sherry received from FSJ was FSG was the total payroll that she's paying bi-weekly and what it would be and what it would look like. So um that is the where the 085% is coming. So I don't know if you maybe the motion should be a little more general like our bi-weekly pay is only going to go up. 08 it's going to go up 3.85% for 2026. So then I give her 27 here. Can I We can figure it out. Can I make an amendment to motion? See if you guys Okay. Wait a minute. Can I say something how I feel about it?

Um it's 184,446.90 to uh make up that 27th pay. And you know, we give money to everybody. All kinds of people come in here and they want money. And our employees are the biggest asset that we have. And I don't like any of the scenarios except the one of what we did before I believe was come up with the money. I mean, we have several areas we could come up with that. And uh we're punishing the employees because there's more pay this next year and it's not their fault.

I don't think anybody's talking about not coming up with 180. All these options we're talking about other than going to the bi-week, the twice a month pay, which we rolled out, everything else we're talking about coming up with 184,000. But the the point is is that even in doing that, the paychecks that people get in their account each of those Fridays will be the same as they were this year. That's to get you to that point. Even if we Everybody's shaking their head yes, Mary. Everybody's shaking their head. Yes. So even if we come up with 184,000 take if you take the 3% and

that would put me at if I did if if you were to using myself as an example if you were to increase my salary by 3.85% that would put me even with where I am for 2025. So that means that even though you gave me a 3.85% 85%. But but if clerk if the clerk back there gave somebody only a 1% raise, which I think did then you add 0.85. Guess what? They're still not going to get the same they get right now. That is correct. Correct. Yes. Yeah.

So, if we're concerned about how the the impression and what the employees are going to feel, then it would be my suggestion to fund everybody's bi-weekly what they're going to get for another tw another paycheck in 2026. The salary ordinance would reflect that, but it would be under the because it has to, right? has to reflect what we're paying people annually.

But it would be under the employees would have the understanding that this is like my my $3,000 that would be my 27th pay is only for 2026 is going to be, you know, from a fund from where we pull it funding wise. We want to make sure that it's less um cumbersome for the payroll department, but it would be, you know, then I would feel like I got a raise, but I would know that my annual salary is 84700 or whatever it is for next year, and that's where my raise would be from for 2026 or 2027 if you choose to do raises in 2027.

Okay, I'm I'm going to throw a wrench in the system here. I'm gonna withdraw my motion. Yeah, I think we need to start because for for one thing I I I actually think it all goes back to what we did, Robin, before the cleanest way to do it is just to fund the 27th. Your your payroll was probably half one was 450 to 500,000 and now it's going to be back then. What's it going to be? Look, one payroll is $40,000. Yeah, this is it's you're to just throw a 27th check is $840,000.

Why can't we go ahead with moving forward with the 3% raise and we give that to the employees for 26 pays and then we still have that 27th pay lingering. It doesn't have to be equal to a paycheck. Why can't we just say that 27th pay will be 85% stipen based on what their last paycheck was? And that's the only the only issue with that is that because the paycheck falls on December 31st, people then have to wait until January 14th to get their next paycheck. So they're still getting paid every two weeks. So if you don't keep it equal over every over two weeks, then their budgeting goes away.

That's just an extra check. But it's not it's not an extra check. It's a time thing. Yeah. But I'm saying our best case scenario is we throw another $185,000 at this and people get the same check they got in 2025. So plus the 3%. No, that includes you've already taken up the 3%. It takes it away from them. It takes the raise away from them, but they end up with one more check than they normally would. That would be considered making their because their last check comes on the very lasting day. So on the last check and then the next year you could evaluate their buy which is what most people need the money for Christmas

a thousand oh we're going to give our auditor association what most counties have reported back that they're going to do. I've had I've had the they're just paying it and and they're spreading out whatever they've decided for raises AC across 27 pays. The majority of them are paying out. I do have a couple counties that because of SB1 they're they've told me that they're cutting pay and they're terrified, the auditors terrified that they're going to be losing all a lot of employees. So, but no one I mean it everybody unfortunately hits their term maybe one time and in two-year terms and then it's just it's a cycle.

I agree with Kim. How did you What are you saying about how you did this last? Well, you're saying to come up with a whole a whole We paid We just paid it. That's That's They're doing a 7% raise. I understand. They're doing a 7% raise. It is. It is. If you want them to get the 3% raise on their check all year and then also get a 27th paycheck, it's $838,000 more. It's not a million. 838,000 is getting pretty close to Well, I know that that's the two options we have now. At least we've narrowed it to 21.

They they get they basically get what they got last year, but they get a one additional pay at the very last day of the year. That's your option. Or or we just fund a whole another pay. And you give them their in their 3% increase like we promised them and they just get a whole another pay. That's the two options that we're faced with. Well, let's put it to a vote. Let's let's eliminate one of them or not. Somebody make an

All right. I'll make a motion based off FSG's proposed plan to move forward with uh the middle column that includes the current budget with 3% increase as a as a salary divided over the 27 pays which totaled 22,450,218. And then I propose dividing across the pays a stipen equal to the difference between that and the total of the third column. I don't think this is going to be a very clean motion. I mean it's math.

Do your math and start again. It's math. It's approving total payroll over 27 days of 22,452,218 [Music] and appropriating another 184,447 to be divided as a stipen on a one-year basis only up for the 27th pay difference. Do we have a second? Just summarize that again.

It is complicated. Yeah. I make a motion that we move forward with the 3% increase that we previously decided on 26 for 2026, which is 22,452,28. And that's divided over how many pays? For 27 pays. Okay. with a additional 184,447 to as stipen funds throughout 2026 across the 2027 pays the across in 2026 across the 27 PS

I follow all except the stipen why why even have this stipen Is that to Well, that's this that's just this number that he said the difference. Next year they won't get a raise on that. Brings it up to where they don't see a reduction in that last pay. That evens out their paychecks across 27 pays. Yeah, that's not If we take the 3% increase over 27 pays, it's not going to be that's not the same amount. If you look at the column on the right, 26 pays because that's where we started thinking we only 26 pays that that number is calculated on. You're saying 27.

I mean, it's going to put us right back at square one if we do that that way. You're saying 3% on 2026. You see what I'm saying? My motion. I make a motion that we adhere to the raises we've already approved in our 10-hour budget meeting.

There you go. And in addition to that, I recommend we take 184,447 of additional funds to be used as a stipen across all paychecks to try to bring up the paycheck number to compensate for the 27th pay. Second that. I don't know how you're I don't know how you do it on payroll, but you're saying you can do it. So, yes. All right. Roll call. Okay. Um Deb call roll call. Uh Scott Waldridge. No. Fisk.

No. Mary. No. No. Robin Lauder. No. Key. Yes. And Jim Shel. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, let's get that eliminates that one. So, the only one that we have left that I've not drawn the line. There's there's a other options. I'm just getting ready to read the one that I had next on here that Oh, next. You can do whatever next. We need to eliminate these and not keep debating on forever. I think there's two left. There's the um there's the take the raises we have and divide it over 27 weeks. And then there's the other one is um the uh

well that no let's not let's I don't want to mix the two. Let's talk about the first one you just said. You said take this take the 3% pay take what we've already done and it just and we've already said everybody's salary. We've already said our hourly and just divide it by 27 weeks. Is that a motion? I second it. I'll third that. All right. That means they're going to get a pay decrease on their if your alternative is 840,000. That's how we're feeling about. So, what will the average pay decrease be in that scenario? Yeah. Do you think it'd be $10, $15? It's not going It's going to probably take my salary down. Yeah. How much? Your salary stays. Your salary doesn't go down. It stays the same.

That's the problem. People understand your salary is going up. But I mean, it's logical understanding up. Salary is going up cuz you're going to get another check that year. It's going to pull it down and I just keep coming back to people that live too much by it. It kind of depends on how much is it $10 or let me give you example. Let's now let's go ahead and he's made his motion. All right. Roll call. Bucks for 50,000. And roll call. Dad. Okay. Can I hear the motion again? The motion is pretty simple. It's we have we have we set the salary already. Everything everything's done. We're just doing it over 27 weeks instead of 26. 27 pace. 27 pace. Pace.

Sorry. 27 pace. And I seconded that. And so that was Scott and Keely. Okay. So then I'm going to start with I call for the roll. We already did. Well, Jim, you're first. You're first. Oh. Uh. Yes. And Key. Yes. No. And Robin is no. And Kent. No. Mary's a no. We're going to need Tammy. Yes. Kent. So we uh the motion dies for lack of a majority. Okay. So on a $50,000 salary person cuts $80 a week out of their we need to have a special $80 every two weeks. Still that's $2. I mean that's we do need to have special. That's that's why I was trying to make up the 80ucks that every time. It just doesn't look like it every check.

That was my first motion. You really don't get it till you voted. Yeah. Yeah. But they're not going to make it up till that 27th and that's really going to be working hard. So all year long you're you're going to be cut 80 bucks. You know what I mean? All year long. That's a pay period. That's in my first motion. It made up their 80 bucks. Right. That was my first motion to make up the 80 bucks. Was that the paid but it took their salary to do it? Twice a month or it took their their increase for the year. My motion. My motion was for twice a month. No,

no, not with my motion because you guys said that wasn't doable. My motion originally was to stick with the 3% increase we've approved over 27 pays and to allocate another 185,000 across the county to be divided up as stipens to make up that that in the case of a $50,000 employee, you're talking about 80,000 pre $80 pre-tax a paycheck. So that stipen is supposed to make up in that example $80 a paycheck. For somebody that makes 40,000, it's less than 80. Somebody makes more more. But that was my original motion was to make that up with both of those motions don't give anybody an increase until the paycheck that hits December 31st.

Well, that's going to be true for any scenario. No, it's not. No, it's not. Okay. Except for Oh, yeah. If you give a 10% raise, 7% raise. Sure, you can you can do that. If you if you fund the 27 I don't think it's it's not a 7%. It's 6.9%. Could we Could we pass the 3% budget as pres as as you've already done and do an additional next year for a 27th pay? That's a stipen. That's what I did. That That's the stipen. You're talking about a whole another payroll. Well, you're talking about $838,000. I know, but it wouldn't be it would be an additional appropriation versus in your budget.

But to Scott's point, we gave a 3% raise and according to this sheet that was provided by FSG, what that equated to across all these salaries was a difference of $653,948 all year across all the counties. $653,000. So, because we have a clerical issue, let's throw 838,000 taxpayer dollars. I don't understand the clerical issue. There's a law that prevents me from paying people in advance.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying taxpayers don't care if we pay them twice a week or twice a month or twice a year. It's the cost of taxpayers. And to say, well, we were going to do $653,000 of raises, but because of the way the calendar falls this year, we're going to add another $838,000 on top of that. and and then that will compound again and get raises on that in perpetuity is just as a taxpayer

mathematically it sounds crazy to me. So my question would be I'm a taxpayer also taxpayers in this understand that sometimes 27 pays happen every 11 years I know that your your job is to look and beise and consistent with budget and what you think the income is going to be from my perspective as the HR director I see there's a possibility we will lose people because they feel like they didn't get a raise or they took a pay cut. We're already losing people the number one reason that are cited in that I got a better I got a job that pays more and sometimes we get those people back because they realize how good they got me. Sometimes we don't because what they're what they their new place of employment is vastly different and they feel like the employees. My concern is is that if this is divided over 27 pays that the 3% feels like a pay cut on my bi-weekly and it's okay for me because of what my salary is, right? But the person making $40,000 to do admin work, they may be and is a single single parent, they may be budgeted to the penny and they think a 3% rate. So they are planning on that and you know everything is going up. If somebody would have had the foresight that this was a 27th pay year, then I would have said department heads shouldn't have discretion. We're doing flat raises this year and we would have it would have benefited as a percentage more so the bottom than the top than just leaving that to everybody's discretion and we could have accounted for how it was going to play out and we

could have just picked a number like 653,000 which we picked as the most we were willing to spend and we did and we let people do what they want with that and now to say well the only viable solution is and when I say it's almost a million dollars don't forget hit you. We pay FICA tax on every one of those dollars. We have to make a pension contribution on every one of those dollars. Some of our insurance and liability is hinged on how much employee and payroll we have. So, it's not even just $838,000. It's every dollar that's counted on those dollars. And to come in here and say, "Oops, we realize there's a 27th pay, so let's just throw a million dollars at what we said we intended to pay people throughout an entire year." Does not sound like the most viable solution to me mathematically. If somebody wants to make a motion for that, we can call a role and may majorities rule. But I will be a no. And I don't know what options we have left a motion on. I think we may have to end up waiting till there's seven of us.

I think we could move forward with um what Deb had said. We can proceed with do a special meeting. Give more time to think about it. I think I think we just need to bring in every department head too because essentially we're redoing the entire budget. I think every department head needs to be here. They need to be able to to answer any question we have and I because essentially we're just redoing the budget. I mean, we made we made we all made the mistakes. It's not just Deb. We all made the mistake. We're not catching unfortunately thought it was taken care of when we went from two weeks in a rears or current to a rears. I know that my whole team thought it was taken care of. So, but it wasn't.

FSG's recommendation, which was not my default, but given now that twice a month pay is not an option, FSG's recommendation was to do an even bigger raise than we already committed to and divide it amongst 27 And that is still what I believe is make that motion. That was my motion. I think every director could look at look at it and say this is what we need to hit to get make. All right. Let me reward my motion. I'm going to make one more motion because perhaps my last motion was not thoroughly understood. Okay.

I'm going to make I'm going to make this one more time to see if there's any resolve. I motion that in addition to what we already approved in July that we appropriate an additional 184,447 to be used across all employees across all 27 pays to bring the pay back up to their prior perch check level. But it wouldn't be all employees. It would be only salaried because the right we No, it would be full-time. It's full time. Okay. So fulltime you said all employees shouldn't say fulltime.

I'm sorry. All fulltime employees is what I meant. Okay. That's what trying to get clarification. Second. Can I one point of discussion? So what do you think the department heads and the people are going to say that their raise? There's not going to be a raise in their paychecks at the beginning. I tell them there is a raise and you're getting a lot. It's coming in the extra paycheck at the end of the year is what the raise is coming. You would send an email out to that. As long as it's not calculating out as a reduction. Yes, I can live with that. That is what I'm trying to do with that.

It's not a reduction, but they're not going to get an increase in their pay, but they will get one more pay that year. So, so essentially every department would have a 3.85% 85% raise on their salaries. When When is the 27th pay going to be distributed? January 31st. January 3. December 31st. December 31st. All the way in the year. That's why an extra pay. Every other check. It falls on that stupid day. It won't be different. It'll be the the same as every other check. Nobody. They're probably not working that day. Did you get They are working that day. No, I did not get all of that. I I think that basically we're going with FSG's. Well, let's just leave your mind raise amount raise amount 3.85.

The only difference is not to change the salary permanently by 3.85. We changed the salary permanently already by whatever we changed by 3%. We're allocating the extra 085 which is $184,447 to be used to bring paychecks back to what they allocated over will it bring all of the paychecks the people that are paid lower how will it affect their checks that we we would have to deep dive into everybody's salaries to see how that affects

well we could like look at what our lowest paid people are just a few of them like you the example of 40,000.

So basically what I think Keley is saying is that everybody's bi-weekly rate from 2025 stays the same. And then from a council perspective, you just need to allocate the additional money so that we can cover the 28th or the 27th pay when we when we go to pay, which is essentially what the raise is going to be. But everybody bi-weekly will stay whatever it was um in 2025. Now that takes the department head's discretion out of it because I don't know what every you know we don't we can't know what everybody did for their people but that would keep them the same at 2025 and then the we would just give them an additional whatever their 2025 salary is. Can we amend our budget to um leave the discretion to the department head or office holder as to what their proportionate amount is? Can we just say it has to be a flat?

I mean you guys have made changes all the way up until you've adopted the budget before. I mean, if you want to put it on department heads, if you want to calculate the 085% by department head and tell the department head that the intention is that they divide that for the to bring every person's paycheck back to where it was. I think that's a good idea. I think I it should not be the department head's discretion to give away the 0.85 85 because then somebody's people's checks can go down. So the whole point of that number is to is to bring everybody to where they were per paycheck and you're getting a whole extra paycheck.

Alvin, did you have a comment? Yes, I did. I would you take one of our lower salaries, just one of them, and not right now, but Okay. And uh figure out if the lower people will have less on their checks. Yes. Than what they're making now. I'm I'm not sure how a person that wasn't going to get a 3% raise then how are they going to get their what's their 27th pay going to be? It's going to be cut. That last pay going to be cut. No, every paycheck would be the same no matter what and whether or not you ended up with 3.85 or two or six. I know, but we've already told the department heads. So this

what it would take the department head's discretion. They told their people what they're going to do, but it's not final. So

that would take the department if if you do it where everybody gets 3.85%, you're taking the department head's discretion out of it to ensure that people's 2025 salary is or their bi-weekly in 2025 is the same for 2026. So it just may be that that is where the direction you want to go because then you are we don't really base we base it on performance but not because we don't have reviews at the moment. So then maybe in 26 you look at or 27 you look at basing increases on merit instead of on general.

Um I wasn't necessarily suggesting that we apply a flat 3.85 85% cross points. I wasn't trying to undo what we did. I'm trying to keep what we already agreed upon in July and appropriate another $184,447 to be applied as needed to ensure checks don't go down. No department head that I'm aware of cut anyone's pay if it was going to be 2020. If it was going to be 26 pays, right? Nobody cut anybody's pay. I think everybody got a little something. So those people's pay will go down across 27 pays unless we make up for it with this 184,000.

So So quick question on that. Um the the prosecutors I think the prosecutor all deputy prosecutors got like eight or nine% raise. So obviously if you divide that over 27 weeks they're still getting a raise. Does that mean they get none of the $185,000 and all goes to like the clerk's most more of that money goes to the clerk's office or or did they still get 085%.

Well, I think it should all be used I think for it to work out where it where nobody's check goes down at all, right? they get the 27th pay and for nobody's check to decrease over 2025 at all that you will have to be more selective in how you use the 184,000 because like you're saying the there are some people if they got a big raise they won't need it that their check's not going down regardless they got a big enough case though is we're gonna have to do a new budget for every single person. Yeah.

If and we don't have time to do that. You know how hard it is. I was auditor. Debbie's auditor. It's hard to get all of it in. And and it took us what, six weeks or whatever they had to do it. And I can't imagine in the length of time we have before we advertise that we could give this back to all the department heads and they get it all back to us. I also to one of the questions and Scott brought it up earlier. I did some quick math on if someone is making $42,000, their department head gave them a 2% raise because they were allowed to allocate, they will take a a paycheck a a pay cut of $28 a pay period. Even with if we if you don't do if everybody doesn't get 3.85%. 3.85% makes up the that paycheck.

Yeah. based on if everybody got a 3% raise. Based based on everyone got a 3% raise. In order to make people whole for 2025, everybody needs to get a three minimum 3.85% raise to make everybody everybody's paycheck to be not less than what they're getting in 2025.

Say that this year I mean for next year that the raises will be uh handed out equitably equally to all employees and there will not be any discretion this year. Yeah. So, if we want to reig on all the department head discretion we gave in the budget process, I I I think it won't go over well either with employees. I think no matter what you do, it's not going over well with employees. Um, and so, but I will definitely choose reigging over coming off another 838,000 extra. So I think though we need to pull the department heads in and have the conversation. We're just reviewing it.

We've noting on anything. I think we should pull the department heads in and have the conversation before we before we make a decision that because they some of them have already made commitments and and especially like somebody like the clerk who's actually here where she made they she did get big raises. So, I mean, if you change it from her big raises to 4%, I mean, some of the people Yeah, we gave them more than 3%. That's the problem. They were they were so far down. We got to go back and those are the low paid people. Every single employee, we've got to go back and adjust our budget. Am I wrong, Debbie? You've got a motion in seconds already on the floor. So, I'm not sure what the motion is anymore,

but the motion it was Keely's. I knew Keley made it, but I don't I guess I need to see if I can repeat it back. Is the motion that we continue with the 3% raise and then we allocate another $184,447. And with that lump, it's divided over 27 pays. Yes. But it would have to be applied, you know, to be determined how much is applied to what employees to make sure their checks don't go down. You you'd have they don't have that info.

You'd have to agree in in her motion has to be in the agre agreement that that the department heads don't have everybody gets a 3.85. They don't have the discretion not to give somebody a 3.85. Well, no. What I was saying was we we keep what we've already agreed to and that these extra funds that it takes are specifically applied individually to make sure no employees pay goes down. Now, I know that's a logistical nightmare. We say changing payroll payouts is logistical nightmare.

So, the only thing that's not a logistical nightmare is to throw an extra $840,000 at it, which I will I will fight against till the end. I hate to have extra meetings, but I don't I don't know how we change with all the department heads without having a meeting to at least discuss that with them to get feedback before we change.

Well, let me let me say this. If we had a spreadsheet, if our payroll or whatever systems we have had a way to run a report that individually listed each person 2025, 2026, what we've approved so far, and show how much it went up, the answer is anybody who is 3.85, their check's not going down. You know what I'm saying? But we have no guarantee what that department head or office holder would do because if they're given a free range on this, then they may give two and a half,

right? But if we've already approved what we've approved for the people who got two and a half, since we don't want their check to go down, more than 0.85% 85% of that department's allocation would have to go to that employee to their per paycheck payback to where it is today. And there probably be not that many employees whose check would go down.

No, I and my what I'm trying to say is if we had every employee and and it was easy to run a report that showed both numbers, then it's easier to see how many people are we talking about here. would be are we talking about 20 people whose checks going to go down because then maybe we just need to deal with 20 people.

Okay. So, I mean I have I have one vote. That's all I have. Um and and my thoughts are going to um a special meeting that we discuss those options and we find out if we have 20 people or 200 people. Okay. and and we discuss the option with the department heads of changing how they can do their raises and and then then we make an intelligent decision. But that you have a motion in a second on the floor. If you want to vote then then vote. If it passes then it passes. If it doesn't then

maybe we'll you could entertain something. Uh Deb, we have a first and a second on this. um call call role. Does everybody remember the motion? Yeah, I think so. I think so. It's basically that we're adhering to the three what's already been done for 26 pays and then a 085 stipen for 27th pay. No, it was to approp to plan on appropriating another $184,447. I don't mind what to be determined.

Okay. Okay. It's just a it's just agreeing that we're going to appropriate the extra 184,447 to be determined yet how it needs to be allocated. Uh but to plan on adding that to what we've already approved for the sake of of keeping people's pay given the 27th pay so that nobody's pay goes so nobody's pay goes down per check. That was seconded. So call roll. Yes. Um Jim. Yep. Yep. Robin, no. Mary, no. And Scott, no.

Okay. Then I'm going to throw at this group uh the next two Wednesdays in a row are the 20th and the 27th um to have a special meeting finalize this discussion. How many hourly employees do we have? Just out of curiosity. We're not going to continue this conversation today. No, but those are questions that you if you want to I think if we need to know information by this date, then I think you need to be able to say, "Hey, this is what I'd like to see in one week or two weeks." Oh, yeah. Not answered today, but maybe you can get with if you got p if we can get with these ladies and they can give us some information. If you want to give them two weeks, then let's say then August 27th,

August 27th, we have to advertise our budget by and have that entered into Gateway. So, if we're going to touch everybody's salary, next week would be better. And I I only need 48 hours to notice a special meeting. 20th. 20th. Yeah. August 20th. We're going to have a special meeting. What time? Um, we'll just meet at 8:30. 8:30. I'm sorry people, but I that's just I don't see another way right now. No, there's not. You're right. You have This is too It's a mistake we all made. We just got to fix it. It affects too many people. Yeah. I What time could you be here on that day? Uh, I could be here by You just want to make it an after lunch meeting then? It's fine. I'd like for all seven if if it's come back with six.

I'd have I have to be done by 3. Well, that's a good stopping point. 1 to three. 1:00. 1:00. Jim, you are you awake by then? He's been here all day. Is that enough time to advertise? You only need 48 hours to advertise. Um, but now you want us to do you you want us to have prepared for you everyone's salary that would be affected by the 27th pay um being short, right? Yes. And and do you want us to reach out to those department heads of those employees to have them there at this meeting as well? Oh, yeah.

Okay. Do you want us to reach out to the department heads whose employees will not be having a decrease in their salaries? Well, my opinion, if you bring in all the department heads, you're going to have a managerie. I agree. I I don't feel the need to have the department heads in here. What I would like to do is let the board make their decision and push it out. I don't need because you're going to have 20 department heads sitting out there with 20 opinions. Look how many opinions we have. Yeah. And there's only six of us. We need to know how many people's effect. Do you want to consult with FSG at all on that either? I don't want the Department of Health. I mean, they're they're dealing with other counties that have done this. And

in a nutshell, I think if we're only talking about 10 or 15% of people's pay going down, then we need to focus in on that population. If we are only talking about having 10 or 15% of people who are hourly employees, talk about making them salary and just paying twice a month. It all if it all pits out that doesn't work at all. Doesn't work. So Sherry, did you you did it didn't you kind of check to see how many people were affected by this that their salaries would go down or did you not? I I did not. I'm going to call an end to this discussion. We're going to be meeting next week at 1:00. I don't feel the need to have the department heads here, but if they want to come down and listen, they're more than welcome to,

right? I don't want to spend the amount of time that we have though in a discussion feedback. I think we need to just be ready to vote on what we're going to do during that two-hour period. I think we do need to keep in mind though, we need to advertise the first part of September. I have to advertise by August 31st. Okay. So, next on our agenda is review the circuit breaker estimates per IC code be in your packets. That's something FSG sent us and I think Jim knows about that. Pardon me. I think this is your this is what you had FSG work on for us. Breakers. Oh, the circuit breakers.

Uh, yeah. It's kind of It's where he came up with the $677,000 coming off the revenues and you can look at it, but it's that's where it's coming from. We do need to apparently come up with a resolution uh recommending well to a resolution for the taxing units recommending that they keep their uh increases to 4% following the maximum um uh growth quotient. And also we need to add to the debt service um line item and food and beverage to uh make it 150,000 instead of 15,000.

I have no idea what he's talking about.

But that uh worksheet uh uh is something that the DLGF just put out. It's new and if you look at it, if you want to projected supplemental homestead credit loss of 950,000 is the result of the SB1 and that's new and that's the reason the biggest reason our uh projected revenues are going down to basically zero. But we do need according to Greg uh to add again because of this homestead credit um to our line item and food and beverage. I think there's one in there now for debt service of 15,000 to boost that up to 150,000 because of the homestead credit. And the legislature apparently made the homestead credit in this case applicable to debt service whereas in the past they didn't. So we need to increase our so I guess I'd make a motion that we increase the debt service limit or debt service line item in food and beverage for 2026 to 150,000. Do we have the money to do that

for 2026? Yes. For 2026, unless we spend it. Yeah, we will. Second. All in favor? I motion carries. And um he wanted us to ask for I think maybe ask you to do a res. Did he talk to you about that? No, not yet. Okay. if you you and I could talk about it too. This is for the excess levy appeal and also yeah he wants the okay to proceed with uh excess levy appeal for 2026.

Okay, thumbs up on that you guys. Then Jim can work with him on that. Okay, so we've got that one taken care of. Uh, we have to um well, since we're jumping all over the place, I'm going to call John up here next and we'll uh discuss the loan needed for those Lucas devices.

There should be um invoice purchase agreement in your packet that shows that there's um equipment total of and you correct me, John, is it 218, is it? 82 282,000 something else because that includes if you go to the very end it's 218,000 for the equipment and then 60 something,000 for the 7-year uh maintenance program up front 28246943 plus Y that's it no 282 what was the number I don't 46943 yeah that's that is the grand total that includes the five

that includes sevenyear yeah sevenyear per per uh pro program and now That's part of the intention of the commissioners to uh allocate that money from the 2025 bond. Correct. Yes. None of them are here to raise their hand to say they're going to do that, but we'll have to take them at their word, I guess. Um the problem is is um John received this quote and it's only going to be honored until October 1st. After that, there's going to be a price increase. So, if he can move forward with the order

and we can supplement the expense somewhere until the bond closes and is available. I did talk to uh Mary Bmer um it's probably been a week ago that the food and beverage cannot absorb that. Uh CCD cannot absorb that. So, my my thought is to just take it out of the general fund and then let the bond pay it back. Yep. Can the general fund, pardon me, can the general fund absorb it? That's the question you ask each time. Can the general fund absorb the cost for now? There's $21 million. I I'm not really the reserve is 13 million. I think we have to keep. We would only go below the reserve. Well, we're not going to $282,000. Well, that's a discussion you got to have each time. It's like

No, I think it's I think we're fine. We have We've got it.

Uh so, uh does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion that um understanding the intent of the commissioners to fund whatever the number is uh for the Lucas um devices from the 2025 bond that we will loan uh money from the G that money from the general fund uh and it will be repaid paid by the uh commissioners from the 2025 bond back to the general fund. Second.

All in favor? I opposed. So there's no additional appropriation with that for you. Correct. It doesn't have to be. We would want to do a thumbs up to advertise. Yeah. Okay. I think that takes care of that. Can I make a motion? Food and beverage. Oh, are you doing something? Huh? No, we're good. So, we're good. We're good. Do I need to come back for the public hearing for? Yeah, that's what he wanted to make a new motion. We'll have it whether Yeah. Yeah. Go right ahead, Jim. I move that we approve uh the ordinance 2025 8B for the uh amended food and beverage ordinance.

Second. All in favor? I opposed. Abstain. passes u 5 to one. I go state as a council no

that leaves us with I've got a couple things here. Um last meeting uh Buck Creek Township, we really didn't take the time to have much of a discussion, but they had an application for some additional lit distribution, which we've already said that we probably am not going to have the ability to do. But things that they have listed that they are requesting to spend the money on, I thought maybe warranted some discussion because we're talking about Sugar Creek Township Fire Department and $150,000 out of EDA money. And do we want to maybe only appropriate part of that to Sugar Creek Township and then the other part maybe to Buck Creek? things that they're asking for that are in a little bit lower uh price tag um is uh their turnout gears $40,000. Uh exhaust system replacements $103,000. Their uh alarm system $40,000. So, um and the other two are just a lot higher. So, we can talk about this and vote on it at our next meeting if we

find out more what we're going to do with the EDA money, but I would like to see this been given some consideration. But these are different funds, aren't they? The lit funds. I'm not I'm not talking about lit at all. Well, that's what this is. This is this is true, but we've already determined that we probably cannot spend the lid. So, I was wanting to move maybe some of that EDA money and share the love a little bit and and support Sugar Creek Township and Buck Creek Township ifship if that's what we choose to do.

So, I just want you to think about that and that was in our packet from last month and we didn't get around to really discussing it very much at all. So, u that's just food for thought, but u we'll I'll put this on the uh agenda for whenever we decide to talk about the EDA again. Okay. That all right?

Yeah. Okay, that takes care of that. I've got a letter here that um a gentleman sent to me that I wanted to read into the meeting and then we can discuss this too. Then when we talk about the opioid money, uh this person's named Brian Hurley. He's vice president of the friends of CASA and um he stating we understand Hock County has received or will receive funds from the national opioid settlement intended to address the impact of the crisis and what they're asking for is just to give consideration to CASA with this opioid money after we decide what we're going to do with the finalization of the so I'd like to keep this just in mind when we do discuss the

well we have a committee so

I talked to Bill Spalding about that last night um he said Scott that we have until a date in January to submit the application on the the housing money match that we said we intended to apply for and um Bill said that they would open some kind of process create some kind of application by which anyone who specifically wants to apply for the housing match to be Hancock County's one project that we compete for at the state level that there will be a window where anybody can apply to say pick my project and then we'll apply and that was for 500 but Deb what's left isn't there more like 800 so then there was supposed to be yeah there's like 660 of the rest un of restricted and then 300 200 something of If I give you a restrict you did a 500 and 500,000 match, we'd still have about 200 I think if I can remember those numbers right.

So at the time we said anything over that we would open a separate application. Um yeah, I think that's not the housing proposal. And I think that he was saying that he's working on a process kind of similar to what Florian and everyone was talking about for any of the opioid money or something like that to get people to come in. But and he said a process with I think 30 to 45 days he'd have that complete. So this is something that will come up. But there will be money left over from what the match plus Yeah. what and then next year if we don't get picked for that match, we're still going to have a half a million dollars sitting there that we've set. Do you did you this? Can I just give this to you so when your your committee meets?

I'm not on the committee. Tammy, if you were I'll give it It's me and Tammy and Bill Spalding and I'll give it to Tammy then. That takes care of that. And we talked about Bup Creek Lit. Is there anything on this list that I missed? I move we adjourn. Second. Any Thank you. meeting ajourn. Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's all right. That's all right. Don't worry about it. Okay. George had asked if he could have a minute to speak and I forgot. I'm sorry, George. I just