Hancock County Council Budget, Efficiency and Revenue Committee and Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I'm going to try and finish the 27 budget. That'll be our main. So moved. Let's start out with the fund balances. Chime in questions or comments as we go down. General fund looks good. Economic development looks good. Special it keeps growing. Community Corrections, 1122, looks good. Coombe Capital, Coombe Bridge, both look good. Health, down there, 1159 and 1161, the Health Department, all look good. Public Safety, 1170, looks healthy, and Rainy Day, right at the bottom. Page 2 at 1213 is CASA. Looks good. We keep, you know, kind of monitor it. 1222 E911 is almost drained. 12 33 34 Those are the jail lips look good the 12 33 just a reminder. That's where we'll be taking the money for the new building out of it 12 35 is lit 9 1 1 and That's where we've added a couple of basis points drug court 25 for one healthy Page 3, Behavioral Court. Solvent. 4616 is the big allocation fund, the big TIF fund. Looks healthy. And then we've got the combination of GO bonds and the other TIFs. They're all... quite a bit of balance in the two older GO bonds. Page four, 4700 self-insurance. I think we added the 400,000 to it. 4913 jury pay is solvent. And then the 5901, 5902, the health claims and the health reserve looks good. Sorry, Mary, I'm stretching. Page 5, 7201 is food and beverage, healthy. And then we have all the grants, including on the back page. So it all looks good.

I didn't care.

Okay. Let's get into the 27 budget, and you've got a summary sheet that Mary made for all of us. And looking at county general, we are above our 26 budget right now by a million 93,000. Our target was a million, so we're just a little bit over. Human capital is the only other one that I looked at pretty high But Greg says it's it'll do it human capital Okay, so getting into the budget then Let's go to economic development There are two funds in economic development, 31, 416, and 417, that Gary Pruhl has said we can take out of economic development and put it in a separate fund. He has got, I think, a grant to pay for that.

Yes.

So we'll be setting up a new fund Okay, so let's have a motion to so so on though on the economic development fund I talked to both the

Randy Sorrell and Gary Poole. So my concern, the reason, I know we voted, I voted no both times on this one, and my concern was 31, 416, 417, but in reverse, it was not that I was concerned we were doing it, it was concerned that we were pushing that forward versus other roads like 5 West and 2 South, which would become a big issue, and it's in my district, obviously. And that's scheduled for next year. And I was trying to talk to Gary about how to move it forward. And he was explaining to me, and we sat down. He came and picked me up somewhere. We talked for a while. And I learned a lot from it because I learned it's very hard with the work of NDOT to get that 80% funding and move it forward. But he's going to try to, just let everybody know, this is the part I'm getting to, He's going to try to at the end of 2027, like third or fourth quarter, to see if it can be moved up into that area. So he may come back and say we may need to do the 20%, and I'll push for it, obviously. But with that in mind, I would make a motion to approve 11-12 and with the exception of the 39-801, which is an economic development payment, being $10,000. Okay. Is that?

Yeah, what about the Penzey right away?

And the Penzey Trail right away being changed as stated before?

Well, I think we should pay our dues. That's what I said. You would add that in? That's my motion to add that in. Okay. 10,000. Second?

I'll second it. No, I can't.

Okay. Have you got that motion?

No.

Could we have that clarified? Okay.

Sure, I can clarify it. We're going to approve 11-12 as is with the changes of the 31-416 and 31-417 being moved out as we discussed previously just a few minutes ago. And with line item 39-801, which is economic development payment, being the same $10,000 as it has been before.

Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed? Opposed.

second okay I don't know what the was there one opposition yeah six one I'm opposed to the 10k for two words ABC right so where does that leave our total now that added money back in general okay Then there's the fund 1149, which is not an EDA, it's an economic development fee. PAY AS PART OF THEIR TAX ABATEMENT. THEY PAY 5% FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IT GOES TO HUDC. AND FOR THE YEAR 27, THAT ESTIMATE IS CURRENTLY 683,000. THAT CAME FROM NICOLE.

You have $645,140.20.

I did, too, and then I talked with her yesterday.

Oh, she updated it?

She had left something out. She didn't tell us.

What was it?

$685,000, or $683,000. And, of course, we wouldn't pass more along than we get anyway. So that's just kind of that.

And that's the money already. That's the 5% already done. Even if you change the 5%, that's what they get. Yeah.

Yeah, they'll only be able to claim for what deposits.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll make a motion to adjust the budget for Fund 1149 to anticipated receipts amount of $683,000.

I'll second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we approve Fund 1149 for up to $683,000. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Okay. Animal control. Oh, where's that? We had put in $465,000, but I think the commissioners have got an agreement that it's for two years. You want to explain it?

When we negotiated through the city, the budget was more than they had anticipated, so we agreed to a two-year contract. which was our preference with outlining pricing for 2027 and 2028.

Are you using the usage of unincorporated areas, or is this just a percent?

Just a percent, just as we've always done it. So we're going to abandon the... You know, we're not getting anywhere, and I think the best thing to do is if council wants to approach the towns, that's great. I think the numbers will stand the same. It's not much money for any of the towns. So if you guys want to approach them, great, and negotiate with the towns. Otherwise, you know, my recommendation would be no animal control to that area.

So Greenfield refuses to kind of manage it then?

Yeah, and, you know, I don't blame them. They feel like it's ours. to handle because we're bringing it to the table. Their concern, their only concern is their contract with the county. That's how I understand it. But I think we've reached a really good deal for the next two years, so I was comfortable with that. I think Bill and Gary were comfortable with that, even though I can't speak for them.

I have a question, and this may be going forward in terms of negotiating. I have some ideas on it. My question, and it's okay in public venue, is can the county take control of it?

I don't think we'd want to do that. I don't think you'd afford it. There's some options coming up and so that's why I was trying to yeah, I don't think we'd want to do that But legally could we control absolutely they've got we could but they they've got a they've got their building They take care of the benefits. They pay the employees. They do all that so I don't know if that's one thing we want to add to our plate or not I

I would think, I'm no attorney, but I would think you can't take control of what is already theirs. You can start your own and manage it. You're the attorney, so you can tell me, but I don't know how it could confiscate their building, their land, their assets.

You'd have to start over.

Yeah, yeah.

It's their building you have to start your own building their employees They just provide our services to the unincorporated areas and now some of those bigger unincorporated areas are No longer postage stamps on the map there It just seems to me that with Greenfield.

We've got a one-way Deal going because they're not kicking in on senior services, and that's girl nope

They haven't yet.

They haven't yet.

They've not even paid 2026 yet.

Well, I mean, we could always consider reducing animal control by the amount that, you know what I'm saying? By the amount that Greenville seniors. I don't want to.

I don't think we wanted to get in that with our with our city. We've got a great relationship with them, and that would just be hanging ourselves with our own rope.

When these commitments are made, are they considered contractual or are they just verbal? Yeah, we'll pitch in $50,000 to... Contractual. So... It's all verbal. With senior services, has contractually the City of Greenfield agreed to pay X number of dollars for the... They have not. So there's nothing even contractual with them? No. So...

But the commissioners could do an interlocal on senior services, right?

We could, but you've still got to get them to move. They've not moved on what they promised last year, so, I mean, I don't know what else we can do other than it just go away.

Did they, so there was at least a verbal agreement on a portion for last year that was never paid? Is that what I'm, or it was received and not new?

As far as I know, they had an agreement to pay last year for 2026.

It was paid to senior services. Yeah, directly.

Because it was ARPA money. It was $150,000 went directly to senior services as they overstated ARPA money.

Okay, so they did do what they said they would do.

They did. It was a one and done. Yeah, I think it was a one and done. So, you know, there needs to be negotiations. I mean, we all know, and Greenfield knows, that 76% of the ride share come right out of the city of Greenfield. So... You know, but we can't make them sign into an agreement if they feel like they can't afford it. I mean, I don't know what to do.

I would hope the commissioners, though, would have a list of things that we are paying for them because we pay 9-1-1. A lot for animal control. Some of it's not ours. We pay senior services.

Homeland security.

Homeland security. There's a lot of things. And in the future, if there is requirements or requests from Greenfield for things that we get, then you could say, well, we're already paying for this for you, so we're not going to give you this. Because that will come. There will be some of those.

I'm sure there will be.

Yes. Eventually, maybe we can get some of it back.

I mean, the most we can do is try. I mean, we have worked really hard to repair a relationship with the city of Greenfield, and they are easy to talk to and sit down with and negotiate with. So, you know, it may just take Gary going to city council and just bringing it to their attention.

I don't know. We could do that.

I mean, if senior citizens kind of, that's one thing that's a red line for me. Well, I mean, it's equally important to everybody. Yes, absolutely. Even though there's a lot of seniors in Greenfield, but it still has to be taken care of.

It's something we have to have. Greenfield is within Hancock County, so, you know, we have to kind of look at all that and weigh that out, the options, so. I don't know, but I would personally leave that in Gary's hands to work with.

Actually, I've already approached the mayor, and the budget chairman has put it on their grants, and they don't start their budget until October, not August, at the very last minute, and so it's on.

Janine, did you get the understanding that they really don't want to participate in that? Or, you know, they haven't gotten to that place in their budget and there's a lot going on there, like here. Who's they? Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield.

Yeah on senior services. Oh, you know, I can't speak to that I don't have a Gary pool is very concerned. He kind of looks at that through You know kind of handles that on behalf of the commissioners. He's concerned I mean, we don't have a contract right now to hold that so I'm

The last time I talked to Gary about it, senior services had not put in a request for a grant. And he said he would call them. I've not talked to him since, but they have to put in a request for that grant.

They're probably just not familiar, since that's not been their historical process, that that's required. So hopefully somebody gives them a heads up.

Before, it really wasn't. It was just an understanding that we all contribute.

Yeah. OK. So animal control. Currently in the budget that we passed, we're at 2,027, 465,000. And this calls for 479, I don't know, I guess, We would pass the whole thing, I would suppose. Motion to make a change. If we pass it, then it would automatically change the 27 number. Is that right?

What is the deadline on the budgets? It's not today, right?

No, it's 10 days before. We have to push the button 10 days before the first hearing. When's the first hearing?

It's the September council meeting. So, that would be set for 9th.

Okay, so literally 2 weeks. I mean, we're, we're having, they're having upload problems at the state level. So the answer is no later probably than August 20th.

But we already voted at the budget hearings on 465. But it's the motion to change. So I would like to make a motion that we table an increase to that budget until the first meeting of September and allow time to.

Contracts are signed.

We can go lower, but we can't go higher than our advertised budget. Right. Just to.

If the contracts are already signed and we did discuss it during our budget hearings It's a matter of just rubber-stamping it now. I would think you signed a contract for 479 Then I'll make a motion to approve the four hundred seventy nine thousand dollars that will be appropriated to animal control for 2027 second Any further discussion

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed.

How many? Six. Six-one.

Okay, now that was only to increase the amount for the 27. It's a two-year agreement.

It's a two-year agreement, but you don't really have to worry about that until next year's budget. Right, yeah. And we're talking $11,000 here roughly for a budget that went up, you know, $150,000. So, you know, here we are again arguing over $11,000 when we give away $150,000 at a whim.

It's important to keep it up.

It's the same amount next year. $28,000 is the same amount. $28,000 goes up. It goes up. Okay. Yes.

Yeah, we didn't talk about, she said it goes up in the second year, and we didn't even talk about that amount. What is that?

It goes up in the second year?

It does.

It includes the second year.

Yeah, but we're dealing with this year's budget, so that vote was for this year's budget.

How about this?

How about this? We passed the amount for the 27 budget, and that's our objective today. Do you want to table the agreement and maybe take it up in the council meeting on the 12th?

Take it up. Next week. Here's an agreement. They've already signed it.

You guys already voted and approved it.

They've approved it, and we've approved it.

We do the contracts. We approved 465 and then you just passed 479 for this year, but we haven't voted on anything.

We approved 479 now for one year.

Yes, you have. It's all set for next year. And then you can revisit 2028 when you go into the budget season for the following year.

Just make a motion if you want to, if you want to pass.

It says that the next year it'll go up to 503.

And if we sign this, Scott, does that?

That's a two-year agreement.

Right. So we're agreeing to both things. Yes. As long as we sign as is.

If you sign off on it, yes.

Yeah, this is asking for the signatures of the Board of Works, the City Council, the Commissioners, and the County Council. It's an agreement of everyone.

Oh, but the Commissioners do the contracts.

Yeah, and we fund them. Yes, you do.

But this contract has our signatures on it then? So then we have to agree to it. If we don't, then it obviously doesn't get done.

And then we don't have animal control. It's not a done deal. And I don't know why the county council has to sign off on it in the first place.

I can try to amend for you on that. It's an interlocal agreement, so that's why. Because we have to have the signature.

Can we vote on a 2028 budget item in 2026? Well, you're voting on the agreement itself.

So not, yeah.

We're not voting on the dollar amount?

You're voting on, you know you are, because it's in there.

Well, then that was back to my question. Can we, can a council vote on a 2028 budget?

You can vote on a contract. That impacts longer than one year. Is there an escape clause in anywhere?

I don't think you want an escape clause. I don't either, unless you want to be the new dog catcher. Yeah.

Could that be a lifting position?

So do we need a motion to sign that?

No, if you vote down, you nominate it yourself. You need a motion, though, to approve the 2028 portion of it.

Right, right.

You have to really just, you either approve the agreement. Yeah, you need a motion to approve the agreement.

Can I see it? I don't even have we have several agreements that are several years And contracts out there that are that go on year to year and with price increases and what-have-you so Okay, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the amended interlocal agreement regarding the animal management services and to share the cost thereof in the amount of four hundred seventy nine thousand for 2027 and 503,000 for 2028 will be paid in two equal installments over that period of time. I second.

Been moved and seconded that we sign the animal control agreement. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed. 5-2. It passed.

Community Correction CCD Budget. Barry, what is that? Can we get you guys to go ahead and sign that? Yeah. All right, cool.

So last month during the budget hearings, community corrections had requested some CCD money. You had moved, you had taken that down to zero. I received an email from Penny Hunt, and she said we actually need at least $8,000 One hundred and ten dollars for our lease to sign it.

I'm not signing my name on something I didn't know you don't voted No, I know and there's no separate column and I wrote now out to the side and I'm not signing my name on it Yeah, you don't sign it unless you go just voted.

Yes, it's an interlude Okay, yeah, I know but two things going on but more like Pass through we'll get this through

So within the CCD budget, Community Corrections is requesting that they be allowed to add $8,110 back into their motor vehicle line to cover their lease payments. You had made a motion to change it to zero.

Did you say $8,100, Mary? $8,110. Oh, I didn't get the date.

That was one that expires within the year, the lease runs out within the calendar year?

Yes, and that will allow them to purchase both of those leased vehicles, and they'll own them at that point. We're already there.

You're still looking for a motion? Mm-hmm. With CCD, it can cover, right? Yes. I'll make a motion to add back $8,110 in the vehicle line item of CCD for community corrections.

I'll second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

All opposed?

Carried. Okay. IT department, Bernie.

Morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning.

No.

I'm here. No. That's the way we're voting automatically. You got to start out right. She said no. I'll say this anyway. We need to make some updates in this room. We need to update some of the audio equipment so it'll be more flexible for different meetings that are going on that we have to broadcast. And the commissioners had a favorable recommendation of upgrading this equipment. We don't have it budgeted. It's about, I think, did you put that in your packet, Mary?

Yes, it is in their packet.

It's a $12,094.55 upgrade wireless microphones that we can reconfigure this room. I don't have it in my budget, but I can get the money from move things around, but some things are going to have to wait if we do that.

Can I ask a question, Bernie? Yes, sir. Is there any way... Because I'm still going to be here for a few more years. I can't see the... Too small? Yes. Okay. And we use them a lot. Right. And is there any way we could get... will be facing us like those. We could possibly do that. Or something like that because... Can't see those. I can't see those. Tell me, Robin, can you see those when Gary puts that stuff up on our other news?

Well, when Gary puts it, when Gary Poole does it, nobody can read it.

You can't see anything. You can't even read it on this paper. Yeah, but I mean, we're using them more and more. Yeah. You know, other people bringing in things and I... They're just way too small for how far away they are from us.

I've suggested that myself, except to you, the person that should have them.

I know everybody out there is seeing them a lot easier than I am, and I don't know if we could just have something facing this way.

I will look into that. I think we went this route because there's really nowhere to mount, but if we go to the structure up above, we may be able to do something like that.

It says new microphones. Are there going to be more sensitive than these? Because I had to listen back to some of the last meeting, and there were things said that I did not hear in the public meeting, which became very concerning. Sure. Because if you're sitting here having a side conversation, it will pick up some of that.

Heads up on that.

So now the alarm's going off. So are these microphones you mentioned, are they more sensitive? Or is there a way to block it so that?

Well, let me give you a little bit of microphone history or theory here. They have directions. You actually have PA systems and you have microphone that actually they pick up and they can pick up everything. So we have to make them directional because if you make them omnidirectional, you'll get feedback from the PA system. So there's only so much we can do that.

But we can point those toward you so you can actually hear what's going on.

And that's the problem we have is sometimes Ken, Mary, Scott, the microphones are off to the side and we can't hear you. We can't hear what they're saying. So we need to make sure the microphones are positioned correctly, first of all. And then, you know, we can probably adjust them a little. so that you can hear better. But there's not a whole lot you can do as far as the type of heads we put on there.

Bernie? Yes, sir? Are the microphones you're talking about still stationary like this, or do they go on?

Well, they're portable. They're stationary, but they'll be able to go on tables and things like that, so you can move them around. They're not clip-on. We can do lapel mics. That's a possibility, too. If we think that would help some people, we could do with lapel mics. But you can't mute those. I wouldn't like it.

Will it increase the audience? Will they be able to hear better?

Um, no.

The streaming, too. Would that be better? What's that? Streaming. Streaming? Yeah.

Streaming might be better. That might help. Because we'll have the mics out here, we'll be able to pick up everything.

Sounds like the biggest improvement will be the humans that are using the microphones. That's what you're trying to say, Bernie. I'll say it for you. I'll be very blunt. We need to do a better job utilizing the microphones.

So right now, Gary, you two are sharing, and that's not going to pick up as well because we don't have...

Thank goodness I didn't have anything to say.

Yet.

Yet.

So, Bernie, specifically, what are you asking for?

I'm asking for that funds to... $12,294.55.

Suggestion, maybe rather than CCD, you suppose we ought to take that from food and beverage? This is a one-time?

Yeah, no more than this.

Yeah, the food and beverage balance is pretty high, and if it's one-time. I'll make a motion to pay for the microphones. Up to $12,300 from food and beverage.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Okay, I will look into getting better visual. Thank you.

That would be great.

That would be great for us.

We get a lot of that.

Thank you. We can't see.

Before we move on from that, Mary Bomer, how are we sitting on appropriated food and beverage?

I know we have quite a bit. Okay. I'll confirm that in just a minute.

Okay. GIS, this was one of the, I don't think we passed the GIS.

Oh, we did. Okay. We did? Yeah, we did with no changes.

But we need to do some more work with that. Everybody got an email stating how low that salary was and what he can walk out of here and get any day of the week.

Yes. It was our HR director did some surveying of the position and sent that out.

So we really need to do something with that because, I mean, originally whenever I looked at somebody's salary, I looked what they could drive 50 miles to get, okay? He don't even have to drive 50 miles to get it.

He can go to work with a private industry and... Well, no, we don't compete against private industry.

We don't, but at least you need to keep him compatible.

I know, but we should be compatible with other counties. Well... And that's what she reviewed and gave to us.

But at the same time, I would act on it. If you would, please.

75 is what our elected officials are paid to so maybe maybe we have some information from Robin I did check on some things on that because I'm quite familiar with it because at one time I did work in that area and I looked at all of Andrea's suggestions here and Geospatial is something that I'm really familiar with. And they do a lot of the conferences for the GIS. So, you know, we are very familiar with them and they are with us. And they said the median salary would be $70,473 is what it would be.

Is that for John or both?

No, that's just for John. Okay, that's what I was wondering. Yeah, I thought we'd want to do it one person at a time.

Okay.

So that would be my suggestion because that's what they go with.

I came with $70,000 for him too. Is that a motion?

I'll make a motion to adjust the GIS, what's his full title? GIS technician salary to what we've determined as the average $70,473.

70,400 and what?

73.

I'll second it. Okay, we got a second. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. All opposed?

Okay. Thank you.

Well, and then don't we have to deal with Caroline now separately? And I didn't find, and maybe Andrea did, a lot of information on what she does. So they asked for $20,500, and I will say, and Andrea made it very clear, but what they did first was they did the 3%, and then they put the raise on it. So they said if you read that and just don't look at all of it, you think they're going to raise it about $15,000, $16,000. Actually, John's is $17,706, and Caroline's increase would be $20,500. But she only makes $44,000, so she's pretty low. So we do need to bring her up also.

Yeah, I was thinking closer to maybe $55,000. 55 to 60, trying to keep the difference between them about the same.

Right. Yeah, that sounds good to me, too.

Is that a motion? I guess we give an exact number.

Yeah.

We just meet in the middle, 57 and 5, then? Would that be the difference right now is what, about 12, about 13,000?

I've got it down here. The difference for her is $20,500.

No, I meant the difference between John, I mean the two positions. Oh, John and her? Yeah. I don't want to say names, but I didn't see the titles.

It's about $15,000, yeah.

Yeah, I'd say, what did you say, Scott, $60,000?

So, like, I would say maybe $57,500.

About 30%.

Come on, Clark, get on it.

Was that a motion? Was that a motion, Scott?

I think 57,250 is... 57,250?

All right. I make a motion for 57,250 for whatever her... What's her position title?

We just have it under GIS technician, so it's not an actual... All right, GIS technician position.

Second. Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Carried. Okay.

There you go.

Next is Sheriff's Retirement, and this is on here. We did pass the Sheriff's Retirement contribution for 27, but the Sheriff had some recommendations for additions. Brad, yeah, come on up. I was hoping to see it broken out, but I wasn't able to break it out last night, the different options.

Okay. Did everybody see that document? The scenarios? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the easiest one to really kind of understand. The other one, the actual aerial study piece was...

Tougher?

Yeah. And so... The piece that you see in front of me, there was five different scenarios that we talked about. One scenario we didn't talk about was an age 52 retirement from 50, because we talked about a 50, but we never talked about a 52. And I did not figure that. And so if you look at scenario one, that particular scenario there was just to increase the death benefit. from up to $500 for the spouse and then $200 for the child. And so if you look at the recommended county contribution, because that's what we normally use, is the recommended, you're looking about just a $4,600 difference, $4,700 difference, just to increase that piece. Okay, so if you go to scenario two, and that particular item was just the COLA from 55 just until age 65, so that would be the 10 years. It also includes that increase of the death benefit. It's also included in that with also the additional contribution of the deputies from three to 4%. And if you look at your recommended contribution, what it is currently evaluated at, and you look at what the study came up with, you're looking about $457,297 difference just for that piece. And that's just the first year? Each year after that goes up even more? Based off the evaluation, yeah, because the coal is going to change. Now, that's there again. Now, that's based on 3%. I mean, that's the max. It's actually going to be a little bit lower because 27's coal is 2.7%. And so it's based off of whatever, well, I forget what that terminology is. Keely, can you help me out with that? What is that?

What's that? The cost of living adjustment?

Yeah, that's it. So it's based off the cost of living adjustment.

Oh, the CPI index, I think.

Yeah, yeah. But it's figured at the max, I guess the worst case scenario. But it's 2.7 next year.

Brad, is that just the COLA?

That one's just a COLA. That one is just a COLA. Okay, and how much was it? The difference was $457,297.

So it could be less or more depending on inflation.

It's going to be a little bit less because it's called 2.7. I mean, each year. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I think there's a couple things to consider. One would be that inflation could be lower. I asked Brad a while back for the numbers on, you know, what if it was 2.7 every year instead of 3. And over... all those years, it makes a big difference. It looks much more palatable. But something we can't forget is that our pension has to remain a certain amount funded. So if the market tanks and the value of our assets in the pension go down, we could be asked to contribute more for a number of years to get the funding liability back. So a lot of variables.

Yeah. SO SOMEBODY MENTIONED AT THE MEETING ON SCENARIO THREE DOING A LIFETIME. THAT'S A LITTLE CRAZY SO I KIND OF JUST BYPASSED THAT ONE. AND SO THE OTHER SCENARIO THAT WAS REALLY RELEVANT WE JUST DISCUSSED IN THE LAST MEETING WAS THE SCENARIO FOUR AND THAT WAS CHANGING THE NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE FROM 55, WHAT IS CURRENTLY, REDUCING THAT TO 50. with the addition of the 10-year COLA from 55 to 65. And so if somebody retired at 50, by law, you couldn't start actually getting the COLA until age 55. And so those five years in between 50 and 55, you would not receive that COLA increase until you became 55. It also requires the 20 years of service as well. If you look at the recommended county contribution on that one, the difference between the two, current valuation and the study, which I had labeled incorrectly originally, you're looking at $630,422. Now, I did mention maybe in my email that You know, that number could go down if, you know, there was a consideration of, you know, looking at age 52 versus age 50. I don't have that figure, but obviously it's going to be somewhere between, you know, the first figure, 457, and the 630 because you're reducing or you're increasing the age a little bit from that. And the reason I talk about the reduction in age is just due to the fact of exposure to what we deal with on a daily basis. And I don't know if you've seen the PowerPoint piece that I included on that. Did everybody see that?

How easy would it be to change it back if, like in her example, the market tanks?

So to change anything back, obviously, that's going to have to be with the sheriff, merit board, and the council.

I can hear you.

She's like, it's a nightmare over there. That's going to be a nightmare.

Yeah, I understand. But that makes, that would, you know.

That would require agreeance between everybody to make that all happen in the change. Anytime there's a change to the pension, obviously, it's got to, you know, between the sheriff, the merit board, got to agree, and then also the council's got to agree on that.

I have another question too. The death benefit, right, the increase in death benefit is the one thing that we're talking really nominal dollars here. And you accounted for increasing the merit deputy employee contribution rate from 3% to 4% as part of that illustration. If the other requests, like for COLA specifically, weren't financially feasible totally on the county's dime, is there also the possibility of increasing some of the Merit Deputy contribution to get that done?

There is that ability as well to increase, I mean, we went from three, right now it's three. This is figured on four. There could be additional contributions to that.

That doesn't have to be specific to the death benefit. If we wanted to keep talking, if we couldn't get the rest of it done as presented, if we wanted to find a way to add COLA, we could keep talking about increasing the employee contribution to make it work. And if we even want to.

I mean, you know, that's good. I think at 4%, you know, the deputies were fine, you know, in the contribution. You know, I haven't talked to them about, hey, is it okay for a 5 or 6 or whatever it may be. I think that's something that I just don't on myself want to say, hey, everybody, this is what we're going to do.

Right. No, we'd have to do even more math to see what that even looks like. But I wonder.

This is obviously going to go on and on. Do you think maybe we ought to... put this on the agenda for the council meeting as a separate item.

I was thinking that, but I was wanting to know if maybe our financial advisor can give us some information about how this could look forecasted into the future.

I mean, it's going to come right back to what Keith was saying. We've been in a record returns. Okay, our contribution ought to be record low. But actually, it's been kind of going up too.

Well, we added deputies in the last. There's where I was going.

Yeah. So if you grow, because of certain economic development projects and things happen, and you add deputies, you've got a lot of incremental growth that is going to be attached to that. No doubt about it. And so, you know, but remember, we've had record returns. It won't continue. Very optimistic. Well, it can't, right? I mean, you can't have, what, 50 S&P highlights over... And the funds, what, about 60, 65% invested in the market.

Most of the rest is in, you know, like mutual funds, bonds. And that's the ratio they've been using since I was there on the board.

And, Brad, you have given the council the latest investment report.

I think it's been a year since I've seen it. That's another topic that we need to get into.

I just called. I asked Brad. I wanted to recap before we talked more about this on the portfolio itself. And Brad put me in touch with Gelser Investment Management. And she kind of refreshed my memory because it had been a while about the policy statement and the allocation. We talked about whether there was exposure to private credit and some other things. They do their analysis in conjunction with the actuary who creates our projections of a little over a 6% annual return, which is what the financial planning software that I use for households, depending on your allocation, you know, really conservative, you're going to be a little under six. On the high side, we're in the sixes for super aggressive. So they're right in line with everything I've understood about long-term projecting. So I don't question the portfolio allocation. I think it's very organized, but sometimes no one is spared in a market recession, right? And we would have to, the employees do what they're due when they retire regardless of what the market does. They do not share in market losses, right? We just have to compensate for them.

And I know I'm a little concerned because I was here when Greg, to Greg's point, when, you know, things, it was tough to come up with the money for the sheriff's retirement. And I want to make sure that we don't leave it for a future council down the road, possibly, to face all that again. Because that was very difficult coming up with that.

I think you ought to look at 52 instead of 50. I think... Physically and everything, I think that's still a good number, and that would help some of it, too.

I could see if he can, you know, by the next meeting, see if he can give me that one figure.

Yeah, because that brings down our total costs a little bit. Well, and I think if we could... I think 50 is a little early to retire.

The biggest question I have now, because I would love to do it. I would just love to say it's not a problem. But when you talk about increasing the annual obligation by 50%, which is what we're talking about, going from a million to a million and a half, and that's assuming things stay as they are. And we never even cut the $800,000 out of next year's budget that was our target. For me, I'd love to do it. And I think it makes sense to not incentivize officers to stay past the desirable age and all that. It's just about the math. And that's what brought me lastly to, but if the employees said this is important to us and we'd be willing to contribute more to make it happen, how much could we do, right? If it's not 500,000 a year, Could we come up with $200,000 a year if the employees could increase their contribution a couple percent? And then where does that get us? I have those kinds of questions now.

So for expediency here, how about we defer? I'd like to see the figure. I just got them last night, so I didn't even get a chance to look at them myself. I've got to digest some of the...

Okay.

Brad, how much of our return? So we've got the 27 budget set, so we can next meeting bring it up as an item and talk thoroughly through it.

I'd like to think about this a little bit.

And that's fine, and I'll see what I can do about a different... Every time I do one of these studies, each one, it costs money.

I know, I know. I think we should be thoughtful about...

If I can do one more, I mean, I'm good. I'm sorry. How much of our total retirement is funded? Are we running 70%, 80%? We're about 82%. 82%? So we're not 100% funded? No, no, no, we're not 100%. Can you make a one-time... Gary, can we make a one-time payment into the retirement and make it 100%?

You did that last year or the year before.

Yeah, I didn't think we were that funded.

But that's a capability.

Yeah.

Because I don't know if we're still that. We added extra money. We're trying to get it up. But with the addition of officers and then certainly if we pass anything like this, I don't think we'd be close to 80% funded.

So what I'll try to do is I'll try to get on the 52 for next week. We'll see. I'll see if maybe I can get Gelser in here as well. and get on the agenda and see if they can get them in here to present those better numbers, you know, something that I can't do, so.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

We really would like to do whatever we can. Yeah, you know, I'm just doing my- But we just have to make sure we have the money.

And I appreciate that. I'm just trying to do my due diligence for, you know, my current people and my retirees. You know, it's, you know, served this, you know, county for years and, you know, I'm just, I'm concerned about, like I said the mental well-being of the deputies that and officers that we deal with on a daily basis and it's just getting more difficult all the time and so and there's a lot of Variables we can account for like for example people probably experience more health care needs between

55 and 65 it would make sense and they're still on the county's insurance plan Whereas if we had not created an incentive to stay so long and they would have retired, you know And we still fund our insurance. I mean, there's no way I do see the advantage to not incentivizing people to stay so long But yeah, we have to figure out how to make it affordable. I

Let's have a thorough discussion next week. Thank you.

Yeah, and real quick I know you're trying to finalize the budget and I know it's not on here But I got a little with the CCD I got a little thing with it We had a lot of conversation about the drone and everything like that Based off of what we discussed and it's about 72,000 short because I just implemented the new one and so That's gonna be had to be added on for the total cost for next year Now I can be you can leave it as is and you can come in and do an additional I suppose Next year, but it's gonna be about it's gonna be right at 72 short From what what because we went from like 285 to 265 But we need to add, you know 72 to that to make it solvent for an entire payment, you know for 27 And I'll talk about it next week, but we have an issue with the 26 budget on the drones as well. It disappeared somewhere, but I can bring that up next week. Okay.

Hey, Sheriff, can I just make a comment on this? Everything on that is so true because I look at it in real life every day.

Absolutely. And there's more, and I put more. And you can see the top 10 traumatic events that officers deal with. And you can see the average, what a police officer sees versus the average civilian. We talk about homicides and dead bodies. You're 50 to 200 times more than what a civilian would see. And you see all those particular things. And when you talk about the general public and what police have to deal with, it weighs on you.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Very true to what the sheriff said for our law enforcement officers. My request is just try to balance out the drug court coordinator with the behavioral health coordinator. And fees being equal. Just a few reasons why I believe that should be the case.

So so I mean, obviously I brought it up last month. What amount are you looking at? Exactly the same? Because there's differences. I think we got into education, and we got into it a little bit, but since it wasn't done.

Yeah, I would ask that I believe it's $66,473 for the behavior health, and I just ask that it be equal. Part of that reason... To go too much into it, but Beth, Ed was grandfathered in. It's the same job. She's kept the drug court certified. That's not easy to do, and she's maintained it.

Because behavioral health court hasn't been certified yet. Is that our understanding from the state?

Did you talk to the new HR director? Did she make any comments on? I forgot to do that.

Well, she's right behind you.

She's right behind you.

Okay, well, I don't want to make her answer that on the fly.

Yeah, you're going to get a call.

So, what's your pleasure? I'm in favor of it.

The current amount, I'm trying to remember how far it was.

I forget how much Beth's currently is, but it's quite a bit. And the other thing is Beth is going to retire fairly soon, and we will need a college-educated, I'm sure the salary is attractive salary.

I had that we approved 64,269 is what I wrote down last. So just to give everyone the perspective of difference.

I'll make the motion. I'm in favor of it. I mean, we've got longtime individuals and approved over and over and over again. So, I mean, why would we jeopardize our progress? current program.

Thank you. Okay, I'll second.

I have a question. Can you explain a little bit, those of us that are not involved with it all the time, just quickly, what is the difference between the two, would you say, the drug court and the behavioral court?

That may be a... The drug court is primarily look at drug addictions and consistent drug problems. Behavioral mental health court is the primary focus is mental health. However, I mean, that's something we may even look at with the future because those tend to overlap. And I want to make it as if, while I believe in these courts, they are expensive and you guys are supporting it. And there may be a way to make it even better economically going forward.

So is the difference just the courts? I mean, one is part of one...

Well, technically, we do have two separate ones, which some counties put their drug court as just one, you know, kind of necessary maybe to look at. But we do have two separate courts. The drug court was started by Judge Culver, I think, in 2004, and it just focuses on repeated drug-related problems, which do cause... Great problems. And then the Behavioral Health Court is to look specifically at mental health issues. They're different. The only thing that I was just saying with all humility is sometimes they do overlap.

But different judges can send people to the different ones.

Yeah, actually, I don't get in the part of selecting or I never get in to try and promote somebody for drug court if the therapists and the people who evaluate recommend one court over the other. Okay.

I have wondered at times if we should make it one, but is there some very good reasons why we shouldn't? What are those reasons why we shouldn't combine it?

I'm actually, that may be something to look with, and I'm trying to be diplomatic.

With the new judge? Yeah, I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Okay, wait.

That may be something that we'll discuss. It might be something that we would move toward. And if it is more economically beneficial, the counter argument would be we're more focused on drug addicted and focused on that. They're more focused on behavioral health. But I do see that they tend to overlap. will we need to work that out and get it more economically efficient for the camp

I agree. I've been a speaker at both courts, and I've said for a long time that people with behavioral health issues and people with the drug court issues, honestly, it's a lot of the same issues. It's just sobriety is the prerequisite for tackling those other mental health issues. And so I would be very interested in the future, and I'd like to let the new judge get adapted, but I think it could be... I know the legalities, but our BHC is not certified. Drug court's long been certified, and I think we're tackling the same issues, whether a person has a substance abuse history or not.

Can I get a clarification on the motion about the amount?

Yeah, Kaylee, can you tell me what the amount would be?

I want to double, I know what it said in my book, but I want to make sure that's what we voted on. What is the salary amount?

So currently for behavioral health, the coordinator has approved $76,919. I was a little off.

I apologize.

And for drug coordinator, it's $64,216.

So it's... Is that your, was that the intent of your motion at that amount?

Because I know that's higher than what... That's higher than I thought, but that's, I mean, I'm not going to change my motion, but I will add the amount in if you need to buy the penny. It's whatever, $12,000. I'd like to say something, too, because I've been working on the drug issue since I've been on the council for 12 years. We started trying to work our drug problem here in the community by going to other jails and figuring out what we could do with our people and all of that. I did all of that. I've worked probably 12 years on this. I kind of feel like we are in a much better situation now than we ever have been. But there's a lot of factors, there's so many factors. The community's growing, so it's hard to judge if our drug program and all the other things we're doing is helping because there's still more and more people coming into the community causing more and more and more issues. I kind of think we would be three times worse than we are now if we didn't have all the programs we have, especially with the ability to separate people at the jail, the ability, all those things that we've been working all these years. years to do, but I do feel like we're in a much better position. It used to be front and center. Drug was everything. We had special officers we paid out of economic development for drug enforcement. We had everything in the past. trying to beat the situation. But I think out now, out in the community, it is much better. And that has to be, some of it has to be because we're trying to take care of the people that have the problem.

And something is working.

Something's working. It's probably a combination of federal law. It's probably a combination of border closures. It's probably a combination of a lot of things, access to the drugs. It's probably a combination of a lot of things. But one of those things is what we're doing.

I do want to say this. I want to compliment Councilman Fisk and all of the council. Your support has helped us tremendously in making the improvement on that. So thank you very much. And we're going to continue to focus on that. And also we try to continue to focus on Hancock County residents as much as we can.

Do you want to restate your motion at all?

So if there's a specific number you want me to put in there, let me know.

It's 76,919 if you want to bring it on par.

Okay, that's my motion to bring it up to the, so it's equal. Do you still second the motion?

I will second Kent's renewed motion.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Carried. Thank you, Judge.

And I do have just two more things I didn't want to bring up before. You can go, Judge. I didn't want to bring them up before the vote because I didn't want it applied specifically to this. But there are two things about this in general. One is I wanted to clarify, when we talked about adding an HR department, One of the things we talked about being a benefit is that someone other than a department head would analyze, much like was done with the GIS coordinator. And I don't think we should cherry pick when we do and don't use that. We either agree that that is part of our process for analyzing if an individual's pay is way off or we don't. Is it our intention to send everyone through HR for analysis of salary? I think so.

I think that would be a good idea.

I'm not trying to put you in hot water. Just what you can find. I just don't think it's fair that we ask department heads to be the liaison for that information.

I think the department heads can provide her some information to help her. Sure. But she provides it to us at the end.

Yes. But like the report that she gave us for the GIS, she never came out and said they should make this amount of money. She gave us different things to look at. It was very helpful.

But she can come at that from an unbiased position, whereas a department head has a bias, obviously, or they wouldn't be asking. So going forward, I guess we're in agreement that before you bring forth an individual salary request, we need info from HR. Yes.

Right. Well, and it needs to be an unbiased, I'm, I'm in the unbiased camp because the last HR director we had, um, when we were dealing with the salary cert salary, 17th pay and everything, I felt like we were being pressured by them by their opinion. And so I don't, I didn't enjoy that. And I know you guys probably don't even remember. a lot of that, but I do remember everything we went through in that two or three month period fighting that. So an unbiased opinion is what we really need.

We don't want cherry pick data that favors one side or the other. We just want averages in general. The other thing I wanted to point out is...

I'd just like to add to that. Yes, Andrea does a good job and totally biased filming. She does what needs to be done for the county.

I believe that. And I didn't want to throw that at her day one because I knew she had a lot to chew on. But that is one of the intentions. And then secondly... I just want to point out that over the years, we've always given the department head discretion to distribute raises. And there's been a lot of favor for that over us dictating a flat percentage for everyone. And I can stay on board with that approach. But over time, and we saw this with probation in this budget cycle, They said, well, now our people aren't in line with these people, right? And so if we're going to go every year letting department heads decide, we can't always say, well, my person shouldn't make what that person makes because for the last five years... one department had had a different perception than another. And so I don't know, I'm not saying we change it. I just wanna point out that positions are not gonna stay on par between departments as long as department heads do have discretion. And we probably can't wait it that way always.

And as long as I've been on the council, it's been an issue every year.

And in Beth's case, Beth has done a great job. She's been here a very long time, and it will cost that much to replace her when she retires. I mean, there's no doubt about it. So, like, I didn't want that applied to this specific situation, but we can't always say yes because someone else in another department makes this because the department had had leeway, you know, to move their salary.

Well, the jobs in the county are so variable that... You can't even really compare two jobs because they are so different, all of them.

They don't have to be equal.

Probation.

Gail and Nick. Good morning. I see you're still armed.

Just in case you say no, Jim.

I have the sheriff on my side. He's behind him.

So just a few things. I didn't quite do the math completely correct when we lost that grant and pivoted her into that empty position. So in the County General Fund, that was a difference of about $64.14. And so that's what I'm asking for there. The $25.06 line, that was because an employee left and we hired one that's slightly more expensive. So I had to adjust that just a little bit by $18.36. And then the FICA and PERF were based on those moves as well.

Jim and I, as a reminder, before we had budget hearings, we went through the budget pretty much in detail. You guys have one of the more complex budgets, one of these departments that has a lot of funds. I think you did a great job. Nobody prepped you for your first budget year. So if there aren't questions, I've reviewed these changes and would make a motion. Is that all right?

No, sure.

I'd like to make a motion to make the following adjustments to the probation budget. In fund 1001, line 12003, adjustment from $843,086 to $849,500. Fund 2506, Line 12003, adjustment from $139,664 to $141,500. Same fund, FICA, adjustment from $17,250 to $17,500. And PERF adjustment in fund 2506 from $25,500 to $26,000. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good day. Now, Jeremy. Good morning. Good morning.

Three small items to run through with you quickly. Two of them we're actually going to handle next week until the third one popped up about the same time.

And can you break down? I think you've got two requests, right?

Actually, three technically. I'll break them down quickly, though, for you. One is our Title IV e-funds that we get quarterly from the state regarding our juvenile funds. That's the standard where it comes in. It gets put into one fund, and then I think Mary and Deb are familiar with this. We have to appropriate it to a different line item. So what I'm asking on that is in our line item, 8892-3808-0s, there's $6,400 in there. Or there's more than that, but we're asking for $6,400 to be placed into 8892-31218-0s, which is the juvenile pauper expenses. And then also out in that to create another account in 34-201, which would be event expenses under that 8892 fund, but with no funds in there right now. If that's clear as mud, I hope that is.

So you're asking for a shift of funds? Okay. Why don't we take these one at a time?

It's appropriation. The appropriation we have to advertise. Advertise. Yeah. Okay. So the first one was additional appropriation. Yeah. Okay.

All right. And so that will then come back then. And then the second thing is, as you may be aware, a few weeks ago the governor decided he was going to approve a up to $2,500 bonus for state employees in the executive branch. Okay, and that's for 26, correct? For 26, it's now. And due obviously to the pay parity compensation requirements of the comprehensive plan, the state's paying that to the prosecutor. So, but that requires that that come also to Mr. Ron, my chief deputy, and myself. However, that's not paid by the state, not paid by the county. That should just be, needs to be paid out of our supplemental fund. So it doesn't, it's not any extra cost to the county, but it needs to, we need to, I'm not sure how that works, how it gets from the supplemental fund into a line item for salaries for the two of us.

And that's two people, 2,500 each?

Yeah, because of long-term, it was a- From supplemental? Yes, from our supplemental fund.

I want to make sure that I understand this correctly. So basically it's the $5,000 that the prosecutor-

That's a separate, and that's my next thing. That's a separate thing. This is a one-time bonus from the governor, the governor authorized to executive branch employees.

So the governor's forcing us to give a bonus.

Right. Forcing you to give the bonus. Well, he's forcing us. Well, it's not coming out of county dollars.

Yeah, it comes out county dollars. Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is.

The fund is not county dollars, sir. You're not funding that. That's funded by user fees, so on and so forth.

Yeah, but we got that before we had a public defender's office.

but you don't get to use it for yourself. It's only for public defender use. I know.

But that fund doesn't cover the cost of your operations, and we make up for it elsewhere.

Yeah, it's a supplemental fund. It's used for one-time expenses, which this is. Okay, so we have a motion.

Is that an appropriation, or we just move that money over?

We don't give bonuses in the county. We don't allow department heads to give bonuses. We do have a few stipends. Yeah, we have some stipends for extra work that they've had to do.

What we've agreed to is that there will be pay parity between him and Myron Ron and the prosecutor and their right-hand man. So if the governor gives them $2,500 a piece in the prosecutor's office and we've agreed to ensure they're compensated equally, but they're not giving it to them.

I'm not sure that we agreed to that. There was a document that was done that said we had to.

We didn't know what we were doing.

I'm not saying if you want to take it to court, you can't win. I'm just saying, do we want to win? Take it that far. I think.

Yes. Okay. So is this an additional appropriation?

And this is a one time.

This is a one time. That's why it's paid out of the supplemental fund, not out of our general budget.

Yeah, it's going to be an additional appropriation. There's going to be a salary ordinance amendment. It is a mess.

Because it is a one-time, non-recurring mess, are we legally allowed to instead do that one-time expenditure from food and beverage for $5,000 rather than reimbursement?

But we've got the supplemental that we can't spend on anything, and this is something we can spend it on?

The state's dictating where to pay it from, even.

Oh, they did. Yes.

They're saying that it's the juice of the supplemental fund.

We're still restricted with that money anyway. Well, they dictate to us that we can't spend it on much of anything. So this is one thing we can spend it on.

It just bothers me that the state is telling us to pay... Whatever department.

That's because you have this department. If you didn't have this department, and you would have done it the old way, then you wouldn't be dealing with this.

So I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. So this is just for this year? Next year?

No, this is the one-time bonus authorized by the governor. One time.

Well, they could.

State employees have not gotten a raise in two years. So this was a way, because of all the news around the budget surplus, to reward state employees. So I started July of 24 and there has not been a raise since then. So this was a way to kind of give a, Hey, good job. I did get this bonus.

I was very appreciative of it.

I want to be on the record. I was very appreciative of this bonus. But just before you get too fired up, understand all state employees, regardless of where they work, and there's a lot of really tough jobs in the state, have not gotten a raise in three years. So I would not get too fired up about this small bonus.

I do understand that. My husband worked for the state for many years, and he went five years once with no increases.

Clarifying question before I make a motion. Do you need a new line item? Or is there an existing line item?

There is an existing line item, but salary cannot be paid out of it. Within the supplemental public defender line, he has $10,000 appropriated for Pauper Council expenses. However, since we're going to be paying employees, we'll need to come up with a payroll line. Okay, new line. for $5,000 to transfer that into an appropriate line. I do have a question as far as where will the FICA come from on this? Normally it comes from the fund that the payroll.

And I'm sure we would probably take that out of supplemental fund too. Okay. That's not going to be an issue. Like we've given explicit instruction that this can be paid out of the supplemental fund. The CCA gave us that direction expressly. So I presume the FIKE would come out of that.

Okay. That would be very helpful.

And I can clarify and let you know, I don't think there'd be an issue. It should come out of there. I mean, if it's coming out of all the funds, I don't know why it wouldn't.

Okay, well I'll make a motion that a new appropriate line item be created within the Public Defender Supplemental Fund for $5,000 plus the appropriate FICA amount.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Aye.

And it's not the money. Don't get us wrong. Two or three. It's the principal. The state just keeps forcing us to do things.

If the state wanted to issue that as a bonus, they should have funded the bonus.

I think it's four or three. Who voted yes? Yeah, we can do a roll call.

Yes.

I think it was four or three, too.

It's four or three. Okay, and they voted yes, and then us three voted no. Okay. Four or three. So myself.

No. Mary. No. Mary. No.

Do we still have to have an appropriation, though, to move the money? Yeah. Yeah.

She said a budget transfer.

This is just a budget transfer?

Yes, this will be for a budget transfer and to pay it out.

Okay.

So this passed.

The third one? The third and final one is going to go down the same rugs. I know you're not going to like this one either, but as I was coming up with looking through this, it came to my attention. that the county, for I don't know how long, has been paying out to the judges, the magistrate, prosecutor, and chief trial deputy a $5,000 stipend every year.

Yeah.

Okay. And that's where I think you were going, Ms. Lauder. Under the comprehensive plan of the CCA's requirements, the compensation salary for my office has to match that of the prosecutor's office, which requires that there's, then to maintain compliance, there's two options. Either add that to our budget line item moving forward, I feel like I'm being greedy for money, but this is the requirement. $5,000 stipend for myself and my chief deputy. The alternative is to not pay it out to the prosecutor. And I'd say take money away from them. Those are the two options I present to the council to maintain compliance with the comprehensive plan. And that's just the way the plan works.

So in our budget last month, we passed for them to get a raise, which I think I voted no on. We would have to take that back out. That's not fair. And then add the $5,000 in as a separate line item. Just like how we do with prosecutors.

And I think, and that's what I was going to suggest, honestly, is take the raise, but put that back in. And honestly, I think that's a fair, I would pose that as a fair compromise.

Well, I can't imagine that they won't do this every year since they do the judges every year. And like I said, I'm not against you getting it. What I'm against, I think they should pay it like they do everybody else, the prosecutor, the judges, and the state should come up with the money.

This is you all paying the money. This is us. This is us.

This is us. This is us. We don't have to do it.

Only because it's been done for eons.

They have a choice. Do you have something?

This goes back about 20 years when the state was not able to pay the judges. And so they gave the locals the ability to pay judges up to five for a long time. If you wanted to. He's taking it now. And it didn't show up in this case because the prosecutor was not taking the $5,000 for a while. Now he is.

If he's not taking it, then there's no reason to pay it off. He is now.

Because he's not getting a raise right now.

Stay in step. I'm not looking for something that they're not getting or whatever else, but I'm trying to maintain compliance.

We need, what, $5,000?

We need a motion to correct his salary to match exactly the prosecutor's and for his chief to match their chief's salary, and then we give an additional $5,000. A separate line item.

I already match. His and my salaries already match. I know, but we... There's a separate line, a stipend line in the allocated budget.

Well, we already passed the 27 budget with their salaries the same, I think.

No, we passed it with an increase, I believe. Is that correct, Deb?

We had requested a raise. You had requested a raise. That would need to be corrected back to match exactly. Yes. Yes, you're right.

It needs to be corrected back.

And then there would be a separate line item for the stipend.

Yes.

I'd say we take it out.

I might be the only one.

Take it what out?

We don't do it.

Do we? I'm tired of the statement.

I'm going to take it out of the prosecutor's office. Absolutely.

Yeah, is that $5,000 for elected officials?

I'm sorry?

In the prosecutor's budget, the $5,000 that we pay Brent is in a line item for an elected official.

Do we pay his assistant? I mean, his chief $5,000? No.

It's on the judges. Yes, we do. We do. It's on the second page, and it's just chief deputy prosecutor, $5,000.

So we give it to Brent, Mr. Eaton, as a prosecutor because he's elected, but So that would not be the same then for your position. It would be the same for him. I mean, for Chief.

Compensation, salary and compensation have to match. Meaning if the county's giving him additional compensation, it doesn't matter. But you're not elected.

Do you see the argument there?

Neither does the magistrate. The magistrate gets it and the judges get it. I understand. So I'm just making that similarity. Okay, I see your legal argument there. But it says the compensation plan requires... matching salary and compensation.

Yes, oh yeah, absolutely.

Why don't we just add a line item like we do for the prosecutor and PDs, because we might not do it always. We might We might remove it. We can remove it from the prosecutor if we want to.

Well, I think that's what you said, Kent, right? That we can just do away with it.

I don't think it's been a good program since I've been here. And Brent recognized that at the beginning and didn't take it.

Yeah, the first four years, I think.

I think it might have been 20 years ago, but I think things are different now. But it just complicates things. It keeps complicating things.

I'm just not happy with the idea that the state puts these numbers forward but doesn't provide the funding. The $5,000 is not the state, though.

That's another discussion.

Well, and for clarity, what we keep talking about is a comprehensive plan, which I think is something we agreed to that was not legally bestowed upon us. Is that not accurate? I don't know if we ever agreed upon it.

I think, I wasn't here when you guys voted on creating the office, but my understanding is that the county agrees to the office.

I'm not against the comprehensive plan. I'm just, this is a voluntary thing. It's been there for 20 years. Me personally, it's causing us havoc. You know, I know it means that we have to take it away, but... If you, I mean, I'm just, I can't, I'm just one vote, okay?

So we, just to clarify, I think what we approved, if my book is right, in your budget for your salary is $189,018, and that was the prosecutor's salary, because the prosecutor doesn't come out of this fund like you do.

Right, right. We had requested a 3% raise for my chief and myself, which was approved. That puts us above the prosecutor. But that also didn't account for any $5,000 stipend or whatever. But, again, let's face it, for all fairness, if you want to remove that since the prosecutor didn't get it, I understand that.

But that number is correct as far as the state salary for the prosecutor?

No, state salaries, like the prosecutor nor I were, you know, the prosecutor didn't receive a raise for $27,000.

What is his mandated salary?

Whatever it is this year, 183 something, which is what mine is currently.

Oh, so you already get $5,000 more because he gets the $5,000?

Currently, for 2026, we make the same salary. Now, he has an additional $5,000 stipend he's been receiving, which I did not receive. In our budget moving forward, since technically... the comprehensive plan requires that minimum matches, we asked for and the council approved a 3% raise. The $5,000 stipend wasn't in my argument or anything at that point. The council just approved that 3% raise.

Do you guys want to think about this until next week? Because I want to kind of check my number.

Right now we have on the schedule that he'll come back next week for the one-time bonus, which we already voted on for three. So we could put it in that time slot, yes. Let's do that.

I just want to compare the numbers because I don't want to come back in a month or two and be like, well, actually this fund over here has a few bucks.

Can we have our HR look into the $5,000, how it's done in other counties?

Yeah.

I had assumed that the salary was the same as a prosecutor, but I didn't look it up. So I'd like to see that. Okay. Come back next week.

I wanted to ask also, we had discussed at the budget hearings about your office being open through lunch and 8 to 5 or 8 to 4, whatever your hours are. Are you doing that now?

As much as we can.

Because you have like five people in that office, I think you said. And I would think with five people in that office that you could stagger lunches to be open. Because my problem is you may have people that need to come in and they may try to come in during their lunch hour. and then they get there and the door's locked. There's no reason why that I can see that that office should have a closed period of time during normal working hours.

On that topic then, Ms. Ngo, you brought this up last time, and I've gone back and looked, and it feels like there's a double standard going on.

There's what?

A double standard going on, and do you make the prosecutor's office stay open eight hours a day?

They should be.

They're not. They lock their office doors for an hour every day. For lunch, correct? For lunch, yeah. And there's a sign on the door. And nobody's there to... Nobody answers the phone either.

I would look at the commissioners then to address that because, in my opinion, for the number of people that these offices employ, there's no reason why they should be shut down at lunch.

Well, we've got the recorder and the treasurer that don't have many employees, but they don't close for lunch.

Yeah, they have three people. I don't get it. I just don't get it at all.

Well, we do the very best we can with the limited place we have.

I think you could do better.

We'll work on it then. I just want to let you know your collar button's unbuttoned, so if you're going somewhere else that way, just... That's my tension. I guess it's better than my... I'm just looking out for you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate that.

We'll continue to work on that. I know this was addressed to the health department at one time because they were closing at one time and they were told that they cannot do that anymore, that they have to stay open and have enough staff to do that and I don't know why any of the other offices would be treated any differently.

The planning department had that issue.