Aug 02, 2021 Commissioners Court - Budget Workshop

[ NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS COMMISSIONERS COURT *This will be a remote meeting with multiple methods of access; See instructions below: BUDGET WORKSHOP AUGUST 2, 2021 ]

[00:00:04]

>> JUDGE CANALES: GOOD MORNING, , EVERYBODY.

I'M GOING TO GAVEL US IN, AND THEN ASK COMMISSIONER MAREZ TO PLEASE ASSIST ME AS I AM ON A TEED YUSM PHONE CALL THAT IS QUITE URGENT. AND SO GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS A BUDGET WORKSHOP AND I GAVEL US IN.

THE TIME IS 9:06 A.M. THERE ARE TWO COMMISSIONERS PRESENT IN THE CROONL, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, GONZALEZ. I AM IN AN ADJACENT OFFICE.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS PARTICIPATING BY VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGY, AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, COMMISSIONER, YOU CAN HEAR US. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, CAN YOU HEAR US? YOU ARE ALSO PARTICIPATING BY VIRTUAL MEANS.

>> COMM. CHESNEY: GREAT. >> JUDGE CANALES: ALL ARE ACCOUNTED AND PRESENT FOR. CLERK, WE AGAIN AT THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE NUISANCE COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN COMMISSIONER NUECES COUNTY COURT SHOP FOR THE WORKSHOP BUDGET.

I WISH I COULD STAY WITH YOU FOR THE PRAYER.

GOD KNOWS THAT WE NEED A LOT OF PRAYERS RIGHT NOW BUT I WILL PRAY WITH YOU FROM ANOTHER ROOM.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ, WOULD YOU BEGIN THE PROCESS, AND I HOPE TO JOIN ALL VERY, VERY QUICKLY INSIDE THE COURTROOM.

THANK YOU. >> COMM. MAREZ: THANK YOU, JUDGE. ALL RIGHT.

IF YOU WOULD ALL JOIN ME IN A PRAYER THIS MORNING TO START OFF OUR PROCESS AND OUR WEEK DEAR GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR TODAY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THIS BUDGET.

WE PUT THIS IN YOUR HANDS TO GUIDE US TO FIND A FAIRWAY TO HANDLE THE TAXES THAT ARE ENTRUSTED ON US, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WE PRAY AGAIN FOR THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF OUR COUNTY AS WE CONTINUE TO SEE A SURGE IN COVID AND IN CASES AND IN UNFORTUNATELY THOSE WHO HAVE PASSED.

WE PRAY FOR THOSE FAMILIES. WE PRAY FOR THOSE FIRST RESPONDERS AND FOR OUR LEADERSHIP THAT YOU WILL GUIDE THEM TO HELP US THROUGH THIS PROCESS ONCE AGAIN.

DEAR GOD, WE PRAY THAT IN ALL THINGS WE PUT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES FIRST FOR THE COUNTY AND DO THE BEST JOB WE CAN TO HELP SERVE THE PEOPLE. IN YOUR HOLY NAME WE PRAY.

AMEN. >> AMEN.

>> COMM. MAREZ: ALL RIGHT. SORRY P., I DON'T HAVE THE AGENDA IN FRONT OF ME. I THINK --

>> COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE THE CALL TO ORDER.

I THINK THE JUDGE DID THAT. WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT NEXT, AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ONLINE. AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OUTSIDE. SO I WOULD SAY THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT, AND SO THE NEXT ITEM IS BUDGET WORKSHOP.

>> COMM. MAREZ: ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU, TYNER AND, DALE, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LITTLE BLACK BOOK THAT WE HAVE EVERY YEAR FOR THIS.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN GIVE IT TO YOU ON FRIDAY.

THIS WAS SOME SMALL MODIFICATION SO MY STAFF WILL BE COMING OVER VERY SOON TO REPLACE A FEW PAGES OF THE BOOK.

THIS WAS A COMPILING OF ALL THE STUFF WE'VE GONE THROUGH WHEN WE DID THE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS AS WELL AS THOUGH ITEMS OF DISCUSSION I'VE HAD WITH THE JUDGE AND AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER HAVE YOUR COMMISSIONERS TO TRY TO FIND OUT HOW THE TO BEST START. THIS IS THE START OF THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR WHERE WE BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO BE AND WHAT WE NEED TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH. THESE NUMBERS CAN CHANGE UNTIL WE GET TO THE FINAL DECISION ON A PROPOSED BUDGET AS OF THE END OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER BEFORE WE DO OUR EVALUATIONS.

THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT ARE MISSING FROM THIS BOOK.

THE MAIN REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WHEN THE LEGISLATURES LAST CHANGED, THEY CHANGED A LOT THE TAX CODES AND THE COMPTROLLER HAS NOT UPDATED THE SOFTWARE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE TAX CODE.

SO WE WERE DEMOTE HAVE ANY T. TAX CALCULATIONS SO YOU CANNOT TELL YOU WHERE OUR TAX RATES ARE OR WHERE WE EXPECTY TO BE.

THE COMPTROLLER ACCOUNTANS HAVING TROUBLE BECAUSE OF THE COMPTROLLER'S NUMBERS. WE DON'T HAVE THE VIEW TRIEWLS.

MY STAFF IS WORKING ON THAT TODAY AND TOMORROW.

WE DO HOPE TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR OUR WEDNESDAY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN ITEM TO PRESENT THOSE RATES, HOWEVER, THEY MAY BE NEED TO BE TABLED IN THE 11TH, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE 11TH IF THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR BUDGET CALENDAR IS. IF FIRST I'M YOU WILL SEE ON TAB A IS ORGANIZING, HOW WE WE UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S BUDGET AND HOW WE'VE DEMINT PAST. TAB B IS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT OUR

[00:05:01]

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL START COMING UP AGAINST ONCE WE GET EVERYTHING RUNNING AGAIN, BUT AS WE KNOW WE ARE STILL IN THIS PROCESS OF CORONAVIRUS AND HOPEFULLY WE FIND A WAY TO END THIS AT SOME POINT IN TIME. NOW, THERE WAS A POINT -- THERE WAS A FEW MID-POSTPONEMENT VALUES THAT WE HAVE, AND YOU GO TO THE TAB MID-APPOINTMENT VALUES THAT WE HAVE AND YOU ARE START ON B5 WHERE WE HAVE APPROVED MID-BUDGET POSITIONS THAT THE COURT HAS TAKEN ACTION FOR, AND THESE ITEMS WILL BE NEEDED TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO IT OR ADDING TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ALREADY THERE, AS WELL AS YOU WILL SEE THERE WERE SEVERAL THEM STARTING ON PAGE B5 AND B6.

B7, WE HAVE A CONTINUOUS PAY WHICH IS A NORMAL PROCESS THROUGH OUR PERSONNEL POLICY WHERE ANYONE THAT HAS HAD THREE YEARS OF CONTINUING SERVICE DOES GET A SLIGHT INCREASE IN SALARY, AND THIS YEAR THERE ARE 148 EMPLOYEES THAT WILL QUALIFY FOR THAT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE FIVE ELECTED TBOISHES THERE'S THREE OR FOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND THE REST OF YOUR REGULAR EMPLOYEES. AND THAT TOTAL VALUE WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOU AT THE MOMENT WHERE IT'S 160,890 WHERE WE'LL DO THAT. THIS YEAR WE SAW AN INCREASE IN OUR RETIREMENT PLAN ON ITEM NUMBER 3.

IT WENT FROM 13.82 TO 14.32. AND THAT WILL CAUSE AN INCREASE IN OUR PREMIUM THAT WE HAVE TO PAY EACH YEAR FOR OUR RETIREMENT, AND THAT IS AROUND $400,000 OF INCREASE FOR THAT PARTICULAR FUNCTION. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A AGREEMENT WITH OUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS OUR CONSTABLES ON NUMBER 4 ON B8. THIS YEAR THERE WAS A 4% INCREASE IN SALARY FOR EACH THAT WAS AGREED UPON IN OUR AGREEMENT WHERE THAT NOW COSTS US $383,621.

WHEN WE GET INTO THE PROCESS WE ARE PROPOSING SOME NEW POSITIONS AND SOME RECLASSIFICATIONS. TENTATIVELY THE NUMBERS ARE 419,376 AND YOU'LL SEE THAT ON TABLE 6 -- I MEAN TABLE 3.

AND RECLASSIFICATIONS OF AROUND $515,000 AND YOU'LL SEE THAT ON TABLE NUMBER 4. NOW, AGAIN THESE CAN CHANGE.

RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT WE ASSUME FROM WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WAS WHEN WE HAD THE DEPARTMENTS IN HERE AND WORKING WITH THE JUDGE AND MYSELF, WE HAVE KIND OF NARROWED IT DOWN TO WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE JUSTIFIABLE NEW POSITIONS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS EXPWUT THESE DEFINITELY CAN CHANGE.

ONE ITEM THAT CANNOT CHANGE IS NUMBER 7.

THERE WAS A AGREEMENT, A LAW PASSED TWO YEARS AGO WHERE THE DISTRICT JUDGES ALL RECEIVED A SALARY INCREASE BASED ON THEIR YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE BENCH, AND BECAUSE THERE'S A LAW THAT SAYS THAT A COUNTY COURT LAW JUDGE MUST RECEIVE $100,000 OR LESS THAN THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THEY ALSO NOLD THE SAME PATTERN IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR. JUDGE GALVAN OF COUNTY COURT NUMBER 3 QUALIFIED FOR AN INCREASE FOR 8 TO 12 YEARS SO THAT IS $14,000 AND THAT IS A REQUIRED INCREASE.

ON PAGE B9 YOU'LL SEE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE DEFINITELY QUESTIONABLE, AND AS THESE ARE SOME CHALLENGES ITEMS THAT WE NEEDED TO WORK ON AND THAT'S METRO INCOME.

THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA ITEM SEVERAL WEEKS AGO BROUGHT TO YOU FROM THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI WHERE THEY HAVE ANIBAL INCREASE OF $1.1 MILLION FOR CAD AND AS WELL AS $800,000 INCREASE FOR SAL RIP IF FISCAL IMPACT FOR THE COUNTY WILL BE 546.

NOW WE'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO FUND THAT THROUGH THE ART FUNDS BUT WE'RE -- WE STILL MAY NEED TO -- PART OF THIS, BECAUSE PART OF THIS DOES HAVE SALARY IN IT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ART FUNGDZ COVER THE SALARY PORTION OF IT BUT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN. OUT OF THE OTHER SERVICES.

WE'VE GOT A REQUEST FROM SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COURT AS WELL AS OUR ADULT PROBATION ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES UNDER OUR JAIL RISKES SA AM BECAUSE OUR JAIL HAS BEEN ANYWHERE FROM 45 TO 100% OVER THE LAST TWO OR THEE MONTHS.

95 TO 100 PERCENT THE COST WOULD BE $55,000 IF I'M CORRECT.

AND THAT'S WHERE IT WILL BE. SO THE REST ITEMS ARE VERY MINOR

[00:10:01]

YOU'LL SEE THAT THE TABLES STARTING ON B16 OR B15, B16.

THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SOME RECLASSIFICATIONS IN AND HOW THE EFFECT WAS, AND THE BIGGEST ONE IS ON PAGE B17 WHERE WE ADD A PATHOLOGIES ASSISTANT IN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE OF A $98,000 INCREASE AS WELL AS AN AUTOPSY TECH NITION SO AN INCREASE OF $158,000 JUST FOR THOSE TWO POSITIONS, AND AS YOU WILL SEE WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE RECLASSIFICATIONS FOR THIS, BE $333,000 TOTAL FOR THOSE ITEMS. THE REST OF THE TABLE JUST SHOWS YOU RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON NEW POSITIONS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS AS WELL AS THE COUNTY COURT LAW. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM NOW. IF NOT, I WILL CONTINUE ON TO TAB C. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> OKAY. ON 17, B17, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT THEY'RE JUST COMING FROM THE MEDICAL CUSTOMER AND MEDICALD THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE?

>> NO, THE COURT HAS ALREADY APPROVED AND THE BUDGET DURING THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, THESE HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED SO NOW I HAVE TO PUT THESE IN AS A BUDGET ITEM. THESE WERE NOT A RECLASSIFICATION OR A -- WELL, THEY WERE NEW BOTIONZ PUT THEY ARE POSITIONS IN THE BUDGET PROCESS THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY APPROVED. SO THESE POSITIONS ALREADY EXIST AND WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THESE POSITIONS SO WE HAVE TO FIND THE

MONEY FOR THESE. >> SOMETIMES THEY HAVE MONEY

THERE. >> THIS YEAR THEY MAY HAVE SALARY SAVINGS ON SOME OTHER ISSUES BECAUSE OF THIS BUT NOW FOR NEXT YEAR I NEED TO ADD THIS TO THE BUDGET.

>> FOR NEXT YEAR. NOT FOR '21 BUT--

>> THIS IS FOR NEXT YEAR. >> 21-22?

>> YES. >> SO FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE I'M REQUIRED TO ADD 158,000 DOLLARS TO THEIR BUDGET BECAUSE THESE POSITIONS ARE DID NOT ALREADY EXIST IN THE 2021, I NOW HAVE TO PUT THEM INTO 21-22.

>> RIGHT. I THOUGHT THE MONEYS WERE

THERE. >> THE MONEY WAS THERE IN 20-21,

NOT 21-22. >> THE MONEY WAS IN THERE -- I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. THE MONEY WAS THERE FOR ANOTHER POSITION, BUT THE POSITION WASN'T USED SO THEY CREATED THIS POSITION SO THAT MONEY STAYS THERE ALL THE TIME, RIGHT?

>> DID MONEY -- WE REPOSITIONED SOME OF THE MONEY BECAUSE WHEN THE DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER POSITION WAS VACANT FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME AND WE WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE MONEYS TO BASICALLY COVER THIS POSITION, HOWEVER, THEY STILL NEEDED A DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER AS WELL AS THIS PATHOLOGY ASSISTANCE SO WE HAVE TO ADD THIS TO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

>> AND THE MONEY, THE REVENUES THAT ARE COME -- THAT COME IN -- WHERE -- CAN YOU USE THOSE TO PAY FOR THOSE POSITIONS?

>> WE ARE. >> WHAT?

>> WE ALREADY ARE. >> SO WE'RE NOT MAKING ENOUGH

REVENUES THERE? >> NO.

>> CAN WE JUST GET -- CAN WE GET JUST A, KIND OF A -- I'D LIKE TO HAVE HOW MUCH REVENUES PER YEAR WE'RE MAKING AT THE MEDICAL

EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >> I'M WORKING ON THAT, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. I'VE GOT MY STAFF WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. EVERYONE WILL GET A COPY WHEN WE

GET IT COMPLETED. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES. DALE, THIS IS JOHN.

I HAD SOME SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE SAME POINT THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK AS FAR AS WHY THIS IS -- WHY THIS WAS PULLED OUT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING, JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I'M ON THE ZOOM, IS THESE POSITIONS ARE NOT BEING INCLUDED AT THIS POINT FOR THE 21-22. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

>> THEY ARE BEING INCLUDED BECAUSE DURING THE 212021 BUDGET YEAR, THESE POSITIONS WERE NOT EXISTING IN THE BUDGET.

WHEN THEY CAME TO CORD, THESE TWO POSITIONS WERE ADDED TO MEDICAL EXAMINER'S SOFS, OFFICE STAFF SO NOW WE MUST BIGOT FOR THEM IN 2021 OR REMOVE THESE POSITIONS.

>> AND THE SAME THING WITH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER?

>> THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER WHICH WAS ALREADY CREATED FOR. IT DID NOT ALREADY EXIST.

I CREATED A NEW DEPARTMENT FOR IT.

SO RIGHT NOW THAT 514, EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD REALLY NOT BE HERE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CREATE IT UNTIL NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, SO THEORETICALLY THERE'S NO EFFECT ON THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET YEAR.

THIS IS ALL FOR WHAT WE HAVE TO INCREASE FOR NEXT YEAR.

>> BUT -- SO WHY IS IT SHOWING, THEN, IF IT'S NOT EVEN BEING INCLUDED UNTIL THIS NEXT BUDGET? WHY WOULD IT BE LABELED IN WITH OTHER POSITIONS THAT ARE ALREADY

TAKEN ON? >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

>> WHAT IS CREATED BY THE COMMISSION.

WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS THERE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND IT'S A REQUIRED ADDITION BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S

[00:15:06]

I MEAN 20-21. >> IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE WE ADDED IT MID-YEAR, AND LIKE YOU SAID YOU INDICATED THAT WE WANTED IT FOR THE NEW FISCAL YEAR AND NOT THIS ONE, SO BY IT JUST SHOWING UP, IT JUST CAUSES SOME CONCERN, AT LEAST WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED WITH ANYTHING THAT WE DID HAVE TO ADD MID-YEAR FOR THIS CURRENT BUDGET.

>> YES. I'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REMOVED BECAUSE I DO HAVE ON IT NEW POSITION REQUEST LIST, SO I'LL MAKE SURE THIS GETS TAKEN OUT AND I'LL GET YOU A REVISED

SCHEDULE. >> THANK YOU.

>> EXCUSE ME, DALE. >> YES.

>> ON THE FIRST TWO ITEMS WE SPOKE ABOUT IN THE ME'S OFFICE, YOU DID SAY WE COULD REMOVE THOSE POSITIONS?

>> YES. BUT YOU'D HAVE TO FIRE THE TWO POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THERE, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE POSITIONS.

>> THEY'RE ALREADY IN THERE? >> YES.

>> HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN THERE.

>> ? >> A MONTH, MAYBE TWO MONTHS.

>> IS THERE A WAY WE CAN TABLE THIS?

>> THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE. THESE POSITIONS ALREADY WERE PROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT SEVERAL COURTS AGO, AND HE'S ALREADY FILLED THE POSITIONS, SO TENTATIVELY THESE POSITIONS ALREADY EXIST AND ARE ALREADY FILLED, SO THE ONLY WAY NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THIS BUDGET WOULD BE TO TERMINATE THEM AND TELL THE MEDICAL EXAMINER HE NEEDS TO DELETE THE POSITIONS.

>> THOSE POSITIONS COME WITHIN. THOSE POSITIONS, DO THEY COME

WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? >> WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, YES.

>> SO THEY WILL PROBABLY GO BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE?

>> NO. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE GOT THE EMPLOYEES FROM. PATHOLOGY'S ASSISTANT IS A VERY HIGHLY DEGREED PERSON SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT POSITION TECHNICALLY CAME FROM, BUT THESE ARE POSITIONS APPROVED BY THE COURT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT DATE THIS WAS ON ON THE COURT ACTION. I BELIEVE, IF WE GO BACK INTO THE ITEMS -- LET ME SEE REAL QUICK.

>> THE AUTOPSY TECH WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY, DALE.

>> SO JANUARY. JANUARY WAS APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER COURT IN JANUARY, SO WE'RE NOW IN AUGUST, SO IT HAS BEEN PROBABLY FILLED FOR AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS.

>> AND THE PATHOLOGIES WAS APPROVED IN MAY.

>> DON'T WE ALWAYS SAY OR TELL THEM, YOU GET THE MONEY TO FILL IT BUT MAKE SURE WE DON'T PUT IT IN THE BUDGET, IT GOES AWAY, RIGHT? I MEAN -- BUT I UNDER THAT WE TELL THESE PEOPLE AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, WE'RE GOING TO FILL IT BUT YOU MIGHT NOT GET IT BACK NEXT YEAR BECAUSE IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, THEN YOU DO NOT GET IT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAY ALL THE TIME WHEN WE -- YOU KNOW, TO ME I THINK IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CARRY IT OVER TWO YEARS AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK HARD ABOUT DOING SOMETHING MID-TERM OF THE YEAR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALWAYS SAY YOU CAN DO IT NOW BUT YOU MIGHT NOT GET IT NEXT YEAR. I THINK I REMEMBER SAYING THAT SEVERAL TIMES TO OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS.

YOU MIGHT GET IT NOW BUT YOU MIGHT NOT GET IT NEXT YEAR.

AND THEY KNOW THAT. THEY UNDERSTAND THIS.

THIS ONE HERE HABITS EVEN BEEN $6.00 MONTHS.

SIX MONTHS ONLY, AND THAT WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FOR ALMOST A NEW POSITION. SAME THING WITH THE PIO.

I THINK THAT MONEYS CAN BE BETTER UTILIZED A LOT BETTER SOMEWHERE ELSE, OTHER POSITIONS THAT WE NEED YP THAT WE PROMISED SOME PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT VERY HARD.

BUT IT WAS PASSED. THAT'S ONE I DIDN'T VOTE FOR, BUT I STILL SAY WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE HARDER ON THE PI OWVMENT PIO PIO. THE RECOMMENDATION, HIT THE DEPENDS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE MADE.

IN MY POSITION I'M NOT MAKING A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I AM ASKING FOR SOME INCREASES. BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST THINK EVERY TIME, THREE MONTHS, FOUR MONTHS, SIX MONTHS, THAT'S A SHORT PERIOD TO BE NOW DISCUSSING ABOUT A NEW POSITION WHEN WE JUST SAID IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, YOU MIGHT NOT GET IT, BUT WE TAKE A CHANCE ON IT, HOPE THAT WE HAVE IT.

SO IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE'RE OKAY, THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY, NO PROBLEM. I'M SAYING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO US, THAT WE DON'T -- WE GOT THE MONEY TO PAY, WE GOT TO THE MONEY TO DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK LATER ON AND

[00:20:02]

THAT'S MY DEAL. I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND SAY, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US WE'VE GOT TO FIND THE MONEY SOMEWHERE. WHERE DO WE GET IT FROM? YOU KNOW. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE ALREADY IN SOME OTHER POSITIONS, I KNOW THAT THE PATHOLOGIST PROBABLY NOT. THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE OUTSIDE. BUT I DON'T KNOW.

THIS IS WHERE I'M THINKING THAT ALL THESE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE WITH DIFFERENT COUNTIES, WE'VE GOT TO SOMEHOW -- THOSE MONEYS HAVE GOT TO BE PAYING FOR SOMETHING.

IF WE'RE MAKING 60% AND HE'S MAKING 40%, THE MONEY'S GOT TO PAY FOR SOMETHING. I MEAN, WE CAN'T BE GIVING MONEY IF WE'RE NOT MAKING MONEY. I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. I NEED TO LL CLOSE.

LIKE I SAID, BEFORE WE START CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS HERE.

THANK YOU, DALE. >> EXCUSE ME, DALE.

MY ALSO CONCERN IS I THINK COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WAS OF THE MINDSET THAT THERE WAS MONEY IN THERE ALREADY FROM ANOTHER POSITION. YOU SAID YA'LL PULLED IT OUT.

>> AT THE TIME WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THERE WAS SAVINGS ALREADY THAT DID NOT REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN BUDGET FOR THIS POSITION LAST YEAR BECAUSE THE DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER POSITION WAS VACANT AND WAS VACANT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

I THINK THEY JUST RECENTLY FILLED THE POSITION IF I'M CORRECT. SO THERE ARE STILL FUNDS THIS YEAR TO PAY FOR THE ENTIRE STAFF THAT THEY HAVE.

HOWEVER, SINCE NOW THAT ALL THE POSITIONS ARE FILLED, IF THESE POSITIONS ARE TO BE CONTINUED, 128 HOW TOED OR $150,000 INCLUDING YOUR BENEFITS WOULD NOW BE A REQUIRED INCREASE IN BUDGET FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR IF WE MAINTAIN THESE POSITIONS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK -- I WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT.

>> OKAY, DALE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> CHAIR, IF WE GO TO TAB C IS OUR BUDGET CALENDAR.

>> C? YOU SAID C?

>> TAB C. RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE AUGUST 4TH MEETING, WHICH IS OUR -- EXCUSE ME -- AUGUST 2ND AND THIRD 3RD WHICH IS OUR FIRST TWO BUDGET WORKSHOPS FOR THIS. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PRETTY THOROUGHLY TODAY AND TOMORROW.

IF THERE'S NOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS, WE MAY NOT NEED AUGUST THE 9TH AND 10TH, BUT WE'LL SEE.

I BELIEVE YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS SCHEDULED AND TYNER, IF NEEDED BUT I BELIEVE IF WE CAN GET AM IS ON STUFF THROUGH TODAY AND TOMORROW, WE MAY BE ABLE TO SUSPEND THE 9TH AND 10TH.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT GOES.

AS I HAVE SAID, MY STAFF IS WORNGHT ON TAX RATES SO THE AUGUST 4TH SUBMISSION OF NO NEW REVENUE TAX AND APPROVED TAX MAY HAVE TO BE TABLED ON THE AGENDA.

HOPEFULLY WE HAVE THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE BECAUSE IF NOT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO IT BY AUGUST THE 11TH BECAUSE IF WE DON'T WE'LL MISS ALL THE NOTIFICATIONS ON TAB C2.

THAT'S OUR REQUIRED NOTICES FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WELL AS OUR ADOPTION OF OUR TAX RATE, SO IF WE DO THE 11TH, WE MAY BE FORCED TO ACCEPT THE RATES AND THE PROPOSAL RATE THE SAME DAY, WHICH WE CAN. HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THAT'S A SITUATION THAT WE MAY HAVE TO FALL INTO.

WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS ON THERE, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO TAB D.

TAB D IS THE VERY CENTER OF THE REPORT.

YOU'LL SEEES MAIL MADE IT ACTUALS.

MY STAFF EXPIFG THROUGH THAL REVENUE CALCULATIONS AND REVENUES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND MADE OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE EXPECT IT TO BE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR-END, AND WE EXAIRTD TO THE BUDGET THAT YOU'LL SEE RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND YOU'LL SEE AN OVER AND UNDER BUDGET WHICH SHOWS YOU WHICH OUR CALCULATIONS.

OUR ESTIMATIONS FOR OUR TAXES IS $81,481,341 AND THAT IS A DECREASE OF $3.2 MILLION FROM THE BUDGET, AND WE EXPECTED THAT WITH OUR COLLECTIONS OF OUR TAX RATES SHOWING ABOUT A 95, 96 PERCENT COLLECTION, AND THAT'S ABOUT WHERE OUR TAX OFFICE IS SAYING WHERE IT IS, SO THAT IS DOWN.

THE NEXT ONE -- >> 2374?

>> 2.374, YES. THE BIGGEST DECREASE IS IN OUR CURRENT COLLECTIONS OF $1.9 MILLION AND THAT'S AROUND 96, 97 PERCENT OF WHAT OUR BUDGET IS AND WHAT OUR ESTIMATIONS WERE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE TAX OFFICE IS SAYING.

THE OTHER SERVICES, OTHER TAXES BASICALLY YOUR BINGO TAX, OCCUPATION AND VIT TAX, THAT WAS PRETTY ENOUGH ON BUDGET ITEM.

IT'S ONLY ABOUT $9,000 SHORT BUT PLUSES AND MINUSES, WE MAY SEE MORE THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN A LOT MORE BINGO HALLS OPENING UP. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PAY US A BINGO TAX EVERY QUARTER AND THAT SHOULD BE GOING UP.

OUR FEES OF OFFICE, WE HAVE SOME THAT WERE SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN.

[00:25:02]

THE NEXT PAGE YOU'LL SEE ON THE CONSTABLES AND THE SHERIFF A TOTAL OF A NEGATIVE $155,000 REDUCTION.

NOW, THE GOOD THING IS OUR FINES, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE BEEN GOING DOWN, HAVEN'T ACTUALLY STILL SAW A CLEAR -- TRYING TO DO THE COLLECTIONS FOR THIS, SOME OF THEM ARE DOWN BUT NOT AS SIGNIFICANTLY AS WHAT OUR FEES OF OFFICE WERE DOWN COMPARED TO BUDGET-WISE BUT THERE WAS. OUR LICENSE DEPARTMENTS AND OUR MORT VEHICLE SERVICES IS WHERE WE COLLECT OUR SALES TAX FROM THE SALES OF MORT VEHICLES. IT WAS DOWN BECAUSE SOME OF OUR MORT VEHICLE LOCATIONS WERE CLOSED FOR A WHILE SO IT WENT DOWN SLIGHTLY BUT IT'S STILL NOT A SUGGESTS DECREASE.

THEN WE GO TO YOUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE WHICH

IS YOUR D3. >> D3?

>> AND YOU'LL SEE OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE IS PRETTY CLOSE UNTIL YOU GET TO THE VERY BOTTOM WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR INDIGENT YOU DEFENDANT BECAUSE OUR COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS FEES WERE DOWN SO THAT COLLECTION WAS DOWN.

OUR STATE JURY WAS DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY JURY EX EXPENSE TO RECOVER FROM THAT.

THE REST ARE PRETTY CLOSE, AND WE DID LOSE THE OTHER GRANTS AND OTHER STUFF WE TALK ABOUT AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE SO THAT WAS SLIGHTLY DOWN BECAUSE MOST OF OUR GRANTS ARE GOING TO 0104 WHICH IS OUR COVID RELATED INFORMATION SO A LOT OF OUR GRANTS ARE GOING THERE AND NOT HERE, SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT INCREASE. THE INFORMATION FOR OUR HOUSING OF INMATES AND JUVENILES ARE PRETTY STANDARD, AND WE ACTUALLY INCREASED FROM WHAT OUR JUVENILES HAD SAID, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPENING.

>> DOUG. >> YES.

>> ON THE TOTAL SALARY REIMBURSEMENT.

>> YES. >> ARE YOU SAGA THAT PROBABLY 20--21, 21-22 ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME?

>> YES, BECAUSE MOST OF OUR SALARIES COMMENTS FROM THE STATE AND THE STATE REIMBURSES US $84,000 PER PEACE.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF EXCHANGES IN THEIR STAFF.

SO THIS IS WHERE THE REIMBURSEMENT COMES FROM.

THE STATE'S LONGEVITY WHERE WE PAY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS WELL AS SOME OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS THAT WE HAVE. FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WE HAVE ONE ATTORNEY THAT'S ON STAFF THAT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT DOES REIMBURSEMENT 100% SALARY FOR, SO ALL THOSE BASE COUNTRYCLY ARE PRETTY MUCH -- BASICALLY ARE PRETTY MUCH STANDARD AND IF ANYTHING WE COULD INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE CORRESPONDS CONSTANT AND NOT CHANGING. -- COST ARE CONSTANT AND NOT CHANGING, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOW ON D4 IS WHERE THE BIGGEST MONSTER HIT US, AND THAT'S OUR INTEREST.

OUR INTEREST RATES WENT FROM STARTING LAST YEAR WE WERE SITTING AT ANYWHERE FROM 2.5 TO 3.5 INTEREST.

NOW WE'RE SEEING .1% INTEREST. SO WE WENT, IF YOU LOOK FROM '18, '19 WANT .1 PLDZ. 19-20 THE BEGINNING OF COVID WE FELL HAV A INFORMED OR 600,000 DOLLARS TO $547,000.

NOW IT FELL ANOTHER $500,000 TO ONLY $22,000 THAT'S ESTIMATED THIS YEAR, AND I'M PROJECTING TO LOWER THAT BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY EVEN THOUGH WE HOPE THAT THAT TURNS AROUND.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT TURNS AROUND BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF MONEY THAT'S INVESTED AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT NO MAKING ALMOST ANYTHING FOR THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT IS.

SO THE COMMISSION IS FROM OUR PHONE SERVICES THAT WE HAVE FOR THE INMATES WHEN THEY CIEWLT, AND THEN WE RECEIVE AROUND $800,000 A YEAR FOR THAT BASED ON THE LAST AGREEMENT WHICH I BELIEVE WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT SO THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS $1.2 MILLION. OUR REFUNDS ARE JUST THAT, WE GET REFUND FOR CERTAIN ITEMS THAT WE HAD THAT ARE MISCELLANEOUS OTHER REFUNDS. WE'RE ESTIMATING $21,000.

THE YEAR BEFORE THAT IS BECAUSE WE DID REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND FOR EXPENSES THAT IT HAD FROM CO FUNDS.

THAT'S WHY THOSE NUMBERS WERE LARGE.

NOW THIS YEAR WE'RE ONLY ESTIMATING 21.

THE REST OF THE OTHER INCOME JURY SALES, MATERIALS, MACHINES AND MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE, A TOTAL REVENUE OF $64,000 ON A

[00:30:03]

OUR TOTAL FROOFORT YEAR IS $97,000 -- FOR THE REAR IS 907,000,520 I ON BUDGET OF $101,000,870 OR RIGHT AT 97% I THINK IS WE WE COLLECTED, 97% OF REVENUE.

>> I LOST YOU THERE. WHERE ARE YOU AT?

>> THE VERY BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS TOTAL REVENUE.

OUR BUDGET IS $101,870,000 AND WE ONLY COLLECTED $97,580,000 AND THAT'S ABOUT A 97% COLLECTION PERCENTAGE.

>> TOTAL REVENUE IN TRANSFERSSOME.

>> ONCE YOU -- YEAH, BECAUSE YOUR TRANSFERS ARE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE, SO OUR TOTAL REVENUE COLLECTIONS IS RIGHT AT 97% OF WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED FOR.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON REVENUE? IF NOT, WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH APPROPRIATIONS.

OKAY. WE START ON TAB E.

AGAIN, THE -- IT'S ALMOST THE CENTER COLUMN YOU'LL SEE YOUR ESTIMATED ACTUALS, AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT YOU WILL SEE YOUR ORIGINAL BUDGET AND ANY SHORTAGES RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

AND AS WE SEE MOST OF THEM AREN'T -- THERE ARE ONLY A FEW OF THEM THAT ARE BELOW BUDGET. NOW, THESE ARE A TOTAL IN SUMMARY. SO THEY HAVE THE DETAIL LATER ON IN TAB Q IF YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH EACH YOUR DEPARTMENTS AND FIND OUT HOW WE'RE ESTIMATING THE OTHER COSTS.

THESE ARE JUST SUMMARIES OF THE COSTS.

SO IF WE GO DOWN TO THE VERY BOTTOM.

E-1 YOU WILL SEE YOUR TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH INCLUDES MOST OF OUR DEPARTMENTS HERE, WHICH IS THE COMMISSIONERS, THE JUDGE, MYSELF, THE COURT ADMINISTRATION, RISK MANAGEMENT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, COUNTY CLERK, TAX OFFICE AS WELL AS HUMAN RESOURCES, AND PURCHASING, SO WE ESTIMATED $17,994,523 ON THE BUDGET OF $23,700,000 OR WE ARE UNDERBUDGET OF $5,705,000. WHICH IS VERY, VERY GOOD.

ON E TWIT SHOWS YOU YOUR BILLINGS.

E2 IT SHOWS YOU YOUR BILLINGS. ON THE BILLINGS WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED TUSSLE 8 MILL 221 I HAD TO 72 ON A BUDGET OF $9,000,392 OR AB UNDER YF $1,100,000 WHICH IS AGAIN BELOW AVERAGE, BELOW BUDGET. ON E3 AT THE VERY TOP IS YOUR CAP -- I KNOW THE CAP, I NEED TO REVISE THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I IMHEEF A LITTLE MORE ESTIMATED ACTUAL ON THAT SO IT'S STILL NOT A RARNLG LARGE SUM BUT IT WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED SLIGHTLY BECAUSE I KNOW SOME GOOD EXPENSES ARE COMING OUT OF THERE BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE UNDER BUDGET.

YOUR ADMIN JUSTICE GOES UP TO PAGE E4.

JURY TOTAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS ESTIMATING A $21,447,240 ON A BUDGET OF $25,153,016 OR UNDER BUDGET OF $3,655,000. THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY JURY EXPENSE OR WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY LARGE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES BECAUSE THE COURTS WEREN'T RUNNING OR THE JURIES WEREN'T RUNNING SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT UNDER BUDGET FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A NEGATIVE THERE.

>> NO. >> RIGHT?

>> I DIDN'T SEE ANY NEGATIVE. THERE WAS ONE ON COUNTY COURT LAW 5 WHICH IS NORMALLY THE CASE BECAUSE OF THE PROCESSING THAT HE HAS TO DO, SO THERE'S ONLY ONE SMALLER LAYER, ONE SMALL OVER BUDGET, BUT WITH THE CASE FLOW HE WORKS, THAT'S DEFINITELY UNDERSTANDABLE. ON OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS AGAIN ON PAGE E4, THAT'S OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OUR SHERIFF, OUR CONSTABLES AND OUR JAIL. WE BUDGET ESTIMATED $34,409,792 EVEN THOUGH OUR JAILS HAVE BEEN FULL AND OUR SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLE EVERYBODY WORKING VERY HARD FOR AN EXTENDS PERIOD OF TIME, WE'RE STILL UNDER BUDGET BY $1,655,000 WHICH IS VERY IMPRESSIVE KNOWING THAT THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS ARE OUR LARGEST DRAIN OUT OF OUR FUNDS. SOCIAL SERVICES ON E5.

THAT'S YOUR SOCIAL SERVICES, YOUR DIRECT SERVICES, YOUR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE, HILLTOP COMMUNITY CENTER, AS WELL AS YOUR SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE AND OUR SOCIAL SERVICES.

WE'RE ESTIMATING $2.8 MILLION ON A BUDGET OF $3.2 MILLION SO THEY'RE UNDER BUDGET OF $324,000.

[00:35:02]

IT'S NOT. ALL IT IS IS THE MAPPING SO WE'LL WORK ON CHANGES TO THAT DEPARTMENT NAME VERY SOON.

AND WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT AND ANIMAL CARE FACILITIES AS WELL HERE. THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS OVER BUDGET WAS YOUR MANAGER MANAGEMENT.

THEY DID A LOT OF OVERTIME AT $28,000 BUT THE TOTAL BALANCE OF ESTIMATING ACTUAL IS $987,994 ON A BUDGET OF 1,079,000 THEY $42 AND THEY'RE UNDER BUDGET OF $91,000.

OUR AGRICULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IS OUR AG EXTENSION, FAMILY COMMUNITY SERVICES AND OUR COUNTY LIBRARY.

WE'RE ESTIMATING $919,097 ON A BUDGET OF $1,028,000.

THEY'RE UNDER BUDGET BY $109,000.

NOW BEFORE WE GO TO TRANSFERS AT THE VERY BOTTOM, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE ESTIMATED SPENDING $87,182,318 ON A BUDGET OF $100 MILLION, SO WE'RE UNDER BUDGET BY $13 MILLION.

THE LAST PAGE IS E6. >> YOU GOT A NEGATIVE HERE AT

$3,226,000, RIGHT? >> WHERE?

>> YOUR TOTAL GENERAL FUND ALLOCATIONS.

BUT IT SAYS -- >> THAT'S OAVMENT 6.

I'M GETTING THERE NOW. >> OKAY.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S ON E6.

IF YOU GO THROUGH THE BALANCES OF TRANSFERS, TRANSFERS ARE ESTIMATING $9.5 MILLION, $9.5 MILLION IS WHAT OUR BUDGET WAS SO WE'RE RIGHT AT CLOSE TO BEING EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE.

THIS VARIES YEAR TO YEAR BASED A NEW TRANSACTIONS BUT THIS DIDN'T CHANGE VERY MUCH. SO OUR TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS IS $96,734,300 ON A BUDGET OF 10 FINANCE 9,000,087 THEY DOLLARS $13 MILLION. THAT NEG $3 MILLION IS THE INCREASE IN YOUR FUND PEAL SO OUR FUND BALANCE WE ARE ET MATING OUR FUND BALANCE TO BE 124 AND IT WAS ACTUALLY 127 SO IT ACTUALLY WAS $3 MILLION LESS THAN WHAT WE ESTIMATED THE BUDGET TO BE. BUT WE'RE STILL INCREASING THE BUDGET BY $1.8 MILLION. $2.2MILLION.

EXCUSE ME. SO WE'RE GOING FROM $25,001,104 TO $27,459,463, AN INCREASE OF $2.2 MILLION IN RESERVES FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR IF OUR ESTIMATES HOLD TRUE.

NOW, THERE IS A THING WE NEED TO CONSIDER ON THIS BALANCES.

WOOS' KNOW, OUR HEALTH INSURANCE IS STARTING TO SHOW A NEGATIVE RETURN ON OUR BALANCES AND WE'RE STARTING TO SEE A NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE. THAT NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED IN WORKING WITH MYSELF AND TOMALES AND THE JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ, WE ASSUME THAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR IT WILL BE IWHERE FROM $1.5 MILLION TO $2 MILLION IN NEGATIVE, SO SOME OF THESE REVERSED WILL HAVE TO BE TRANS IN OTHER WORDS TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE HAD TO MAKE IT ZERO, IF NOT POSITIVE, AND WE ARE TRYING TO STILL WORK ON SOME OF THE ARP FUNDS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET RECOVERY FROM THAT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LOST REVENUE THAT WE'RE CALCULATING THAT QUALIFY UNDER THE ARP FUNDS, HOWEVER, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR THAT PARTICULAR FUNCTION AND WE'RE CONSTANTLY RESEARCHING THAT PARTICULAR FUNCTION, BUT THE $2 MILLION INCREASE SEE WE MAY HAVE TO BE USED TO RECOVER ANY LOST FUNDS THAT WE HAVE AT THE YEAR. WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON OUR APPROPRIATIONS AT THIS TIME?

>> BRING IT BACK TO $25 MILLION.

>> IT COULD BE IF WE CAN'T FIND OTHER SOURCES TO USE TO GET OUR HEALTH INSURANCE BACK TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, IT, LIKE 25, YES. TAB F IS BASICALLY OUR SUMLY OF WHAT OUR DEPARTMENTS HAD REQUESTED AND WHAT ADJUSTMENTS WE HAD TO SHOW WHERE OUR BUDGET IS GOING TO POSSIBLY BE, AND THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS A FUND -- THE GENERAL FUND UP TO F6. F6 IS YOUR OTHER FUNDS SHOWING YOU WHAT THEY REQUESTED, WHAT THE NEW POSITIONS ARE, SO THIS IS WHAT -- THIS IS JUST A REQUEST SO THIS DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE.

THIS IS JUST WHAT THEY HAD TO BEGIN WITH AND WHAT THEIR REQUESTS WERE TO COME UP WITH A TOTAL BUDGET FOR YEAR.

THESE ARE IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE START TAB Q, R, S, T AND W.

[00:40:12]

>> TAB H SHOWS YOU WHAT THE REQUESTED SALARY IS FOR NEW POSITIONS. NOW, AGAIN THESE ARE REQUESTS ONLY. LATER ON WE'LL COME INTO WHAT WE ARE BRPG AS PROPOSING AS RECOMMENDED BUT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE ADJUSTED BUT THIS IS WHAT THE DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ON NEW POSITIONS ON G1 AND G2.

YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDE THIS LIST SO I WON'T GO OVER THIS IN DENTSDZ FOR THAT, AS WELL AS YOUR TAP H.

YOUR TAB H IS ALL YOUR RECLASSIFICATIONS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS HAD REQUESTED. AGAIN THESE ARE REQUESTS, NOT RECOMMENDATIONS. THESE ARE WHAT THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE PUT IN AS REQUESTS FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL AS OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AS WELL AS YOUR OTHER OPERATING FUNDS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR ROAD FUNDS, YOUR ENGINEERING FUNDS, YOUR LAW LIBRARY AND PARKS.

>> SO, DALE, ARE WE GOING TO MOVE, THEN, THROUGH EACH TAB OR ARE WE GOING TO JUMP STRAIGHT TO QR AND S AS YOU MENTIONED?

>> AS WE GO THROUGH THE MORE GENERAL TABS, TO KIND OF OF GIVE YOU A SUMMARY OF THAT, TAB Q THROUGH W ARE YOUR MORE DETAILED ITEMS THAT GOES PER DEPARTMENT. THAT'LL TAKE A LOT OF TIME IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH DEPARTMENT THAT YA'LL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. WE CAN DEFINITELY RESEARCH THOSE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING YOU WHERE WE ARE ON WHAT WAS REQUESTED. AND NOW I'M GOING TO GET TO, ONCE WE GET INTO K, L AND M IS WHERE WE ACTUALLY START DOING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUR PROPOSAL AND POSSIBLE NEW POSITIONS, POSSIBLE RECLASSIFICATIONS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING INTO WHAT WE CALL AIR CHALLENGES ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AND THEN WE CAN DEFINITELY

GET INTO MORE DETAIL. >> YEAH, DEFINITELY.

I MEAN, ANY TIME WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE TABS, IT MAY PROMPT A QUESTION FROM ME OR SOMEONE ELSE UNLESS THE REST OF THE COURT WANTS TO JUST KIND OF MOVE PAST ANY OF THE TABS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE TO SPEND MUCH TIME ON AND COMMISSIONERS GONZALEZ OR CHESNEY OR OTHERS, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK? DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MEAT OF IT OR WOULD YA'LL RATHER SPEND DETAIL ON EACH ONE JUST TO HEAR A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN

OF EACH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME ON EACH ONE.

>> THAT'S HOW I FEEL AS WELL, YES.

>> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ?

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF IT. >> YEAH.

WE NEED TO TRY TO KEEP IT MOVING, BUT ALLOW US A CHANCE TO HEAR SOME DETAIL. SO IF YOU CAN DO THAT, DALE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

>> I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT SOME DEPARTMENTS THAT REALLY

NEED HELP. >> WE'LL DEFINITELY GET TO THOSE. I JUST WANTED TO GO INTO SOME DETAIL ON THIS. THE MAIN ITEM BECAUSE THE NEXT ONE IS CAP, THE CAP OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REQUESTED.

THE ONE THAT YOU SEE IN THE FIRST COLUMN IS WHAT WE'RE STILL PROPOSING THAT GOES THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT LEVELS, AND THEN YOU'LL SEE ON THE CSH IT SAYS MAJOR CAPITAL, THOSE ARE MAJOR CAPITAL WHERE WE'RE SAYING E NEED TO USE SEAL FUNDS OR SOME OF THE FUNDINGS SECTIONS THEY E CANNOT PRESERVE FUNDS FOR THAT.

THE ONE I WANT TO SPEND SOME TIME ON IS J, J1.

>> J1. >> AND J1 IS WHERE WE START OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES AND WHERE WE HAVE KNOWN INCREASES AND PROPOSED INCREASES, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE THE ONES WITH STARS ARE REQUIRED THAT WE DO, AND THE ONES WITHOUT ARE POSSIBLE VARIANTS THAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO INCREASE OR DECREASE OR REMOVE THEM COMPLEEMENT THE FIRST THREE -- COMPLETELY.

THE FIRST THREE AS YOU MENTION OF ABOUT, YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS REQUIRED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.

THE COUNTY COURT LAW JUDGE, YOUR RETIREMENT PLAN, WUR YORKS COMP. BANK OF AMERICA IS WHEN WE PASSED THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AGREED WITH ABM ON PROVIDING THE FUNDING -- I MEAN PROVIDING THE REPAIRS FOR THE FAIRGROUND AND OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE ON THAT ABM LIST, WE WENT OUT FOR A LOAN THROUGH THE BANK OF AMERICA, AND AS BANK OF AMERICA IS A LOAN THAT NOW NEEDS TO BE REPAID, AND THIS FIRST ISSUANCE IS $1.5 MILLION THAT WILL BE COMING FROM A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND. NOW, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE -- THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN A SEEKO PLAN WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR THIS, HOWEVER THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY WORK ON THE SIDE THAT LOUSE FOR MV SETTINGS SO UNFORTUNATELY 100% OF THIS COST IS GOING TO HAVE TOBY TRANSFERRED FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF $1.5 MILLION OVER INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUND TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE LOAN WE HAVE IN THERE. THE REST OF THE ITEMS ARE ITEMS

[00:45:02]

SO IF WE NEED THE $410,000 TO $440,000 THAT SCOTT CROSS HAD SAID, WE STILL NEED POSSIBLE FUNDINGS FOR LIFEGUARD SERVICES RIGHT AROUND $300,000. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S A BUDGET CHALLENGE. THE DISTRICT COURTS AS WELL AS OUR ADULT PROBATION HAS ASKED FOR I'M DOLINGS HELP ON RISK ASSESSMENT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S TWO EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR OUR ADULT PROBATION THAT WE REFUND THEM ON RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OUR JAIL TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY BELONG IN THE JAIL OR NOT, TO TRY TO REDUCE OUR POPULATION, AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY SICK LEAVE OR ANY VACATION LEAVE FOR THE TWO EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS THE POPULATION HAS BEEN ANYWHERE FROM 95 TO 100 PERCENT THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, AND SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE TO HELP US EXPEDITE THAT AS WELL AS TO HAVE COVERAGE ON THERE, SO THERE SHOULD BE A NEED FOR SUMMON SICK LEAVE OFFER VACATION LEAVE, SO THAT COST IS AROUND 50,000 ORDERS AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE.

IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE BUT IT'S STILL A BALANCE THERE.

WORKING WITH THE JUDGE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT FOR THE -- IT APPEARS ALONG THE SAN -- BOUNDARY AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON WHAT THE VAL VAIFTION LAWSUIT MAY BE.

WE'RE PROJECTING IT'S $1 MILLION.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S $1 MILLION BUT WE NEED TO BUDGET FOR A $1 MILLION COST IS ON SEE IF THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR COST, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM WAS.

AS WE MENTIONED THERE IS A METRO COME SOFTWARE INCREASE IN HERE, AND AS WE SAID WE HELPED FUND THAT THROUGH ARP FUNDS AS WELL AS OTHER POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES TO COVER THAT COST, POSSIBLY THE LATEST CEO MAY HAVE AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE USE OF THAT. THAT IS A LITTLE TRICKY.

IT'S ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST YEAR SERVICES AND THIS IS CONTINUING FOR SERVICE WORK, SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO FIND FUNDING. THE NEXT THREE E. THREE ARE POTENTIAL INCREASES THAT WE SAW THAT WAS PRIOR YEAR POSITIONS CHANGES ANY TWER FROM $330,000 BUT AS YOU'LL SAID INFORM YOUR POSITIONS WERE BROUGHT IN MID-YEAR AND YA'LL WILL CONTINUE IF WE DO CONTINUE WITH THAT. IF WE DO CONTINUE IT WILL BE A $330,000 INCREASE IN OUR BUDGET TO CONTINUE THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE LIST. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A PROJECTION OF NEW POSITIONS WITH SEVERAL BEING DELETED AS WELL AS SUBMITTED CLASSIFICATIONS OF THAT, SO IF WE COUNT EVERYTHING IN TOGETHER, OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES IS $5.5 MILLION.

SO THAT'S WHERE IT GETS VERY CHALLENGING OF HOW WE CONTINUE.

EVEN IF WE DON'T INCLUDE THE VERY BOTTOM NURMTS, WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT $2.5 MILLION TO $3 MILLION WITH THE $1.5 MILLION BANK OF AMERICA LOAN AS WELL AS THE OTHER BALANCES WE HAVE, SO THAT'S WHERE THAT PARTICULAR ITEM IS.

IF WE GO TO TAB N. N.

OR M. SORRY.

M. >> OH, M.

>> RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS POSSIBLE NEW POSITIONS. THIS IS DEFINITELY CAN BE REVISED, DEFINITELY BE CHANGED. THESE ARE JUST WHAT DURING OUR COMMUNICATIONS OF OR DURING OUR BUDGET PRESENTATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM SEVERAL OF US, THIS IS WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AGREEMENTS, SOMEWHAT OF AN AGREEMENT OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO POSSIBLY ADD IN NEW POSITIONS. LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF THESE CAN BE DEFINITELY REMOVED IF SO CHOOSE AND THE COURT DECIDES WE DON'T NEED THESE FUNCTIONS. WE DEFINITELY CAN RULE THEM OUT. THE VERY BOTTOM THE VETERANS CEMETERY, THOSE ARE REQUIRED TO BE STAYED BUT THOSE ARE GOING PAID BY THE GLO SO THAT BALANCE OF $761,000, MOST OF THAT IS COVERED BY OTHER SOURCES SO THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY IMPACT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT BUT IT HAD TO BE REPORTED HERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ALREADY EXIST.

ON PAGE M2, I SHOW YOU WHERE WE ARE REDUCING FROM THE BUDGET.

>> SO 761966, THAT'S A REIMBURSEMENT WE GET FROM THE

[00:50:02]

STATE, RIGHT. >>

>> MOST OF IT, YES. >> WE HAVE TO PATE FIRST AND

THEN WE GET REIMBURSED. >> NO, WE DON'T HAVE TO PATE FIRST. TO GET IT REIMBURSED.

WE GET THE POINT IN ADVANCE. >> SHIELL IS $1,364,496 THAT'S

NOT REALLY A FLIEWRM. >> I HAVE TO SHOW YOU WHAT OUR BUDGET IS BEING INCREASED BUT THE $761,000, OF THAT, ABOUT $600,000 OF IT IS GOING TO BE REIMBURSED OR PAID FOR BY THE

GLO. >> SO THERE WON'T BE -- IT SHOWS

AN AN EXPENSE FOR US. >> IT IS AN EXPENSE FOR US.

>> HOW IS THAT? >> COUNTY-WISE YOU HAVE TO SHOW AN EXPENSE IN PROVE. I'M REQUIRED TO.

>> SO WE -- THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

WE PAY THEM AND THEN WE GET REIMBURSED.

>> THEY GIVE THE US THE MONEY IN ADVANCE TO PAY FOR IT.

>> THEY GIVE US THE MONEY. SO THE MONEY IS IS ALREADY IN

WILL. >> NOT YET.

WE DON'T START UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST.

>> SO THIS IS AN ADDITION THAT WE HAVE THOSE MONEYS ALREADY

HERE? >> WE HAVE TO BUDGET FOR THE ITEMS TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN THERE, AND THIS WAS ALREADY APPROVED BY -- THE COURT HAS PROVED THE VETERANS CEMETERY AND THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND THE VETERANS BOARD HAS ALREADY SAID YES TO THE AGREEMENT OF WHAT WE PUT IN FOR SALARIES AND BENEFITS. WE JUST TO HAVE BUDGET FOR IT.

>> OKAY. BUT -- ALL RIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE DO THE BUDGET WE'RE NOT GOING TO

SAY WE NEED $761,000. >> YOU DO NOT.

JUST AN ENTRY RETIREMENT THAT WE PUT IN THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS CALLED VETERANS CEMETERY WILL BE MADE BY THE GENERAL LAND

OFFICE. >> SO REALLY 533 AND 49 SHOULD

BE ADDED TOGETHER. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THANKS.

>> SO ABOUT 5 -- $600,000 TOTAL FOR NEW POSITIONS.

>> RIGHT. >> BUT WE'RE ALSO REDUCING POSITIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF $133,000.

>> 133? >> YES.

SO 600. WE'RE REDUCING IT BY 133 SO IT'S ABOUT A $400,000 POSSIBLE INCREASE FOR THE GENERAL FUND.

>> 400, 450,000. >> AROUND THERE, YES, IF THESE

ARE WHAT WE AGREE TO INCLUDE. >> $467,000.

OKAY. >> ON TAB N IS YOUR RECOMMENDED RECLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH.

AGAIN, WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ON SEVERAL ISSUES.

SOME OF THEM, IT'S NOT A REQUEST, BUT ONE DEPARTMENT HAD PUT IN A REQUEST FOR THIS, AND WE AGREED TO REMOVE PAID GROUP 11 AND MOVE EVERYBODY UP TO A 12 OR A 13, AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE ENTRIES HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN N1 YOU'LL SEE FOR THE CALDRON BUILDING A CUSS NODE YANNY FROM 5, WE'RE MOVING HIM TO 12 HADN'T PF FUTURE BUTT IT IS A SMALL INCREASE BUT IT'S TO MAKING SURE OUR LOWEST PAID PERSON SAT $15 AN HOUR.

SO WITH THIS WE WILL NOT HAVE ANYONE PAID LESS THAN $15 AN HOUR. NOW, WE HAVE SEVERAL RECLASSIFICATIONS LISTS IN 1 AND 2, YOUR GENERAL FUND WEEKS EXCLUDING YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THAT'S $144,309 WITH SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS IN THERE, AND AGAIN WE CAN DEFINITELY GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE AND REMOVE SOME IF THE COURT FEELS THAT SOME OF THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED.

WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. AGAIN WE'D LIKE TO LEAVE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING FROM A PAY OF 11 TO A 12 OR 13 BECAUSE AGAIN WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEE IS PAID AT $15 AN HOUR OR HIGHER. N3 IS YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S POSSIBLE RECLASSIFICATION. ALL OF THOSE ARE RIGHT NOW EXCEPT FOR ONE IS AT -- OR TWO, EXCUSE ME, IS AT 10%.

BUN ONE IS GOING FROM AN ADMIN SECRETARY ON ADMIN 3.

WE CAN DEFINITELY REDUCE THAT DOWN IF YOU ALL SO CHOOSE, AS WELL AS A VICTIMS COORDINATOR GOING TIE SUPERVISOR, AND THE SUPERVISOR UNFORTUNATELY IS AT 24 SO THAT WOULD BE A -- IF THIS IS WHAT YA'LL SO CHOOSE. IN 4 AND IN 5 JUST BASICALLY TELLS YOU YOUR BALANCE IS AT REALLY ENDING OF YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THAT 1328 IS A SPECIAL FUND AND THOSE FUNDS ARE 100% FUND BY OTHER SOURCES, SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR GENERAL FUND

ON THAT. >> IS THE DA'S OFFICE FUNDED BY

THESE SOURCES? >> NOT ALL OF IT.

[00:55:02]

BUT IF YOU DO THAT THEN YOU'RE ALSO SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE -- ABOVE THAT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING FROM A -- FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE VERY BOTTOM GOING FROM ATTORNEY 3, PAY GROUP 33 TO 35, YOU ALSO HAVE ATTORNEYS 3 AND YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHICH IS GENERAL FUND AT 33 SO YOU CAN'T DO JUST ONE WITHOUT DOING EVERYTHING, SO IF WE CHOOSE TO REMOVE THEM, WE HAVE TO REMOVE THESE TOO. THE LAST PAGE OF N5 JUST SHOWS YOU YOUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE SHOWING AS RECLASSIFICATION AND THERE'S ONLY TWO WE'RE WHERE WE'RE CLASSIFICATION AND ADDING PAY FOR THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR THAT IS DOING WORK FOR OUR GEO CONTRACT. AND THEN THE LAW LIBRARY GOING -- FROM A CLERK TO A LAW LIBRARIAN AT 634 EVER $24,000 ENTRY. THOSE ARE BASICALLY OUR BEALINGSZ FOR OUR NEW POSITIONS.

BALANCES FOR OUR NEW POSITIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EVALUATIONS. THESE CAN POSSIBLY CHANGE WHICH IS TAB P.O. YOUR GENERAL FUNDY VALUATION, ROAD FUND VALUATION AS WELL AS HOSPITAL VALUATIONS. SOME OF THESE NUMBERS CAN CHANGE. I HAVE THEM IN HERE TO HAVE THEM IN HERE FOR YOUR VERIFICATION. IF THESE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT ON 02 YOU SEE YOUR TOTAL INCREASE IN VALUATION IS 3.87%.

. FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND THAT INCLUDES AROUND 600 -- A LITTLE OVER $600 MILLION IN NEW PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THAT $600,00 600 THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THAT IS A LITTLE MORE THAN $400 MILLION WHICH IS CHALLENGING BECAUSE IN THE PAST WE'VE BEEN ANYWHERE FROM $900,000 TO $1 BILLION.

THIS YEAR WE'RE ONLY AT $400 MILLION.

THAT SHOIS SOME OF THE EFFECT THAT COVID HAS HAD ON CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA. SO THAT'S WHERE IT GETS CHALLENGING ON NEW MONEY COMING INTO THE COUNTY.

WITH THAT I'LL BE GLAD TO START ON ITEM Q.

IF YOU'LL HAVE ANY DEPARTMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO GO OVER, I'LL BE

GLAD TO GO OVER THEM NOW. >> WHICH ONE?

>> Q1 IS YOUR GENERAL FUND. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, THAT'S Q78. ON THE MEDICAL EXAMINER YOU SEE A TOTAL BUDGET LAST YEAR OF $1,821,928.

WE'RE PROJECTING AN ESTIMATE TUSSLE $1,654,415.

AS WE SEE THE BUDGET FOR REGULAR IS $629,000 WE'RE ONLY SPENDING 443. THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO BRING IN THE PATHOLOGY ASSISTANT AS WELL AS THE AUTOPSY ASSISTANT IN LAST YEAR AND NOT OVERSEE THE BUDGET FOR THOSE ITEMS, HOWEVER, NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL 629 BUDGET, SO IF WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS ON STAFF, THEN THAT 629 WILL NEED TO BE INCREASED BY $135,000, MAKING IT CLOSE TO $750,000.

AND WHILE IT'S INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR YOUR BENEFITS FROM 290 UP TO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. NOW, IT WAS OVER BUDGET ON ESTIMATED ACTUAL BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A CHANGE IN PERSONNEL, IF YOUR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR YOUR MEDICAL INSURANCE CHANGES, IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE ON STAFF THAT HAS SINGLE FAMILY -- OR SINGLE INSURANCE, THAT'S $7,000 A YEAR FOR THE EMPLOYER SIDE.

IF THEY LEAVE AND YOU BRING SOMEONE ELSE IN, THEY COME IN ON THE FAMILY SIZE, THE FAMILY EMPLOYER SIDE IS $19,000, SOS THAT'S WHY WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE AN OVER BUDGET ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BECAUSE INFECTIVE HAVE IF WE HAVE A CHANGE IN THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS, THAT'S WHAT DRIVES THAT.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY OUR MEDICAL EXAMINER.

I'LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT THAT OFFENSIVELY QUESTIONS ON FOR THE GENERAL FUND.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME KEY ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO DO ON OUR FUNDS 15 BECAUSE OF WHERE WE NEED TO BRING MONEY IN FOR THAT

[01:00:02]

YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON. >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN 15?

WHICH ONE? >> LAW LIBRARY.

>> OH. >> THAT'S TAB T.

>> IS THERE ARE BOOK MARKS. >> BOOKMARKS YOU SAID?

>> IF YOU RECEIVED THE PDF FILE, IT SHOULD BE THERE.

NOW, T1 IS YOUR ADMINISTRATION ARE ADJUST FOR OUR ADJUSTMET FOR OUR LAW LIBRARY SHOWING OUR ACTUAL ACTUAL FOSS OR PHOTO CHARGES AS WELL AS OUR LAW LIBRARY FEES AND INVESTMENT FEES AND OTHER INCOME THEY BRING IN WE BUDGETED $171,000.

BRINGING IN $157,000. SO THE AMOUNT FOR THE FEES FROM THE LAW LIBRARY THAT COME FROM THE DISTRICT CLERK DIDN'T CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT IF THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THEN WE MIGHT HAVE TO BRING IN SOMEBODY ELSE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE T2, YOU SEE WHERE THEIR BUDGET IS FOR THE REGULAR SALARIES AS WELL AS THEIR BENEFITS AND THEIR WESTLAW AS WELL AS OTHER SERVICES THAT WE HAVE IN THERE OF $175,000, SO THEIR FUND BALANCE IS $38,000. IF WE CONTINUE WITH THIS PROCESS AND IN THE NEW POSITIONS AS WELL AS THE RECLASSIFICATION, THERE'S ADDING A NEW POSITION FOR THE LAW LIBRARY POSSIBLY WITH IF THE COURT SO CHOOSES AS WELL AS THE POSSIBLE RECLASSIFICATION OF A CLERK TO A LIBRARY'S THE END ANT.

THE SALARY FOR BUDGET OF $79,000 CAN GO UP HIGHER, AND IF YOU DO THAT AND YOU'RE ALSO INCREASING SOME BUDGETS FOR WESTLAW, BECAUSE WESTLAW IS GOING UP BASED ON THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE, SO IF WE CONTINUE THAT PROCESS THROUGH AND YOU SEE THE FUND BALANCE HAS BEEN GOING DOWN SIGNIFICANT RI OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, IF WE CONTINUE, I ESTIMATE THAT THE FUND BALANCE WILL BE NEGATIVE AT LEAST $40,000 TO $50,000 NEGATIVE WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO PROWFERRED FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND IN ANYWHERE FROM 50,000 DOLLARS TO 100,000 DOLLARS TO KEEP IT IN THE POSITIVE.

>> OKAY. >> OR FIND WAYS OF TRIMMING THE EXPENSES OR FINDING MEANS OF NEW REVENUE FOR THE LAW LIBRARY.

I KNOW THAT IDA IS WORKING ON POSSIBLY HAVING SOME DIFFERENT RATES FOR SOME RENTAL CHARGES AND OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY NOT START RIGHT AWAY, SO SOME OF THESE OTHER RELATIVELY COSTS THAT ARE VERY MINIMAL CAN BE INCREASED, BUT WE NEED SOMETHING THAT WILL BRING IN ANYWHERE FROM 30,000 DOLLARS TO $40,000 MORE TO COVER THE COST. IF NOT THEN WE EITHER PROVIDE FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND OR FIND OTHER MEANS OF A WAY TO FUND THE LAW LIBRARY. ? IS THIS THE SUPPLIES AND MATERIAL THAT WE NEED THERE?

>> THEY PROPOSE SOME CAPITAL OUTLAY THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD.

THEY PROPOSED $27,300 FOR A ENTRYWAY INTO THE LIBRARY.

THAT WAY SOMEONE CAN'T RUN OUT WITH A BOOK OR ANY MATERIALS THERE. WE'RE SAYING -- I'M WORKING WITH TERESA AND ON THAT TO POSSIBLY FIND CL FUNDS TO COVER THAT COST OR OTHER FUNDS TO COVER THE COST TO KEEP IT WHERE THEY CAN GET WITH THAT THEY NEED TO PROTECT THE SNUFT LIBRARY.

>> ARE WE SAYING WE CAN'T TRUST OUR ATTORNEYS ANYMORE?

>> WELL, RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT NO CHARGING THEM ANYTHING.

>> STILL. >> THAT'S WHY I KNOW IDA'S GOT A PLAN ON POSSIBLY ALLOWING A CHARGE FOR IF THEY COME IN AND USE OUR WEST LURE THEY COME IN AND USE A FACILITY OR OTHER ITEMS THAT WE MIGHT GET SOME REIMBURSEMENT FOR THAT, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD AND WE KIND OF KNEW THIS FROM TRUTH IS THAT PRIOR, BEFORE I TOOK OVER THE LAW LIBRARY, SEVERAL ATTORNEYS WERE BASICALLY TURNED AWAY, SAYING WE'RE NOT LETTING YOU IN, SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S HOW IT WAS DONE IN THE PAST.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S DONE NOW.

IDA AND HER STAFF -- >> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR

THAT? >> WHOEVER THE DIRECTOR BEFORE WAS JUST SAYING THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

>> BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT ANY MORE.

>> IT'S NOT LIKE THAT NO MORE. >> ABRAHAM MANAGED THE LIBRARY VERY RESTRICT RESTRICT I HAVELY.

>> NOW I KNOW IDA'S GOT A GOOD PLAN BUT THIS PLAN MAY TAKE A YEAR OR TWO TO COME INTO FRUITION, AND AS WELL AS SOME OF THE TECHNICAL STUFF SHE'S GOT GOING ON.

SOME OF THE STUFF I KNOW THE ATTORNEYS ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR LAW LIBRARY.

JENNY, YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON THAT IF YOU CAN

[01:05:01]

IF THEY COME AND USE OUR WESTLAW, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER SOME OF THAT COST, WHICH IS TRUE.

BUT THERE WAS NEVER A PLAN DESIGNED TO DO THAT AND IDA IS WORKING RIGHT NOW WITH HER STAFF NON-STOP ON IT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING, BUT RIGHT NOW WITH THE KNOWN COSTS AND THE KNOWN REVENUE FOR AT LEAST MAYBE ONE OR TWO YEARS, THE GENERAL FUND

MIGHT NEED TO PROVIDE FUNDING. >> THAT'S NOT FOR STAFF, RIGHT? THAT'S FOR SUPPLIES AND MATERIAL.

>> THAT'S FOR THE ENTIRE OPERATIONS INCLUDING STAFF.

>> WE WE HAVE TO GO UP ON STAFF AS FAR AS SALARIES?

>> NO, THE SALARIES FOR THE GOING TO INCREASE, BUT RIGHT NOW THE LAW LIBRARY HAD REQUESTED A NEW POSITION FOR A TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AS WELL AS A RECLASSIFICATION OF THEIR INTERMEDIATE CLERK HAD TO A LAW LIBRARY ATTENDANT, AND THEN THE LIBRARY ATTENDANT WAS A SMALL INCREASE, ONLY $70,000, 8.

BUT IF WE GIVE THEM BOTH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE THEM

FUNDS. >> WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER

POSITION THERE IF IT'S -- >> SEE SAID WITH THE ADDITIONAL STUFF THEY'RE GOING TO DO FOR BUYING SOME STUFF AND OTHER STUFF SHE HAS PLANNED ON HOW THE OTHER LIBRARY IS RUN, SHE NEEDS SOMEONE WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE AND CAPABILITIES DOING THAT.

THAT'S WHY SHE PUT IN THE REQUEST.

WHEN SHE CAME IN AND DID OUR PRESENTATION, EVERYBODY AGREED THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NEEDED.

THAT'S WHY I LEFT IT AS A RECOMMENDATION, ABOUT IT CAN

DEFINITELY BE REMOVED. >> AS MUCH AS -- IN THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THINGS WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING, I DON'T THINK. WE KEEP SAYING WE'RE STRUGGLING. WE'RE GOING TO BE SHORT HERE AND THERE. IF WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING HERE, WHAT WE WANTED TO HAVE, WE CAN'T HAVE.

EITHER THAT OR YOU GO UP WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> NOW, THE LAW LIBRARY FEES THAT THE DISTRICT CLERK COLLECTORS AT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS WE CAN COLLECT SO THAT CANNOT INCREASE. WE HAVE MORE CASES THAT COME IN. THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN INCREASE IS IF WE HAVE MORE CASES COME INTO THE DISTRICT CLERK.

YOU SEE A HISTORY OF 161, 1618 NEVADA.

162, 156, THAT REALLY HASN'T CHANGED SO I DON'T FORESEE THAT CHANGING SO THE ONLY OTHER WAY IS RENTALS AND COMMISSIONS FOR EAR RENTING SPACE IN THE LAW LIBRARY OR RECOVERING SOME OF THE COSTS THAT WE SPEND BECAUSE, AS YOU SEE, WE SPEND ANYWHERE FROM 37,000 DOLLARS TO ALMOST $40,000 A YEAR IN WESTLAW FOR

THE LAW LIBRARY. >> WE HAVE TO PAY TO ORDER

THE -- >> THAT'S OUR SUBSCRIPTION,

YES. >> THE SUBSCRIPTION.

>> YES. >> WE HAVE TO PAY EVERY YEAR?

>> YES. >> AND IT'S $37,000.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO MAY THAT, BUT ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S A FEE, THE ATTORNEYS PAY A FEE OR CAN THERE BE A

MEMBERSHIP. >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD ANY REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR USING OUR WESTLAW, AND I BELIEVE AS TYRONN WAS SAYING WHEN ABRAHAM WAS THERE HE WOULDN'T LET ANYBODY USE WESTLAW.

>> BUT THAT'S GONE. >> I KNOW THAT'S GONE.

AND IDA IS WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEYS, AND I BELIEVE THE BAR ASSOCIATION KNOWS THIS NOW, THAT THEY CAN USE OUR FACILITY, BUT IT MAY BE A CHARGE, AND THEY'RE INTERESTED IN WANTING TO DO

THIS. >> I I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS JUST MAYBE DO A MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND MAYBE THEY CAN PAY THE FEE.

>> AND MAYBE THEY CAN HELP OUT. WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM AND TELL THEM HA WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND EITHER THE DEFENSE BAR OR THE BAR ASSOCIATION, SEE IF THEY CAN ASSIST.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET. I KNOW IDA IS WORKING ON CERTAIN OTHER AREAS TO DO THIS. NOW, THE MAIN PART WHERE IT'S VERY NEEDED IS WHEN SOMEONE IS IN COURT AND THEY NEED TO DO RESEARCH REAL FAST, THEY GO DOWN TO THE SIXTH FLOOR AND DO RESEARCH ON WESTLAW VERY FAST AND GET DONE, BUT BEFORE WHEN THE OTHER ONE WAS HERE, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEIR OFFICE AND THEY GOT USED TO THAT.

>> THIS IS GREAT TO HAVE, AND I THINK WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE IT, YOU

KNOW, MAYBE NOT AS UPDATED -- >> LIKE I SAID, WE'RE PAYING ALMOST $40,000 A YEAR FOR WESTLAW FOR THE ATTORNEYS TO USE, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE THEM HELP US RECOVER THE

COSTS. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED MORE STAFF RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, I JUST DON'T. I DON'T KNOW.

>> AGAIN, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.

WE CAN DEFINITELY BE, IF THE COURT SO CHOOSES, WEAK DEFINITELY TAKE IT OUT. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

RIGHT NOW IF WE DON'T TAKE IT OUT, WE WILL STILL BE SHORT.

>> SHORT WHAT? >> IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR ACTUAL THES FROM 17, 18 AND 19 YOU SEE WE STOORTD AT 44, 105, 57.

NOW WHEART 38. IF THAT CONTINUES AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $20,000 WE'VE ONLY GOT $10,000 AT YEAR-END IF WE DO

[01:10:03]

NOT DO ANYTHING. >> WE CAN PUT MONEY IN FOR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES BUT -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET A BREAKDOWN HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE USING THE LIBRARY IN THE LAST --

>> I CAN GET IDA TO DO THAT RESEARCH.

>> I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY USING IT BY

MONTH. >> WHAT IS IDA PROPOSING AS A

FEE TO USE THE LAW LIBRARY? >> SHE HASN'T SAID THAT YET.

SHE'S SENILITY NEGOTIATION PROCESS OF HOW TO BEST DO THIS, BUT IF THE ATTORNEYS WANT TO COME TO USE THE BALANCE, THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT IF FOR WESTLAW WE NEED TO DETERMINE HERE'S OUR COST FOR THIS, SO WE NEED TO DETERMINE THE HOURLY RATE, SO THEY COME IN THERE AND USE IT FOR AN HOUR OR TWO, WE NEED TO GETZ REIMBURSED FOR WHAT HOUR OR TWO, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND

THAT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET. >> AGAIN, I THINK MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A MEMBERSHIP FEE. IT'S WHAWRCHT.

UFS AIR MEMBERSHIP FEE LIKE THE LIBRARIES.

THE LIBRARIES, YOU BECOME A MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY.

YOU GOT A LIBRARY CARD. YOU GO AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT, YOU KNOW, SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THE BAR ASSOCIATION MAY WANT TO DO. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUTS I'M JUST SAYING. YOU CAN TRY SOMETHING ELSE.

>> I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'LL RECEIVE THAT NOTICE BECAUSE AS I SAID, IN THE PAST, THEY WERE USED TO NOT GETS ANY DIRECTION FROM THE LAW LIBRARY. IF IT'S TOO PRICEY, THEY'LL CONTINUE GOING BACK TO THEIR OFFICES TO DO THEIR RESEARCH THERE OR CALL OUR STAFF TO DO THE RESEARCH INSTEAD OF DOING IT AT THE LAW LIBRARY BUT WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO RECOVER SOME OF OUR COSTS FOR THAT AS WELL AS IF THEY COME IN OUR LAW LIBRARY AND USE A ROOM JUST FOR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, WHEN THEY MEET WITH A KLEINERT WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE CASE, THEN WE CHARGE THEM SOME

KIND OF A RATE. >> AND I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF THE COST GOES UP $10,000, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND SAY HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU PAY 5, WE PAY 5. I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK WE CAN SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND SEE WHAT WE CAN WORK

OUT, I GUESS. >> AGAIN, WE'LL WORK WITH IDA AND SEE WHAT HER PLANS ARE, AND WE'LL HAVE HER COME TALK TO YA'LL BHOW BEST TO ESTABLISH THE LAW LIBRARY.

>> THANK YOU, DALE. >> THE REST OF THE DEPARTMENTS ARE PRETTY CLEAN IN WHERE THEY'RE AT.

THERE'S NO BIG INCREASES FOR THE PARKS.

COASTAL BARKS DOES HAVE ONE FOR THEIR -- PARKS DOES HAVE ONE FOR THEIR LIFEGUARDS, AND WE DID PUT AN ADDITIONAL $50,000 IN IT.

YOU'LL SEE THAT IN TAB W. OF COURSE, THIS ONE WAS PRINTED BEFORE THAT WAS INCLUDED, SO THERE IT IS.

$50,000 IN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LIFEGUARDS.

IT SAYS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. IT'S AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH US AND PORTER RANSES. LAST YEAR WE PUT IN ABOUT $30,000 INCREASE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM FOR LIFEGUARDS WITH PORTER RANSES. THE REST IS ADDITIONAL SERVICES WE SHARE WITH THEM. SO THE 30 PLUS THE 50 ON TOP OF THAT WOULD BE THE 80, AND IF SCOTT CROSS SAID WE NEED ANYWHERE FROM 410 TO 440, SO IF WE NEED THAT WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL $300,000 FOR MORE LIFEGUARDS SO THAT'S WHERE WE BROUGHT IN THAT LIFEGUARD SITUATION.

NOW, THE BUDGET THEY HAVE, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TRANSFER TO THEM. I KNOW THEY'RE STARTING TO RECEIVE MORE FUNDS IN THEIR RV PARKS AND ALL THE STUFF THAT'S COMING IN HIGHER AND HIGHER BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR W2, YOU SEE THEIR RENTAL AND COMMISSION IS $1.3 MILLION ON THAT. NOW BOTH POTTERY -- AND MCGEE RV PARKS ARE UP AND RUNNING SO PROBABLY INCREASE THAT BUDGET SOME SO THAT COVERS SOME OF THAT COST BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH TO COVER THE ENTIRE $300,000 IF THERE'S A CONTINUATION OF EVERY YEAR. WE DID DO A SMALL REDUCTION OF THE TRANSFERS FROM -- TO THEM FROM THE GENERAL FUND THAT WE'RE PROPOSING BY REDUCING IT BY $140,000 SO WE'RE DOIPGHT FROM $1.3 MILLION TO $1.2 MILLION. SO WE ALREADY DID SEE A REDUCTION IN POSSIBLE FUNDING FOR TRANSFER TO COASTAL PARKS.

BUT AGAIN THEY'LL PROBABLY NEED THE FUNDING FOR THE LAW LIBRARIAN -- I MAN THE LAW LIBRARY -- THE LIFEGUARDS --

LONG DAY. >> YOU'VE GOT THE LAW LIBRARY IN

[01:15:03]

YOUR MIND. >> FOR THE LIFEGUARDS IN THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE THERE WAS A LAW THAT PASSED THAT REQUIRED US TO DO LIFEGUARDS. THE REST THERE IS -- I'LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER ANY OTHER OF YOUR DETAIL ITEMS. IF NOT, I'LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER ANY PART OF THAT YOU THIS S THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS, BUT THAT RIGHT NOW IS IS THE START OF OF OUR BUDGET PRESENTATION, BUDGET WORKSHOP FOR 21-22.

WE HAVE A LOT OF POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY WORK THROUGH AND DETERMINE WHAT WE DEFINITELY DO WANT TO INCLUDE AND NOT INCLUDE IN OUR PROPOSED.

HOWEVER, N. UNTIL WE GET THE TAX RATES AND MY STAFF IS WORKING TO THEM CONSTANTLY, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU HEAR COMPLAINTS FROM OUR APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND FROM THE COMPTROLLER HOW MANY TIMES WE'RE GOING TO BE CALLING THEM, SO BE PREPARED TO GET SOME NASTY RESPONSES FROM THEM ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT TO TRY TO GET THE NUMBERS FOR US.

BUT UNTIL WE CAN ACTUALLY GIVE YOU WHAT OUR NEW REVENUE TAX IS, HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE FROM OUR NEW PROPERTY, UNTIL WE CAN GET YOU THOSE NUMBERS, WE'RE REALLY NOT AT A LEVEL TO SAY WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO DO, BUT OTHER THAN THAT WE SHOW YOU WHERE WE'RE AT AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND HOW THE REQUESTS ARE AND WHAT OUR PROPOSALS ARE.

SO I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THE

MOMENT. >> DALE, THE J1, THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE, AT LEAST THE

LIFEGUARD, RIGHT? >> THE ONE WITH THE STARS ON THEM ARE WHEN WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

NOW, THE LIFEGUARDS, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND SOME SERVICES FOR THAT, AND IT COULD COME DOWN TO IT DEPENDS ON HOW WE INTERPRET THE SERVICES WE'RE RENDERING. WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL LEVELS OF AREA WHERE POSSIBLY EVEN TALKING TO OUR STATE TO SEE IF THEY CAN POSSIBLY HELP US WITH FUNDING ON THAT.

WE'RE LOOKING INTO SOME GRANTS TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND FUND FOR THAT. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO SEE IF SOME OF THIS CAN BE THROUGH THE ARP FUNDS WHICH WE'RE NOT SURE YET. BUT ANYTHING THAT'S GOT AN ASTERISK TO IT IS REQUIRED. THAT MEANS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BECAUSE EITHER A PERSONNEL POLICY OR A BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR THE LAW THAT PASSED OR IT CHANGED IN SOME CERTAIN THINGS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO EVERYTHING FROM THE TOP DOWN TO THE $1.5 MILLION. EVERYTHING BELOW THAT IS UP TO

THE COURT. >> HOW ABOUT CAN PORTER RANCHES

HELP WITH THE LIFEGUARD? >> THEY ALREADY PROVIDE THIS BUT THE AMOUNT OF LIFEGUARDS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S NOT REALLY A FUNCTION THAT THE PORTER RANCHES CAN DO.

MOST OF IT'S GOING TO BE COVERING THE BEACHES WE MAINTAIN, NOT THE BEACHES THAT PORTER RANCHES MAINTAINS.

WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY AND WORK WITH THEM. I BELIEVE WHEN SCOTT CROSS CAME WITH HIS PLAN THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE EMERGENCY SERVICES NUMBER 2 WHO WAS HERE WITH US ON HAVING THEM GO THROUGH TO THEM AND THEN WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO PROVIDE THEM WITH OUR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE FUNDING FOR THE LIFEGUARDS, BUT THAT'S AS FAR AS IT'S GOTTEN SO FAR.

>> OKAY. I JUST --

>> DALE. >> YES.

>> EXCUSE ME. THIS IS THE BUDGET FOR 2022 AS

WELL? >> 2022, YES.

>> I HEARD YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HOW COVID AFFECTED THE

REVENUE. >> YES.

>> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY -- I MEAN IT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, BUFFET WE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IT MIGHT AFFECT IT

FURTHER ON? >> YES.

BASICALLY THE ARP FUNDS GIVE US THE CHALLENGE OF CALCULATION AND THE REVENUE LOSS FOR OUR COVID-RELATED EXPENSES, AND WE'VE CALCULATED OUR EXPENSES OF WHAT WE EXPECT OUR REVENUE LOSS IS, AND RIGHT NOW THAT'S AROUND $3.5 MILLION.

WE SUBMITTED THAT, THE CLAIM OVER TO HAG ARTY, ANOTHER CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING CORRECTLY.

IT HAS A CONNECTION THAT IT GOES THE NEXT THREE YEARS ON A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE-WISE ABOUT HOW THE FEE AND IS OTHER STUFF MAY INCREASE, DECREASE IN CERTAIN LEVELS AND WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THESE INTO ACCOUNT.

IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT BUT WE PROJECT THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE REVENUE LOSSES IN 21-22 FOR COVID-RELATED EXPENSES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THESE COURTS DON'T GET RUNNING AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE FOR JURY -- WE DON'T HAVE EXPENSE BUT WE DON'T HAVE REVENUE.

AND AS THESE COVID-RELATED EXPENSES CONTINUE AND THESE COMPANIES AREN'T REBOUNDING, UNT RATES ARE NOT GOING TO INCREASE, AND WE SHE HAD SHOWED YOU INTEREST RATE IS $1 MILLION OF PERSISTENT WE CLAL ACCUMULATED THE REVENUE LOSS POSSIBLE BUT THE AMP FUNDS HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT THOSE CAN BE USED FOR, SO WE'RE WORKING ON WHAT THOSE CAN BE USED FOR TO COVER EARN CH SOME CERTAIN AREAS AND WE CAN WORK WITH SOME OF THESE COSTS

[01:20:02]

IT SAYS THAT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

WE HAVE TO FIND SOME FORM OR FUNCTION TO USE THAT $1.4 MILLION BUT WE CAN USE THAT $3.5 MILLION SOMEWHERE ELSE AND USE THAT $1.4 MILLION AND THAT COVERS THE RESERVE WITHOUT COVERING THE RESERVE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> I ALSO WANT TO ASK DO YOU THINK IF WE APPROVED SOME OF THESE POSITIONS, THEN IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG IN 2022 WITH THE REVENUE, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A JAM TRYING TO BRING -- GET THE MONEYS TO PAY FOR THESE POSITIONS AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE MIGHT BE ADDING UP?

>> WELL, RIGHT NOW THE BUDGET TIME IS THE TIME THAT THE COURT HAS THE CONTROL OF THE FUNDS ON BUDGET ON WHAT THEY ALLOW FOR POSITION-WISE, SO NOW WOULD BE THE TIME THAT IF SOMEONE REQUIRES OR IS RECOMMENDING A NEW POSITION AND IF IT'S A PROVED, ONCE IT'S APPROVED, THEN THE COURT HAS NO CONTROL OVER THAT. I'LL MAKE HURE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AGREES WITH ME ON THAT.

ONCE YOU TURN A POSITION OVER TO AN ELECTED FOUR OR IT'S THEIRS UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, AND SO NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO SAY THAT WEEKS, NO, WE DON'T AGREE TWHEES RECOMMENDATIONS ON NEW POSITIONS OR THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO SAY WE BELIEVE THERE MIGHT NOT BE A POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF FORCE.

I'M NOT SAYING THERE ARE. BUT NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU NOW HAVE THE CONTROL OF THE BUDGET CYCLE, SAKE WEEK CYCLE, SAYINR OFFICE HAS SMCH FUNDS AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HOW TO DO IT.

WHETHER YOU CUT POSITIONS ARE CUT THIS, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.

>> MY QUESTION IS WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF INCREASE IN PUBLIC WORKS WITH ALL THIS FLOODING GOING ON.

OKAY? WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS IN THE DA DEPARTMENT NOT BEING ABLE TO HOLD ONTO SOME ATTORNEYS.

AND, OF COURSE, THE JAIL. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE DO THAT ONE. SO I THINK WE NEED TEAK A HARD LOOK OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO SPEND OR WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO.

THAT'S BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> THE JAIL IS A LITTLE FRICKE AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND -- TRICKY BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL.

THE COURT AGREED ON THE LAST COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT GOES FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, IF I'M CORRECT, AND IT INCLUDES A 2.5, 3 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, SO THAT -- ONCE WE GET TO THE NEXT LEVEL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THEN THE COURT DECIDES HOW TO DO IT.

NOW, YOU CAN TELL THE SHERIFF AND WORK THE WITH SHERIFF, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOU NEED THE 297 -- OR 155 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY VACANCIES, BUT YOU CAN DEFINITELY CUT NOW WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RULES.

US JUST CAN'T CHANGE SALARY. >> NO, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE POSITIONS. THE CONCERN OF THE EXPENSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITH THE JAIL. WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING THERE.

THOSE ARE NEEDED. >> A LOT OF THE JAIL COSTS HAVE BEEN GONE OVER MANY YEARS E MAXIMUM CAPACITY. I DON'T LIKE TO SAY IT THAT WAY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY OUR JAIL IS OVER 40-SOMETHING YEARS OLD.

WE'VE GOT OVER 1,000 BEDS, I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IN OUR JAIL, AND IT STAYS ANYWHERE FROM 80 TO 100% 100 PERCENT FILLED AUTO TIME SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALWAYS -- AND THE SHERIFF GOOD ABOUT TRYING TO BUDGET CORRECTLY BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS OUR BIGGEST EXPENSE AND WE TRY TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE HIM WHAT HE NEEDS TO OPERATE THAT, ESPECIALLY ON THE FOOD BUDGET WHERE WE ALMOST BUDGETED WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR 100% ALL YEAR LONG.

>> I AGREE. I'M JUST -- I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOURLY PAID EMPLOYEES THAT ARE THE LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEES THAN I'M CONCERNED ABOUT -- I'D LIKE TO SEE

THEM -- >> AS FAR AS THE RECLASSIFICATION IS TRYING TO MOVE OUR -- ANYONE THAT'S IN PAY GROUP 11 UP TO PAY GROUP 12. PAY GROUP 12 THE LOWEST PAY IS $15 AN HOUR. SO WE'LL BE AT THE $15 PER HOUR AND IF WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT THAT LEVEL, THERE'S

[01:25:03]

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'VE GOT ONE HERE ON M1, COURTHOUSE SECURITY, BADGING COORDINATOR. WE ALREADY HAVE ONE.

>> BASICALLY THAT IS A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

IT WAS 1305. IT WAS IN THE GENERAL FUND.

YOU LOOK AT THE NEVES. YOU SEE THE NEGATIVE TO THE GENERAL FUND OF $72,000 TO THE BADGING COORDINATOR AND NOT REALLY A NEW POSITION BUT THAT'S HOW THEY WANTED ME TO REPORT THIS IN HERE AS BADGING COORDINATOR.

IT'S REALLY A ZERO -- IT'S ACTUALLY A REDUCTION OF GENERAL FUND COSTS AND A SLIGHT INCREASE OF THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY COSTS, BUT THAT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE BECAUSE THERE ALREADY IS AN EMPLOYEE THERE, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE ALSO HAVE A REDUCTION IN 1305 SECRETARY 1 OF AROUND 40 SOME THOUSAND AND IT'S MOVING TO 1570 AS AN INCREASE.

FOR THAT'S THAT'S JUST HOW THEY WANTED ME TO REPORT THIS IN.

IN A NEW AND DELETED POSITION. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A NEW OR DELETED POSITION. IT'S JUST MOVING IT FROM COURTHOUSE SECURITY TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO COURTHOUSE SECURITY.

>> SO WE SHOULDN'T SHOW THE WHOLE AMOUNT AS ADD TO THE BUDGET, RIGHTLY? I MEAN IF IT'S NOT A NEW

POSITION, THAT MONEY'S THERE. >> YOU SEE THAT 5 TV IF HAVE HAVE 53 IS A NEW POSITION FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND YOU SUBTRACT THE 1,003 TWNGT WHICH INCLUDES THE REDUCTION OF THE BADGING COORDINATOR. THAT'S WHERE I GET THE $400,000. SO YOU'LL SEE ON M2, YOU'LL SEE THE BADGE COORDINATOR FROM $3,700 AND IS A GENERAL FUND AND I NEGATIVE 72,762 SO WE'RE REDUCING THE GENERAL FUND'S POSITION OF 133,800 SO YOU CAN SUB RACKET THAT FROM THE 553 AND

YOU'LL GET THE BALANCES OF 420. >> SO THE SECURITY SECRETARY 1,

THAT'S A NEW POSITION, RIGHT? >> WELL, IT'S A POSITION IN THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUNDS MOVING TO THE GENERAL FUND, SO IT'S A NEW POSITION FOR THE GENERAL FUND BUT IT'S AN OLD POSITION FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY. THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING DELETED FROM THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND ON M2 AND ADDING TO THE GENERAL FUND ON M1 AND IN M1 IN 1305 SECURITY WE'RE ADDING THE BADGING COORDINATOR BUT SUBTRACTING IT FROM M2.

THAT'S HOW THEY WANTED ME TO REPORT THIS.

>> YOU KEEP SAYING "THEY." WHO IS THEY?

>> COURT ADMINISTRATOR. THEY WANTED ME TO REPORT IT THIS

WAY. >> IT SHOULD BE US, NOT THEY.

IT SHOULD BE US. >> OUR COMMISSIONER IS TRYING TO SHOW THAT THAT POSITION IS IN THE GENERAL FUND BUT WE'RE MOVING IT TO THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY, WHICH IS A SPECIAL REVENUE, SO IT'S A NEW POSITION IN 1305 EVEN THOUGH IT'S A

WASH. >> IT'S A NEW POSITION THAT WE -- YOU'RE RIGHT -- IT'S A NEW POSITION, BUT THE FUNDS WERE

THERE ALREADY, I GUESS. >> RIGHT.

THE FUNDS WERE ORIGINALLY IN GENERAL FUND BUT NOW IT'S GOING

TO BE IN SPERVEL REVENUE. >> IT'S IN THE EXPENSE IN ITS BUDGET BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE.

>> WE ADD THE FUNDS TO THE 1570 BUT STRIKING IT FROM THE 3700.

UNFORTUNATELY IT'S AN ADD/SUBTRACT BUT IN TOTAL NUMBER

IT'S NOT THERE, CORRECT. >> AND HOW ABOUT THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT SECRETARY 1? WHERE IS THAT AT?

>> CURRENTLY THAT WAS THE SECRETARY THAT WAS IN COURTHOUSE SECURITY. YOU'LL SEE THAT ON M2 AS BEING A

REDUCTION. >> IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE.

>> THAT'S MOVING IT FROM 1305 TO THE GENERAL FUND.

>> SO THAT MONEY -- SO THAT'S A NEW POSITION, THOUGH, RIGHT?

>> IN 1570 BECAUSE IT'S COMING NOW FROM SPECIAL REVENUE OVER TO GENERAL FUND SO IT'S STILL A WASH.

>> SPECIAL REVENUE? >> YES.

>> RIGHT. >> BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A COURTHOUSE SECURITY SECRETARY 1.

AND THAT'S COMING FROM WHERE? >> COURTHOUSE SECURITY SEATER 1 IS MOVING -- SECRETARY 1 IS MOVING FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE INTO THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT WHICH IS GENERAL

FUND. >> COURTHOUSE SECRETARY 1 IS

BEING A DELETED POSITION ON M2. >> RIGHT.

>> WHAT POSITION IS THAT THAT'S MOVING?

>> IT'S THE SECRETARY 1. SHE WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED IN COURTHOUSE SECURITY, WHICH IS A SPECIAL REVENUE, AND NOW SHE'S

[01:30:01]

SAYS GENERAL FUND. >> BUT SHE HAS NOTHING TO DO

WITH THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY? >> RIGHT NOW SHE DOES.

WHEN AN EMPLOYEE GETS A BADGE, SHE BASICALLY WAS DOING THAT BUT NOW WE HAVE A BADGING COORDINATOR THAT DOES THAT, SO HER JOB DESCRIPTION ON TOP EVERYTHING SHE DOES FOR PUBLIC WORKS, SHE WAS DOING THE BADGING FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY 1 SO TECHNICALLY SHE WASN'T REALLY DOING A LOT FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY SO WE'RE MOVING HER BACK TO 1570 WHERE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT REALLY NEEDS A SECRETARY, AND THE BADGING COORDINATOR IS NOW DOING ALL THE BADGING FOR EVERYBODY.

>> BUT THE SHERIFF ALSO HAS A BADGING COORDINATOR.

>> THAT IS THE ONE, YES, WE'RE MOVING THAT AND MOVING TO IT

1305. >> OKAY.

SO YOU'RE MOVING IT. >> CORRECT.

>> AND SOMETHING ELSE TO NOTE AS FAR AS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE FIVE POSITIONS THAT ARE HERE ON THE NEW POSITION SCHEDULE ARE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING DELETED FROM THE PRE-TRIAL 1323 ACCOUNT HERE BECAUSE THAT DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. IT'S OVER BUDGET RIGHT NOW.

>> RIGHT NOW. >> SO THIS ALLOWS TO US REALLOCATE THESE FIVE INDIVIDUALS OVER TO GENERAL

FUND. >> AS YOU'LL SEE THE BOTTOM LINE, THE DA IS WILLING TO TRANSFER $310,000 A YEAR TO

COVER THAT COST. >> THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.

HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO PUT IN?

>> THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS PROBABLY 150.

>> 150,000? DOLLARS.

>> MM-HM. >> .

US. BAER GOING TO GIVE YOU 310.

IF BEAV HAVE THEY'VE GOT MORE, THEY WILL GIVE YOU MORE.

RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF COVID-RELATED EXPENSES AND PEOPLE GOING THROUGH PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION IT'S VERY LIMITED.

THEIR FUNDS ARE NEGATIVE. IF WE CAN KEEP THEM IN 1323, THEN THEY WILL BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY A REDUCTION OF FORCE FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> NUECES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SENIOR CLERK 2.

WHERE DOES THAT GO? >> SHE WAS ORIGINAL ORIGINA TEMPORARY IN THE NUECES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

SHE I TEMPORARY AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE HER A SENIOR

CLERK 2 IN THAT DEPARTMENT. >> SENIOR CLERK 2 IS A FULL-TIME

POSITION? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> SHE WAS A TEMP.

>> SHE WAS A TEMP. [SNEEZE]

>> BLESS UP. AND 1328, IS THERE ANY POSITION TO INVESTIGATE? I THOUGHT WE ALREADY HAD ONE.

>> WE HAVE TWO, I THINK. >> MAYBE TWO.

I DON'T KNOW. >> WE HAVE TWO, AND THEY'RE SPECIAL -- AND THEY'RE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FUNDS.

THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATOR IN THEIR FUNDS WHICH THEY DO HAVE FUNDS FOR SO NONE OF THESE COSTS WILL BE

GENERAL FUND >> AND THEN THE JAIL WE'RE

SAYING TWO MEANS PEOPLE, RIGHT? >> YEAH, THE JAIL.

THE SHERIFF, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM, AND LAST YEAR DURING THE PROCESS THAT HE GAVE UP A FEW OF HIS CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS TO BRING MORE MEDICAL MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES INTO THE BUILD MAINTENANCE SWITION DWUTION AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT COST, HOWEVER HE HAS HAD A HARD TIME GETTING ANYONE INTO HIS OFFICE TO DO ANY REPAIRS TO THE CALL BOXES, THE LIGHTS, WHATEVER FIXTURES HE MIGHT HAVE, SO HE WAS REQUESTING FOUR BUILDINGS MAINTENANCE WORKERS. I AM PROPOSING THAT WE RECOMMEND TWO. THESE WILL BE UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WHIFNS CAPTAINS TO DO THE -- ONE OF HIS CAPTAINS TO DO THE MAINTENANCE IN THE JAIL AS WELL AS THE ANNEX, IN ONLY THOSE VOCATIONS.

>> THAT WILL BE UNDER PUBLIC WORKS.

>> THESE WILL BE UNDER THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CORRECT.

>> THERE'S A COUPLE I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER LATER ON BUT I NEED TO -- WE'LL GO DOWN THE ROW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE GOT EVERYTHING CLEAR HERE ON THAT ONE BECAUSE I WASN'T TOO

[01:35:02]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> IS THAT CONSIDER DPLOARKT THAT SENIOR CLERK FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT, WAS AT A SENIOR

CLERK OR JUST SECRETARY? >> FOR WHICH ONE?

>> PUBLIC WORKS. THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT.

>> THAT WAS SECRETARY 1. >> SECRETARY 1.

>> YES. >> AND SHE'LL BE WORKING STRICTLY FOR FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT?

>> CORRECT. >> I REMEMBER PUBLIC WORKS WAS REQUESTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL SECRETARY TO WORK WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SENIOR CLERK.

>> YES. >> I'VE GOT THE ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT. I'VE GOT A SENIOR CLERK THERE,

YES. >> THANK YOU, DALE.

>> THEY REQUESTED A SENIOR CLERK AS WELL AS TWO ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. UNFORTUNATELY WE COULDN'T AFFORD THE TWO ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, BUT WITH THE NEED THAT THEY SAID THAT THEY SPEND A LOT OF THEIR TIME INFORMANT OFFICE RUNNING REPORTS AND CAN'T BE OUT THERE, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE TO ADD THE SENIOR CLERK TO HELP THEM HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO THE REPORTS SO THEY CAN BE OUT IN THE FIELD.

UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T ADD MORE STAFF THERE, BUT MAYBE NEXT WE

ARE WE CAN CONSIDER IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> WHAT WOULD BE A SENIOR CLERK? YOU'VE GOT THE TEMP GOING TO SENIOR CLERK.

YOU'VE GOT ENVIRONMENTAL GOING TO SENIOR CLERK.

SO WHY COULDN'T THAT SECRETARY BE A SENIOR CLERK?

>> THE SECRETARY WAS ALREADY A SECRETARY LEVEL.

SHE WAS PAY GROUP 14 AND SECRETARY IS PAY GROUP 13.

IF ANYTHING, THE SECRETARY WOULD BE A PAY GROUP 15 WHICH WOULD BE

AN INCREASE. >> BUT IT'S NOT AN INCREASE IN A

NEW POSITION, RIGHT? >> WELL, IT'S A NEW POSITION FOR THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S NOT PAY NEW POSITION IN ITS INTHIERT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THE SECRETARY 1 AS PART OF COURTHOUSE SECURITY, AND WE'RE JUST MOVING IT TO THE GEND FUND AND WE'RE KEEPING -- GENERAL FUND AND WE'RE KEEPING HER SALARY AS WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS AT A PAY GROUP 1408 WHICH MEANS SHE'S BEEN HERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

MAINTAINED AT THE SECRETARY 1 LEVEL, SO IF WE MOVED HER DOWN AT THE ESCORT CLERK THAT WOULD BE A 5% REDUCTION IN SALARY.

>> IF SHE WENT TO SENIOR CLERK, HE.

>>> SHE'S A SENIOR CLERK IS 14.1 AND SHE'S AT A -- SECRETARY 1 IS

PAY GROUP 14. >> I THINK SHE'D RATHER STAY A

SECRETARY 1. >> OKAY.

THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONLY FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY SPECIALIST, BUT THE JUDGE IS ALSO GOING TO REQUEST THAT THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

PLANNER ALSO BE INCLUDED. >> BOTH OF THEM?

>> YES, SIR. >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK -- THE PLANNER I KIND OF AGREE BUT NOT THE -- AND I THINK THERE'S MORE, MORE -- THE PREPARE PLANNER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. DISASTER RECOVERY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY NEED THAT ONE OR NOT OR EITHER ONE OF THEM, FOR THAT MATTER, BUT I'M GOING TO -- I WILL CONSIDER THE PLANNER MORE -- I WILL CONSIDER THE PLANNER BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE TO BE PREPARED, SO I THINK THAT JOB IS IMPORTANT PROBABLY TO PRE-PLAN AS FAR AS THE RECOVERY.

SO WE'VE ALWAYS GOT RECOVERY TEAMS OUT THERE.

BUT ANY WAY, OKAY, THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. BE A LOT OF POSITIONS WE NEED TO LOOK AT. THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIONS THAT ARE NOT HERE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT PROBABLY, YOU KNOW.

>> YEAH, THAT TAB B SHOWS YOU ALL PLANS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT SHOWS WHAT THE COURT HAS TAKEN ON ACTION ON DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR IN ADDING POSITIONS THAT WEREN'T ALREADY THERE, BUT AS YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU GET IT FOR THE 21-22 BUDGET YEAR, BUT THAT'S WE'VE SEEN IN OUR HISTORY OF LOOKING THROUGH THE COURT MINUTES TO SEE WHAT IS THERE, SO THOSE ARE THE POSITIONS ON B17

[01:40:01]

TO BE ADDED TO THE BUDGET. >> I'M BACK.

WHERE ARE WE JUST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE --

>> WE'RE GOING OVER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE NEW POSITIONS

ON TAB M1 AND 2. >> OKAY.

AND THE LAST ONE YOU JUST DID WAS THE --

>> I WAS JUST TELLING HIM BECAUSE THERE WAS A QUESTION BROUGHT UP ON B17 WHEN WE ADDED IN I THINK JANUARY, YOU SAID IT WAS CORRECTLY, IN JANUARY WHEN WE TAD AUTOPSY TECHNICIAN AND THE PATHOLOGY ASSISTANT FOR THE MEDICALLER AND, AND I SAID BOTH OF THESE POSITIONS HAD BEEN FILLED, AND I WAS SAYING THIS WAS A REQUIRED ADDITION TO THE BUDGET IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS. THEN COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SAID MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY KNOW IN ITS MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, SINCE THEY HAD FUNDS THIS YEAR, THERE'S NO GUARANTEED MONEY NEXT YEAR, BUT IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADD $158,000 TO THE THE ME, NEED TO SUBTRACT 117,000 FRDZ COURT ADMINISTRATION AND ADD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS AROUND $330,000 THAT IS A REQUIRED ADDITION TO THE BUDGET IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION BY REMOVING THESE POSITIONS.

>> OKAY. >> THAT BASS ON B16 AND 17 WHERE WE SHOW ALL THE ADJUSTMENTS IN MID-BUDGET YEAR OF WHAT OCCURRED. I'D BE GLAD TO GO THROUGH ANY ADVERTISEMENT THAT YA'LL WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AT THE MOMENT WITH OUR GENERAL FUND, OUR OTHER FUNDS.

TOMORROW I'LL BRING IN SOME STUFF FROM A COUPLE OF OUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS THAT MIGHT NEED SOME ASSISTANCE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE NEED FOR A 150. THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND.

THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO ADD SOME MORE STAFF ON THE SECOND OP THAT WE HAVE DOWNSTAIRS PUTTING ALL THIS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COURTS HOUSE WHERE WE ENTER THE COURTHOUSE FOR SECURITY-WISE. ADDITIONAL 100,000 DOLLARS TO $200,000 THAT WOULD REQUIRE GENERAL FUND ACTION.

WE'RE WORKING ON DOING THE FUNDING FOR OUR NUECES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE SOME MONEY FROM SOME OF THE FUNDS WE GET FROM OUR CAPITAL CREDIT IS GOING TO BE DEPOSITED THERE SO IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THAT BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHOW YOU WHERE WE ARE WITH THOSE FUNDS.

MOST OF THE FUNDS WE HAVE THAT ARE IN QUESTION WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. I'LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER ANY ITEM IN THE GENERAL FUND THAT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AND ANY ITEM THAT WE HAVE. AS WE SAID, THESE ARE VERY BEGINNING RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY AND ALL ITEMS CAN CAN BE CHANGED. AND MOST LIKELY COULD BE AND WILL BE, BUT THESE ARE OUR -- WYE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS I HAVE AS WE SAW IN TAB -- WAS IT M? WHERE ARE OUR BUDGET ESTIMATES? ON TAB J WHERE WE TALK ABOUT OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES WHERE WE HAVE KNOWN CHALLENGES, AND THAT'S RIGHT AT ALMOST 3 MILLIONED RIGHT NOW, $2 MILLION, $3 MILLION WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE KNOWN EXPENSES THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THESE BECAUSE OF A PERSONNEL POLICY OR CBA OR THE LAW THAT TOOK IN EFFECT FOR COUNTY COURT JUDGE AS WELL AS RETIREMENT, WORKERS' COMP, AND THE LOAN WE HAVE TO REPAY FOR THE BANK OF AMERICA FOR OUR ABM CONTRACT WE HAVE TO DO REPAIRS AT THE FAIRGROUNDS AND OTHER LOCATIONS, SO THOSE ARE REQUIRED ENTRIES.

SO ANYTHING BELOW THAT IS BEFNL UP FOR NEGOTIATION -- DEFINITELY UP FOR NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSION.

AT THE TOP WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

WE HAVE TO FUND THOSE. OF BIC GIVE YOU A COST ON WHERE OUR REVENUE TAX IS AND WHAT THE RATES ARE GOING TO BE, I REALLY CAN'T GO INTO REAL DEPTH OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND HOW WE NEED TO DO IT UNTIL I KNOW, BUT AS I MENTIONED, WE HAD A LITTLE OVER $600 MILLION OF NEW PROPERTY, AND OF THAT $600 MILLION, ONLY 4 -- A LITTLE MORE THAN $425 MILLION WAS TAXABLE WHICH MEANS THERE'S WAS A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- PROVIDE THE REVENUE THAT WE HOPED FOR TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE

[01:45:03]

GO WITH IT. >> SO THE ONLY -- ON YOUR BUDGET CHALLENGES, THE ONE THING I CAN POINT OUT TO THE COURT IS THAT THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN METRO COME SOFTWARE, $546,621 COULD BE PRIORITIZED COMMISSIONERS FOR AMERICAN RELIEF PLAN ACT.

IT WOULD QUALIFY, WE BELIEVE, FOR THE ARPA FUNDING AND THAT WOULD ASSIST US. IT IS TONL THE ONLY ONE OUT OF ALL OF THEM AT THIS MOMENT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO EXPLORE OTHERS, BUT OWF OF THE ONES THAT ARE HERE LISTED, IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I BELIEVE WOULD ABSOLUTELY FIT, AND SO THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO REMOVE $546,621.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DALE ON THE BUDGET CHALLENGES? ALL OF THESE AGAIN ARE CHALLENGES THAT EXIST.

THEY'RE NOT ONES WE GET CHOICES ON EXCEPT FOR WHAT I JUST MENTIONED IN THE METRO COMP INTAIRN REMEMBERS LIFEGUARDS SNOIFERSZ STATUTORILY DEFINED FOURS AND THAT THIS TAKES PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 1, I BELIEVE, 20211 TYNER.

THAT'S A RESULT OF THE NEW LAW. SO THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT EXCEPT FOR OBVIOUSLY THESE THOSE NEW POSITIONS AND LIMITED RECLASSES -- WELL, NO, THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE

ALREADY -- >> THEY WERE DISCUSSED BUT THOSE

ARE STILL -- >> UP FOR GRABS.

>> UP FOR GRABS. IF THE COURT WANTS TO FUND ANY OR ALL OR NONE, THEN WE CAN DEFINITELY NEGOTIATE THAT UP OR DOWN. THE SAME THING FOR THE NEW POSITION OR RECLASSIFICATIONS. THE PRIOR YEAR POSITION CHANGE EVER CHANGES THAT OCCURRED NEAR BUDGET, AS I WAS MENTIONING TODAY COMMISSIONERS, YES, THE COURT STILL HAS ACTION FOR THEM, AND MOST OF THE POSITIONS THERE HAVE BEEN FILLED, SO IF WE DON'T WANT TO FUND THEM, THEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO TERMINATE.

>> RIGHT. SO, WILLIE, YOU'RE LOOKING AS THE 700, 900, POTENTIALLY 1.4 OF POTENTIAL ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK, SO TO SPEAK, OR ON THE TABLE, BUT THAT ONLY COMES FROM THE MOVING METRO COM OUT OF THIS LIST AND INTO THE ARPA SIDE AND POTENTIALLY OBLITERATING ALL OF THE OTHER NEW CLASS AND REPOSITIONS. JUST ON THIS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DALE JUST ON THE BUDGET CHALLENGE? AND WHAT DOES EVERYBODY THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN METRO COME SWAISH MOVING , MOVING THAT TO APRILA.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ARP A.

>> IT'S THE AMERICAN RELIEF FUND ACT.

THIS IS WHEN WEE RECEIVED $34 MILLION THIS YEAR.

MY PROPOSAL TO TAKE $536,000 AND PLACECLY SAY, COMMIT AS A COURT THAT WE WILL ADDRESS THAT NEED, WHICH IS -- IT'S NOT A WANT.

IT'S A NEED. WITH THOSE FUNDS.

AND SO THOSE FUNDS HAVE PERMISSIVE USES.

ONE OF THE PERMISSIVE SEUSS TECHNOLOGY.

AND I HAVE VETTED THIS WITH OUR SPECIALIST HAG ARTY AND THEY BELIEVE THIS WOULD QUALIFY FOR ELIGIBILITY WE ALREADY HAVE THIS MONEY IN OUR TREASURY.

IT CAME TO US SEVERAL MONTHS BACK.

AND SO ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT THIS METRO COM SOFTWARE COULD BE PAID FOR AND MOVED OUT OF THIS COLUMN, GIVING US SOME

BREATHING ROOM ON THIS LIST. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE WILL

BE REIMBURSED? >> NO, WE ALREADY HAVE THE

MONEY. >> I KNOW WE HAVE THE MONEY,

BUT -- >> SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT QUALIFIES, I WOULD SAY THAT AS A COURT WE COULD, NOT TODAY, BUT WE COULD VOTE ON MAKING METRO COM SOFTWARE FUNDING SOURCE ARFA AND THEN WE COULD BASICALLY SUBMIT THE PAPERWORK AND THAT WOULD BE THAT. THE MONEY IS HERE, BUT THE WAY IT WORKS IS WE HAVE PAPERWORK. THAT'S WHAT WE -- WE HAVE A LOT OF PAPERWORK THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT, BUT IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A LOW, LOW, LOW RISK FOR HAVING IT CLAWED BACK, SO IT QUALIFIES AND WE CAN MOVE IT INTO THAT COLUMN.

>> JUDGE. >> WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE COURT BY THE CITY, IT WAS A ONE-TIME, $1.1 MILLION SOFTWARE

[01:50:03]

BUDGET REQUIREMENT. >> WELL, DEFINITELY WE NEED IT.

>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE -- THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE TO PUT FORTH EXCEPT FOR THE LAST

TWO. >> JUDGE, I DIDN'T PUT IT AS A CHALLENGE ON Q16 IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TURN TO Q16, THAT'S OUR I.T. DIRECTOR. I KNOW DARRELL JUST CAME IN, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF SOFTWARE PERIMETERS IN -- BUILT INTO THAT REQUEST. I HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY OUT YET.

I KNOW I'M GOING TO BE WORKING WITH HIM.

I KNOW THE JUDGE IS GOING TO BE WORKING WITH HIM TRYING TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES CAN QUALIFY FOR THE ARFA FUNDS AS WELL AS WHO CAN HAVE QUALIFY BECAUSE WHEN THE COURT APPROVED THE SERIES 21 CREVMENTS, I BELIEVE THERE WAS $1 MILLION FOR I.T.LY RELATED EXPENSE. NOW, WE STILL NEED TO REMEMBER FOR I.T. RELATED EXPENSE IT MUST TO BE FIRST YEAR OF THE CONTRACT, SO ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE FIRST YEAR ONLY WE CAN POSSIBLY MOVE THE 21 COS OR MOBILE GO THROUGH THE ARFA FUNDS TO TRY TO REDUCE THAT $279,000 THAT'S CURRENTLY IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. HAVEN'T TAKEN IT OUT YET BUT I WANTED TO WORK WITH DARRELL TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

SINCE HE JUST RECENTLY STARTED DIVINITY WANT TO TRY HIM SAY YES OR NO RIGHT AWAY. SO I'M NEGOTIATING WITH HIM, AND I GUARANTEE YOU THAT WILL GO DOWN.

>> OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER MAREZ, YOU'RE ON THE LINE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DALE ON THIS PARTICULAR GOING BACK, IF YOU'D GO BACK ONE SLIDE, CONNIE. NO, I'M SORRY.

WHERE WE WERE BEFORE ON BUDGET CHALLENGES.

>> J1. >> J1.

I MEAN, THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL BECAUSE THIS IS JURY STARTING POINT, RIGHT? SO ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TAX ASSESSED VALUE IS AND WHAT YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS AND WHAT YOUR VOTER APPROVED RATE IS, THIS IS WHERE WE STARTS.

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE ACCEPTED. THERE'S NO GOING BACK ON MOST OF THE ITEMS 1 THROUGH -- LET'S SEE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,

FIVE. >> EIGHT OF THEM.

>> UP UNTIL YOU GET TO THAT METRO COME SOFTWARE, THAT THIN BLUE LINE, EVERYTHING ABOVE IS SET.

RIGHT? NOSE ARE NON-NEGOTIABLES, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THOSE.

THOSE ARE UNDZ ONES WE ARE ACCEPTING AND WE HAVE TO HAVE.

IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT DALE JUST TOILED, WE'RE EXPECTING ONLY REVENUE OF UNDER -- DALE, WHAT DID YOU SAY?

$1MILLION? >> WE'RE ABOUT A $1 MILLION IN

NEW PLOT. >> $1 MILLION IN NEW PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE ALREADY ECLIPSED THAT.

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF NEW REVENUE THERE, BUT ALL OF OTHERS NEEDS EXCEPT FOR THE BOTTOM ONES WHICH WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE WITH. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS STILL AVAILABLE, BUT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DALE ON

THIS LIST? >> THE ONLY THING IS WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE -- FROM THE ASTERISK UP TO BANK OF AMERICA, THE LIFEGUARDS. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE WE'RE GOING TO NEED, BUT ON THOSE ONES IT'S GOING TO BE A NEED BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE IT.

THE RISK ASSESSMENT, I DON'T KNOW.

>> THAT'S CSCD, RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> I'M GOING BACK TO THE PPED FROM INCREASE IN METRO COM AND THE LAWSUIT, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMETHING

ASIDE WITH THE LAWSUIT. >> SO I'M SORRY.

TELL ME WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE SOFTWARE.

ARE YOU IN FAVOR HAVING THE ARFA FUNDS?

>> THE METRO COM, I THINK THAT ARFA CAN USE IT BUT I HAVE BEEN HERE AND -- I DON'T KNOW WHO IS SAYING -- DID WE GET SOMETHING

ALREADY FROM -- >> YES.

>> -- FROM THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY IF

WE USE IT FOR MERKET? >> YES, THE SOFTWARE, YES.

ONLY THE TECHNOLOGY -- >> THE HAGGARDY IS COMING FROM

SOMEWHEREELS. >> SO I HAVE SPOKEN THE WITH DEPARTMENT TREASURY MYSELF, AND THE WAY IT WORKS IS YOU SUBMIT QUESTIONS AND WE TALKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY, AND WE DO BELIEVE THIS IS A -- SOMETHING THAT'S VERY THAT VERY MUCH QUALIFIES, SOFTWARE, TECHNOLOGY.

>> BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS MOSTLY FOR DRAINAGE AND

[01:55:02]

WASTEWATER AND THERE WAS -- >> SO THAT'S -- SO WHAT YOU'RE REMEMBERING IS ACCURATE. THERE ARE CONCENTRATED EFFORTS.

BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST THING IT DOES IS ADDRESS COVID-19. THE SECOND THING IT DOES IS ADDRESS BROADBAND ACCESS. IT ADDRESSES INFRASTRUCTURE WITH GUARDING WATER AND SEWER. AND IT ADDRESSES MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMMING. AND IT ADDRESSES THE TECHNOLOGY. SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE THING.

IT'S MULTIPLE THINGS. >> I KNOW THERE ARE FOUR THINGS. BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF WE HAVE METRO COM, IS THAT A BROADBAND DHING?

CAN WE TIE IT INTO THAT? >> NO, BROADBAND IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THAT'S CONNECTIVITY.

THIS IS SOFTWARE TO RUN METRO COM.

THIS GOES WHAT PETER COLLINS BRIEF US ON.

I THINK IF YOU CAN HYPOTHETICALLY GET THERE FOR ME, JUST PRETEND FOR A MOMENT THAT ON IT QUALIFIES.

DALE IS NOT GOING TO LET US GO INTO SOMETHING IF IT DOESN'T QUALIFY OR IT'S NOTE ELIGIBLE BUT LET US JUST PRESUME THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE, WOULD YOU WANT TO MOVE IT?

>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. >> I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. WE'LL JUST WORK OFF THAT.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? IF YOU GET TO IT QUALIFY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FEVERISHLY FOR MONTHS NOW, WOULD YOU THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING TO DO, IS TO MIGHT HAVE OVER? HE MIGHT BE BUSY. HE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR

ME. >> EXCUSE ME, JUDGE.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE TOTAL COST FOR KNOWN THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS $2,448,622.

>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND. LET ME RIGHT THAT DOWN.

>> 2 MILL $448,622. >> WHAT'S THAT?

>> THAT'S THE TOTAL OF THINGS WE HAVE TO DO NOT CLAWGHT AS

TRIKSZ. >> DID YOU TAKE OUT THE -- CAN I HAVE IT? CAN I HAVE THIS?

>> 2 MILLION. >> 448622.

>> AND DID YOU TAKE OUT METRO COM SOFTWARE?

>> IT'S NOT INCLUDED. IT'S ONLY THE STARS.

>> THANK YOU. NOW, ON THE LIFEGUARD, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, WE KNOW LIFEGUARD IS I STAR.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE AMOUNT.

COULD YOU GIVE ME WHAT I CALL A HIGH/LOW? BECAUSE WE REALLY SHOULD MAKE IT A STAR BUT WE SHOULD MAKE AT A

STAR AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT. >> THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO FIND OUT IS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDINGS FOR WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE CASE. I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING THE MARIA TO POSSIBLY TRY FIND GRANTS FOR IT.

>> YES. >> I KNOW THIS MAY OR MAY NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE RESCUE PLAN BECAUSE IT IS FOR SECURITY, FOR LIFE PRODUCTION SO SOME OF IT MAY QUALIFY FOR THERE BUT AGAIN IT WOULD BE FOR ONE YEAR ONLY OR TWO YEARS ONLY.

>> IT WOULD HELP. >> IT MIGHT BE HALF OF.

>> IT LET ME EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COURT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. SO THE $300,000 TO COULD QUALIFY, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LOST REVENUES HAVE OVER $3 MILLION. WE COULD TAKE $300,000 OF THAT LOST REVENUE FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, WHICH WOULD BE $600,000, AND BECAUSE LIFEGUARDING IS A GOVERNMENT SERVICE, AGAIN, AS LONG AS WE QUALIFY IT, WE COULD TAKE THAT OFF THIS, OFF THIS LIST. IT WOULD NOT HELP US FOREVER, BUT IT WOULD GET US THROUGH A VERY DIFFICULT TIME, AND I THINK THAT IS A VERY SMART THING TO DO.

SO AGAIN, WE COULD REMOVE -- AGAIN, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO MOVE METRO COM AND MOVE LIVE LIFEGUARD? BECAUSE THAT'S $850,000 YOU CAN NOW USE FOR LIMITED RECLASSES OR LIMITED NEW POSITIONS. IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE TO GUARANTEE IT, BUT WE THINK THAT LIFEGUARD SERVICES COULD BE PLACED IN THAT OTHER COLUMN, AND IF SO, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT DOING THAT? AGAIN, IT'S COOFN A TRICK QUESTION.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A, OF COURSE, WE WOULD.

IF YOU'RE SAVING $300,000. BUT ANYWAY --

>> SAVE OR NOT SAVE. >> HOW WOULD YOU NOT SAVE.

>> I DON'T KNOW. YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE IT. CAN WE USE IT OR NOT?

I MEAN DID,. >> LOOK, THE ISSUE IS IS THAT THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> AND SO YOU NEED TO PUT -- THAT'S WHY I SAID IT SHOULD BE AN TRIX, BUT AS THE TRIX BUT I DO HAVE.

>> I DO HAVE LIFEGUARD ASTERISKED HERE ON MINE.

I PUT AN ASTERISK. >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE SHEET

ON THE SCREEN. >> SO WE ADD 150 THEN WE'RE AT

2,059,862 DOLLARS. >> AGAIN, WE'RE JUST PLAYING HERE WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE RIGHT NUMBER.

ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT LET ME ADDRESS THAT.

BECAUSE OF THE BACKLOG OF THE COURTS FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF PLUS, A CSCD IS IN A REALLY DIFFICULT SITUATION.

[02:00:03]

OKAY? FOR THIS 50, IF YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO MAKE THINGS QUALIFY. BUT THESE ARE CHOICES, NOT HARD AND FAST WE SHOULD DO THESE THINGS.

THAT COULD ALSO BE A WAY TO ASSIST US JUST FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS. BECAUSE THAT ONE IS A MUST, IN MY BOOK. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

WE HAVE A BACKLOG SYSTEM. THESE ARE THE LATE-TERM EFFECTS OF COVID. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE VALUATION LAWSUIT, QULIEWF YOU'VE GOT TO PREPARE FOR THAT AND THEN WE MADE PRIOR YEAR POSITION CHANGES BECAUSE THEY WERE CRUCIAL. I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE WE MADE THAT WASN'T CRUCIAL FOR THIS COMING YEAR, BUT -- SO I THINK THAT ONE GETS US OBLIGATED AS WELL.

AND WHEN YOU DO THAT NUMBER, EVEN IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE 50, TERESA, AND YOU AND YOU LOOK TWEA THE TOOK AWAY THE LIFEGUARD, YOU'RE BACK AT 2.8 OR 2.7.

>> I'M ROUNDING UP.

THAT'S OUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE. THIS PAGE.

WANT CAN'T REALLY MOVE ON UNS YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT WE HAVE ABOUT AT LEAST A FLOOR OF ABOUT 2.7 WORTH OF BILLS TO PAY. , AND THE POTENTIAL NEW REVENUE

OF ONLY $1 MILLION. >> JUDGE, DID YOU WANT TO MENTION ABOUT ADDING THE SECOND POSITION FOR EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT PLANER? >> YEAH.

SO THE REASON I WASN'T -- I HAD YOU ON IN THE OTHER ROOM BUT I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR VERY WELL BECAUSE I WAS ON A TEDUM IS THE NATURE THESE POSITIONS. WE ARE FORCED WITH YET ANOTHER DISASTER. YOU MIGHT THINK IT'S THE SAME DISASTER BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU IT'S NOT THE SAME DISASTER.

DELTA IS A NEW DISASTER IN MY MIND, AND ACTUALLY I WISH THEY WOULD QUALIFY IT AS SUCH BECAUSE IT'S DOING DIFFERENT THINGS TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND WITHOUT HAVING THE RIGHT STRUCTURE UPSTAIRS IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, WE'RE FORCED TO CONTRACT THIS STUFF OUT, AND WE CAN BE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WITH OUR DOLLARS WHICH CAN GET REPAID.

THESE PEOPLE, IF THEY'RE WORKING DISASTERS, WE GET TO TAKE THEIR SALARIES AND CLAIM IT FOR FEMA. AND THESE ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO GETTING THE WORK DONE THAT WE NEED TO DO INSIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. AND AGAIN, WE'RE PAYING A LOT MORE ON A CONTRACT BASIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THESE FULL-TIME POSITIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE VIRUSES ARE HERE TO STAY PROBABLY FOR OUR LIFETIME AFTER THE DELTA VARIANT LEAVES US. I'M SURE THERE WILL AB LAMBDA, IOTA THAT WANTS TO COME AND SEE US, AND AFTER THAT WHO KNOWS.

IT WILL BE ANOTHER NOVEL VIRUS. THIS IS OUR SAD FUTURE, IS THAT WE'VE BEEN EXPOSED, AND THIS IS JUST ONE TYPE OF DISASTER.

YOU CAN SEE HOW QUICKLY FROM MAY TO JULY WE HAD SIX WEEKS OF DISASTERS. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU REALLY CONSIDER THIS AS A BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY AND A BENEFIT TO SAVING DOLLARS FOR THIS COUNTY BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF WE DON'T HAVE THESE PEOPLE, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A DISASTER. WE'RE CALLING THEM IN.

THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM FULL-TIME, WE WILL PICK UP THE PHONE AND WE WILL CALL THEM BECAUSE YOUR COUNTY CANNOT DO WITHOUT THESE TYPES OF POSITIONS FOR RESPONSE. NOW, LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER GOOD THING IS THESE COULD ALSO BE PAID FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS OUT OF ARFA FUNDS, AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER. AND THEN IN TWO YEARS YOU DO NOT THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT VALUE? FINE, DISCONTINUE THEM.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU FOR THE NEXT YOU TWO YEARS WE ARE IN THICK OF IT WITH BOOSTER SHOTS, WITH SPAWRKD VACCINATIONS, WITH DELTA VARIANTS, AND THAT'S JUST A VIRUS.

THAT'S JUST THE VIRUS. NO HURRICANE, FLOOD, NO EXPLOSIONS, NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

THESE TWO PEOPLE KEEP US SAFE. AND AGAIN YOU CAN ADD ZEROS TO THE END OF THESE NUMBERS IF WE HAVE TO GO CONTRACT FOR THEM.

THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DECISION. PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND SUPPORT THIS. IF THE DELTA VARIANT -- HAD WE NOT SURGED THIS SUMMER, YOU CAN ASK DALE, I HAD SUGGESTED ONE OUT OF THE TWO, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $50,000 IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS WITH THE SAME TYPE OF DESCRIPTION,

[02:05:04]

YOU HAVE TO GET THE PEOPLE TO RESPOND APPROPRIATELY FOR THE CRISIS. SO IT'S -- LET ME SEE.

WHAT IS IT? IS IT 90?

>> FOR THE TWO IT'S 895 -- >> I'M JUST GOING TO CALL IT 90. FOR $90,000 WE COSH I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE USE ARFA FUNDING TO HELP US AT LEAST COVER ONE OF THEM IF NOT BOTH. THERE'S JUST NO WAY WE CAN DO WITHOUT IT. AND IF YOU DOUBT ME, COME SHADOW US TODAY FOR THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.

I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL GET TO SEE FIRSTHAND WHY WE NEED THESE FOLKS. AND, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE UPSTAIRS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE WORKING, AND THE COST IS EXPENSIVE TO OUR COUNTY BUT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

SO I THINK THESE ARE TWO THINGS THAT CAN ALSO BE MOVED TO THE ARFA SIDE AGAIN JUST FOR TWO YEARS.

SO IF WE ARE KEEPING TABS ON ARFA, WE'VE MADE TWO SUGGESTIONS. ONE WAS $90,000 FOR THIS, $50,000 FOR CFCD, AND $300,000 FOR LIFEGUARDS.

WAS THERE ONE MORE, TERESA? METRO COM 526 FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF 350626. I'M SORRY.

WHAT WAS MY SOALT TOTAL? 800.

900. ALMOST $1 MILLION.

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE $1 MILLION OFF THIS BUDGET, YOU COULD DO SO WITH ARFA FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS.

THAT'S A DECISION WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE TOGETHER.

BUT -- ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH REGARDS TO THOSE BUDGET CHALLENGES? DALE, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER -- IS IT KIND OF OPEN FLOOR NOW JUST TO SEE WHO WANTS TO TALK

ABOUT ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR? >> YEAH, OPEN FORUM BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE BUDGET ITEMS. WE'LL HAVE MORE CLARIFICATION TOMORROW.

WE WILL CERTAINLY BRING UP THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND AND THE SHERIFF HAD REQUESTED MORE STAFF AND POSSIBLY GETTING BOTH SIDES OF THE COURTHOUSE SECURED ON ENTRY INTO THE COURTHOUSE, SO THAT'S GOING TO COST SOME MONEY.

DON'T HAVE THAT ANYWHERE IN HERE YET SO THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM ANOTHER 100,000 ORDERS $200,000 STT FTZ COURT SO CHOOSES TO DO THAT OR DO WE MAINTAIN IT IN THE CURRENT LOCATION AND BRING UP THE EQUIPMENT THERE TO PROPER SIZES. I KNOW THE SHERIFF'S GOT SOME CONCERNS ON THE NEW LAW THAT WAS PASSED ON OPEN CARRY AND ALSO OTHER STUFF ON HOW WE NEED TO SECURE THE MAIN ENTRY TO THE COURTHOUSE, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BRING IN, AND I MENTIONED THAT THE NCDC DOES HAVE SOME FUNDING ISSUES RIGHT NOW BUT BUT WE'RE YOU WORKING ON GET THE MONEY FROM CAPITAL CREDIT TO MAKE SURE IT AUTOMATICALLY GETS DEPOSITED IN THERE. THERE MAY STILL BE A REQUIREMENT FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO DO ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

AND WE MAY NEED TODAY FUND RAISING IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDED STAFF THERE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE PROPER FUNDING. OTHER THAN THAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SO FAR WITH THE GENERAL FUND, I'VE GOTT GONE THROUGH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY SEE ABOUT SOME STUFF, I'VE GONE THROUGH EVERY DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST. I'VE TRIED TO NARROW DOWN WHAT I BELIEVE IS NRS TO RUN THESE DEPARTMENTS.

-- NECESSARY TO RUN THESE DEPARTMENTS.

I DON'T FEEL THAT THEY HAVE ANY ROOM FOR A REDUCTION.

WE DID THAT ONE YEAR, AND IF YA'LL REMEMBER, WE HAD NOTHING BUT BUDGET CHANGE ORDERS. THERE WAS I BUDGET CHANGE ORDER, BUDGET CHANGE ORDER. THEY COULDN'T CONTINUE RUNNING THE OFFICE. A LOT OF THESE DEPARTMENTS NEED SOME STUFF, HOWEVER, THESE DEPARTMENTS HAVE DONE A VERY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT MY ESTIMATES TO WHERE WE'RE AT, WE'RE AT 85, 87 PERCENT OF BUDGET EXPENSE.

I KNOW A LOT OF IT'S BECAUSE OF OUR COURTS.

OUR COURT'S IS NOT RUNNING SO WE'RE NOT EXPANDING ANY JURY EXPENSE, WE'RE NOT EXPENDING ANY OUT OF COURT ATTORNEY EXPENSE, SO WE'RE NOT EXPENDING A LOT OF MONEY, BUT THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE DOING WELL WITHIN THEIR BUDGET AND WELL WITHIN THEIR MEANS SO WE'RE RUNNING THIS COUNTY VERY EFFICIENTLY.

>> OKAY. SO -- AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATE OR ANY NEWS FROM THE CHIEF APPRAISER'S OFFICE YET.

>> I'M JUST WORKING WITH THEM. I TOLD THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD, THAT YOU MAY START GETTING NASTY CALLS FROM

[02:10:03]

>> WE HAVE A TIMELINE TOO. >> WE HAVE UNTIL WEDNESDAY TO TRY TO GET THE VALUES FOR OUR NEW TAX AND VOTER APPROVED RATES BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT ON THE 11TH BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THE 11TH WE PACECLY BROKE THE BUDGET CALENDAR AND ALL THE REQUIRED NOTICES AND PUBLICATIONS, WE'LL BE HARD PRESSED TO MEET THOSE.

>> YEAH. >> AND ON THE 11TH, IF WE DON'T DO IT ON THE 4TH AND THE 11TH I MIGHT BE SUBMITTING THE RATES AND PROPOSING RATES THE SAME DAY IF WE HAVE TO DO IT ON THE WILL HAVE BEENTH. SO BE PREPARED.

>> WE DO HAVE SCHEDULED CAN WORKSHOPS FOR THE 9TH AND THE 10TH PRIOR TO THAT 11TH IF IT GETS MOVED TO THE 11TH.

>> AND WE'RE WORKING AS HARD AS WE CAN.

WE'VE GOT TODAY AND TOMORROW TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING DONE.

LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DO NOTHING BUT CONSTANTLY CALL THEM AND SAY, WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS? WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS? THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE COMPTROLLER IS NOT DOING THE CHANGES IN SOFTWARE THAT ARE NEEDED.

AND THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THE COMPTROLLER.

>> RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. OKAY.

SO WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE LEFT IN THE COURTROOM, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, COMMISSIONER MAREZ, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? WE'RE OBVIOUSLY PLANNING ON

MEETING AGAIN. >> COMMISSIONER, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, COMMISSIONER MAREZ TEXTED ME SIX MINUTES AGO THAT HE'S ON. FOR PURPOSES QUORUM.

HE SAID HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH ZOOM.

MAYBE HE'S HAVING TROUBLE UNMUTING.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, ON THIS BUDGET AS YOU SEE IT SO FAR? ANY CONCERNS? ANY ISSUES? WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER YET TO WORK WITH. THAT'S OUR PROBLEM.

>> WE NEED TO GO THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME.

>> I'M SORRY? >> I NEED TO GO THROUGH IT ONE

MORE TIME. >> RIGHT.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GATHER AGAIN.

>> GO THROUGH IT. >> SO FOR PURPOSES, MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER SPOKE TO ME ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE RIGOROUS MEETING SCHEDULE FOR WORKSHOP. DALE MENTIONED EARLIER THERE MAY NOT BE A NEED FOR WORKSHOP ON THE 9TH OR 10TH.

BUT I DO HAVE ON THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMISSIS COURT ON WEDNESDAY TO DISCUSS OUR SCHEDULE GOING FORWARD.

HOPEFULLY DALE GETS SOME GOOD LUCK GOING FORWARD.

DALE, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION OR WHAT'S THE COURT'S OPINION ABOUT

NEEDING TO MEET TOMORROW? >> TOMORROW WE DO A REAL BRIEF MEETING TO GO OVER SOME ITEMS IF THE DMIRGSES HAVE THE TIME COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE TIME TO READ THROUGH -- I KNOW IT DID IT ON FRIDAY AND TODAY TO GO THROUGH THIS IN DEPTH AND NATIVE SOME QUESTIONS TOMORROW. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A QUICK MESQUITE. AS TERESA SAID, WE MAY NEED THE 9TH. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS ON 4TH, I MIGHT NEED TO HAVE THE 9TH TO GO OVER THE NUMBERS TO SHOW YOU WHERE THEY'RE AT SO WE CAN -- IF ON THE 11TH WE NEED TO SUBMIT THEM AND PROPOSE A RATE THE SAME DAY, WE'D BE PREPARED. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M HOPING THAT WE HAVE THE NUMBERS BY THE 4TH. HOPEFULLY I HAVE THEM BY THE END OF THE DAY SO CAN DISCUSS THEM TOMORROW.

HOPEFULLY I HAVE SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU TOMORROW.

I'M NOT PROMISING YOU ANYTHING BUT WE HOPE IT'S THERE, BUT IF NOT, THEN WE'LL NEED THE 9TH TO TALK ABOUT NOTHING BUT THE

RATES. >> SO YOU DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT. YOU DO NOT WANT TO MEET

TOMORROW? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION,

COMMISSIONER? >> IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO DISCUSS IT TOMORROW, U. WE DON'T NEED TO MEET TOMORROW? YOU WE MEET MONDAY?

>> STORM A SCHEDULED MEETING. I DON'T FORESEE -- TOMORROW IS A SCHEDULED MEETING. IF I GET SOME INFORMATION READILY I'LL MAKE SURE TUNER AND THE JUDGE KNOWS WE'RE READY TO DISCUSS SOMETHING. IF NOT, TOMORROW IS MORE LIKELY TO BE A MORE QUESTION-AND-ANSWER TYPE OF MEETING INSTEAD OF A PRESENTATION-TYPE MEETING SO I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AFTER YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS. I'LL ADD THE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MOGS UP INTO THE NEW POSITIONS CURRENTLY FUNDED OUT OF THE EMERGENCY MLT THAT THE JUDGE IS REQUESTING AND THEN I'LL MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE SAW. I'LL GO THROUGH THE BUDGET CHANGES AND I'LL PUT SOME STARS BY SOMETHING THAT SAYS POSSIBLE FUNDING OF THE ARFA FUNDS. I'LL STILL LEAVE IT THERE SO PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S STILL A CHALLENGE AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE ARFA FUNDS TO FUND THIS.

AND I'LL PROVIDE YOU THOSE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT FOR TOMORROW. OTHER THAN THAT I PRESENTED YOU THE MAJORITY OF THE BUDGET ITEMS.

[02:15:02]

PROBABLY NOT. >> AND THE ONLY THING I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IF YOU TAKE THE CHALLENGES THAT TERESA SAYS HAS AN ASTERISK OR A POSSIBLE ASTERISK OF WE'VE GOT TO DO IT AND YOU'RE AT 2.6, 2.7, YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT THOSE LIMITED CLASSES AND NEW POSITIONS ARE GOING TO BE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MUST.

AND WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH MONEY. SO I'M REALLY HOPING THAT WE GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THE POTENTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS BECAUSE THAT MIGHT -- I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A TERRIBLE THING TO HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE BUT THERE MAY BE VERY LIMITED MONEY FOR NEW POSITIONS OR RECLASSIFICATIONS.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO DO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU'RE CAPPED.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE REVENUE CAP.

SO THAT PIECE OF IT IS GOING TO BE A REAL CHALLENGE FOR THIS

COURT. >> THAT'S WHY I SAID THE $1 MILLION, IF YOU REALLY THINK BOWER TAX RATE FOR THE GENERAL FUNDS RIGHT ABOUT 2-POINT -- OR .26 PER $100, $1 BILLION WILL BRING $2.6 MILLION, HALF A BILLION WILL BRING 1.3 AND WE'RE AT $400 MILLION SO IT'S CLOSER TO $1 MILLION.

>> AND BE AGAIN I'M HOPING SOMEHOW THEY'RE WROK ON THAT.

>> LIKE I SAID, WE TALKED TO THE -- SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY SAID THERE WERE SOME NUMBERS THAT WERE WRONG AND THERE ARE NEW VOLUMES. HOPEFULLY THAT GOES UP.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL. AL WE ALL KNOW THE LUMBER PRICES WERE SKY HIGH AND TRYING TO FIND WROARKS WAS HARD, AND JUST SO YA'LL KNOW, THIS WAS EVALUATED ON JANUARY 1ST.

>> RIGHT. IT WAS THE WORST TIME.

>> YES. >> .

SO THAT'S WHY RIGHT NOW THIS NEXT YEAR WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION CURRENTLY GOING ON RIGHT NOW SO EVERYBODY IS STARTING TO PICK BACK UP AND STUFF, SO NEXT YEAR WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER THAN THIS YEAR, BUT WE ONLY HAVE WHAT WE HAVE.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW, WHILE I WAS OUT, IF YOU ALL HAD ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL -- INSTEAD OF DOING IT THIS WAY WHERE YOU HAVE LIMITED RECLASSES AND LIMITED NEW POSITIONS, BUT TO UNDERSTAND AND GET A FEEL FOR WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO TAKE THE TWO SECTIONS OF 28 AND ABOVE, WHICH ARE YOUR PROFESSIONALS, AND 11 TO 28. 27, I GUESS.

THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S 28 AND THEN 29 AND ABOVE.

IF YOU WERE TO TRY -- BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY RAN THOSE NUMBERS.

IF YOU TRIED TO GIVE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER MODEST BUT AT LEAST A ACROSS-THE-BOARD SALARY INCREASE TO THAT WAS PROPORTIONAL, YOU WOULD NEED $2 MILLION.

SO IT ISN'T THAT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT.

IT'S IT COSTS $2 MILLION, WHICH IS WHY I SAY WHAT IS IT ON THE ASTERISK THAT CAN BE CUT OUT. THE ANSWER IS NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THAT WHICH WE JUST MENTIONED. SO YOU NEED TO FIND REVENUE SOURCES OF $2 MILLION. AND WHAT ONE OF THE THINGS TT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS TRY TO COME UP WITH A LITTLE OPTIMISM PAPER WHICH SHOWS FUTURE REVENUE CASH FLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE COULD YOU POTENTIALLY GET $2 MILLION IN OUR FUTURE? THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE BUDGET CHALLENGE IS THAT WE'VE ALWAYS -- I GUESS WE ADDRESSED IT THIS YEAR BUT WHEN COASTAL PARKS ISN'T MAKING X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR, THAT'S REALLY A CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOU TYPICALLY RELY ON THAT HALF A MILLION TO COME IN AND HELP YOU WITH THAT PARTICULAR BARBECUE IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT, BUT YOU RELY ON THAT REVENUE, AND THAT

REVENUE IS NOT AVAILABLE. >> THAT'S TRUE, WE DID LOSE THE PIER REVENUE COMING YOU AND THAT WAS ANYWHERE FROM 300,000 DOLLARS TO $400,000 AND WE LOST A LITTLE BIT OF $12,000, AROUND 120,000 FRDZ THE RESTAURANT THAT WAS ON THE PIER.

WE LOST THAT. HOWEVER WOOB WE NOW HAVE GOT THE IVY MCGEE AND -- PARKS RUNNING AFFUL SPEED SO IT BASICALLY ZEROED OUT THAT. IF YOU REBUILD THE PIER IT WILL

BE EXTRA MONEY. >> THAT'S GOOD.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, THEN YOUR CASH FLOW FOR YOUR FUTURE COULD BE PLUS HALF A MILLION THERE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OUR ABATEMENTS.

WE HAVE SOME ABATEMENTS THAT ARE COMING TOWARDS THEIR END OF LIFE AND WE COULD POTENTIALLY PICK UP IN 2023 ANOTHER EVER ANOTHER $800,000. I MEAN --

>> $100 MILLION. >> $11 MILLION.

>> I'LL TAKE THE MILLION. >> WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT

[02:20:02]

500,000 DOLLARS. >> RIGHT.

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS WHILE THINGS MAY NOT BE LINING SO GOOD 2021-2022, WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WE HAVE POTENTIAL TO BRING IN THAT KIND OF REVENUE THAT WOULD SUSTAIN BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU PAY SALARIES, IT'S NOT JUST ONE YEAR. YOU'VE GOT TO FIND THAT SUSTAINABILITY. SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY WHY DON'T YOU GIVE RAISES ACROSS THE BOARD? THIS IS WHY. BECAUSE EVERY YEAR YOUR BUDGET CHALLENGES ARE SO -- AND THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU LOSE 10 CENTS, REMEMBER THAT'S DECLINING CURVE, YOU HAD GROWTH DOING THIS, YOU HAD TAX RATE DOING THIS, AND EVERYTHING IN HERE REPRESENTS MONEY LOST. AND SO YOU JUST -- WE DO VERY WELL, I THINK, IN THIS COUNTY KEEPING OUR TAX RATE -- AT LEAST WE HAVE THE LAST TWO YEARS -- AS LOW AS IT CAN BE WHILE STILL MANAGING THESE CHALLENGES, BUT THERE'S NO WITH A TO INVENT MONEY. WE'RE NOT LIKE THE FEDS.

WE DON'T PRINT IT. >> AS I MENTIONED TO THEM ON 02 WE SHOWED YOU THE VALUATION INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF 3.8% SO GIVEN THAT WE'RE ALMOST GUARANTEED OUR CURRENT RATE IS

GOING TO GO DOWN. >> RIGHT.

SO IF YOUR CURRENT RATE GOES DOWN, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU HAD TO GUESS, DALE, AND LET'S PUT IT AT THE CURRENT $600 MILLION NEW PROPERTY I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WE'RE OVERALL LOOKING AT FOR POTENTIAL DOLLARS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE

CHALLENGES? >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHERE OUR TOTAL VALUATION GOES AND WHERE WE THINK OUR LEVY IS.

OUR LEVY IS WHERE WE NEED TO DO OUR CALCULATION ON OUR NO NEW REVENUE TAX. SO DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT LEVY IS TO PAY LAST YEAR. IF THE EXPENSE IS MAINTAINED THE SAME AS WHAT WE ARE NOW, WHICH WE KNOW THEY WON'T BECAUSE ONCE THESE COURTS START RUNNING AGAIN IT'S GOING TO BE VERY

EXPENSIVE. >> THEY'LL GO UP.

>> SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN NO NEW REVENUE TAX. I KNOW A LOT OF US WANT TO TRY TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S ALWAYS THE FIRST ITEM WE ALWAYS LOOK AT, BUT WITH ALL THE BUDGET CHALLENGES WE HAVE RIGHT AT $2.5 MILLION OR ALMOST $3 MILLION AND WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BRING IN NEW PROPERTY MONEY OF RIGHT AT $1 MILLION, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE TO BE ABLE TO FUND SOME OF THIS STUFF, AND, YEAH, WE CAN TRY TO DO REDUCTION.

WE CAN TRY TO DO THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING IS TRYING TO RAISE MONEY IS REVENUE, AND UNFORTUNATELY THE COUNTY -- THE WAY THE COUNTY FUNCTIONS, MOST OF OUR REVENUE FOR FINES AND FEES AND THAT ARE ALREADY AT THE MAXIMUM RATES ANYWAY, AND THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY GO UP IS IF OUR CRIME GOES UP AND WE GET MORE PEOPLE GOING TO JAIL AND PAY MORE FEES.

>> AND THAT'S NOT GOOD. >> AND THAT'S NOT GOOD.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY WAY THE COUNTY MAKES MONEY IS TAXES, AND UNFORTUNATELY, AS THE PANDEMIC HAS BEEN GOING ON, WE'VE LOST

$1 MILLION IN INTEREST. >> RIGHT.

I MEAN, EXACTLY. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS, IS THAT AS MUCH AS WE ARE FOCUSING ON SALARIES, IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY HEAVY LIFT TO DO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO BECAUSE THERE ARE FACTORS THAT ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL HERE.

I THINK NEXT YEAR IS A WHOLE NEW YEAR.

I THINK, LIKE YOU SAID, CONSTRUCTION, VALUATIONS, BUT WE WILL WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE FINAL NUMBERS.

THERE'S REALLY NO SENSE IN -- I MEAN, I JUST ASK YOU TO GUESS SO I CAN PROCESS IT IN MY MIND BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE AS MANY

CHALLENGES AS WE HAVE REVENUE. >> LIKE I SAID, I BELIEVE OUR RATE'S GOING TO BE GOING DOWN BECAUSE OF 3.87 AND OUR MAX RATE IS 3-POINT FIRST ABOVE SO I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO BE GOING DOWN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE KNOWN CHANGES WE HAVE WITHOUT ANY POSSIBLE WAY OF REDUCING SOME OF THOSE AND SOME WE CAN'T, I PROPOSE GOING ALMOST THE MAXIMUM LEVEL UNFORTUNATELY. HATE TO STHAIT WAY.

>> IT WILL STILL BE A LOWER RATE.

>> IT WILL STILL BE A LOWER RATE.

UNFORTUNATELY UNTIL I GET THE NUMBERS AND IS AND SEE WHERE NUMBERS ARE AND THE CASH IS, I'M JUST MAKING A ROUGH GUESS BUT BY GUESS WOULD BE WE MIGHT BE PROPOSING A PRETTY HIGH RATE.

NOT WHERE WE'RE AT, BUT -- >> RIGHT.

LOWER THAN LAST YEAR BUT HIGHER IN --

>> HIGHER THAN THE. >> NO NEW REVENUE.

>> YES. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE LIKE ANYONE'S -- TODAY WAS I GUESS A GOOD LISTENING DAY AND A LEARNING DAY AND MAYBE TOMORROW WHEN WE GATHER AGAIN THERE WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LIMITED NEW POSITIONS, WHICH IS WHERE I'D LIKE TO START WITH, AND THE LIMITED RECLASS.

[02:25:02]

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED HERE.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO LOOK AT TOMORROW.

>> I LIKE I SAID, RIGHT NOW WE'RE SHOWING ABOUT A $2 MILLION INCREASE IN OUR RESERVES FROM LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR, IF MY ESTIMATES HOLD OUT TO BE CORRECT, AND RIGHT NOW THEY PEER TO BE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT I BELIEVE, AND WE'RE GOING FROM 25 TO 27 BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR HEALTH INSURANCE IS IN DIRE

STRESS. >> PERIL.

>> SO IF WE CAN'T FIND THE LOST REVENUE OR SOME KIND ARFA FUNDS CAN HELP US WITH THAT THEN I MIGHT HAVE TO USE THAT RESERVE TO FUND HEALTH INSURANCE. SO WE WON'T LOSE ANY MONEY BUT

WE WON'T GET ANY MONEY. >> RIGHT.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING TO TRY TO GET THOSE QUALIFIED, AS THEY SAY.

>> AND HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE DAY OR BEFORE TOMORROW MORNING WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING MORE ON THE RATES.

I'M GOING TO BE NOTHING BUT WORKING ON THOSE RATES FROM WHEN I GO BACK INTO THE OFFICE, I'M GOING TO FIND OUT WHERE WE ARE, HOW WE'RE DOING, WHO DO I NEED TO CALL, WHO DO I NEED TO YELL

AT. >> KEEP WORKING.

KEEP ON THEM. I KNOW THEY'RE PROBABLY AS FRUSTRATED AS YOU ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE WAICTD FOR THE STATE BE

WAITING FOR THE STATE. >> THEY'RE ALL WAITING FOR TO

COMPTROLLER. >> AND I GUESS THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT. IT'S NOT US, FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING. WE ARE WAITING.

OKAY. THEN WITH THAT --

>> BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE COMPTROLLER HAS SOME RULES BUT THEN THE LAW HAS SOME RULES ABOUT WHEN WE HAVE TO PUBLISH NOTICES, PUBLISH THIS, SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM.

WORST COMES TO WORST, WE MIGHT HAVE TO USE WHAT WE HAVE AND HOPEFULLY BEING CORRECT INSTEAD OF KNOWING BEING CORRECT.

>> RIGHT. TYNER, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE

GAVEL OUT? >> LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE WILL OF THE

COURT AND DALE. >> HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME FACTS AND INFORMATION DUE, AND WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH SOME QUESTIONS. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THE BUDGET CHALLENGES LIST AND I'LL MAKE SOME NOTIFICATIONS ON WHICH ONES WE'RE PROPOSING ARFA FUNDS FORE AND ADD THE ADDITIONAL ONE FOR THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT POSITION ON THE RENEWED POSITION

LIST. >> AND THIS IS KIND OF INTERESTING, BUT I KNOW IT'S SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES BUT MAYBE DO A CALCULATION TO THE ARFA FUND INTEREST ONLY SO THAT IF IT'S 50 HOW TOED, WE CAN AT LEAST SAY LOOK YOU'RE PULLING ARFA BUT GLIEWRT REALLY PULLING ARFA BECAUSE WE CAN USE THAT $50,000 -- DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? -- WE CAN PUT THE

INTEREST. >> OUR INTEREST ROSZ WERE AT

LEAST A HALF A MILLION. >> I KNOW YOU.

NEVER CATCH UP. >> NEVER CATCH UP.

>> YOU NEVER CATCH UP. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT.

I LEFT MY GAVEL IN THE OTHER ROOM, BUT THE TIME FOR THE -- I DON'T KNOW IF -- WE'RE NOT REALLY CLERKING THIS IN, BUT IT'S STILL NICE FOR PEOPLE KNOWING.

IT'S 11:THERE'S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.