Aug 14, 2024 Commissioners Court - Budget Workshop

[00:00:08]

>> IF I COULD ASK YOU ALL TO STAND, AND COMMISSIONER GONZALES IS GOING TO GIVE THE INVOCATION.

>> HEAVENLY FATHER, PRAY FOR THIS MEETING TODAY, LORD, WE HOPE TO MOVE THINGS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND HELP THOSE THAT NEED HELP, ESPECIALLY THE POOR, AND THOSE THAT REALLY NEED THE HELP.

LORD, WE HOPE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND WORK WITH EVERYONE IN THIS FRONT TABLE HERE, THAT WE CAN COME TO CONSENSUS AND WORK THE BUDGET FOR THIS COUNTY. LORD, THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE GIVEN US AND THANK YOU FOR HEALTH, WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE TODAY. WE PRAY FOR THEM AND PRAY FOR FAMILIES AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO NEED THE PRAYERS. IN YOUR NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

>> THANK YOU, YOU MAY BE SEATED. WE HAVE ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. IT IS 8:39, WE ARE AT THE NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE, AND I WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. DID

[3. PUBLIC COMMENT: This section provides the public the opportunity to address the Commissioners Court on any issues within its jurisdiction. The Commissioners Court may not take formal action on any requests made during the Public Comment period which are not on the Agenda, but can refer such requests to County staff for review if appropriate.]

IT IS ON MY LIST, YES. >> YES, GOOD MORNING, IT IS OUT THERE. JANICE, 3714 TOPEKA STREET, I JUST WANTED TO COME AGAIN TODAY TO COMMENT THAT I KNOW YOU HAVE A HUGE UNDERTAKING AHEAD OF YOU WITH THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, AND A LOT OF TOUGH DECISIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE AND I HOPE THAT YOU ARE GUIDED BY OF COURSE YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE, BEING A SERVANT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE RAN FOR OFFICE IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BE A SERVANT AND MAKE AN IMPACT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK AGAIN THAT YOU CONSIDER RESTORING THE POSITIONS TO THE SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT. IF NOT , IT COULD BE FULLY STAFFED AT LEAST, SIX STAFF POSITIONS TO HELP WITH THE BASIC NEEDS THAT THE SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDING FOR DECADES TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND TO ASK THAT THE BUDGET REFLECTS THAT, THOSE POSITIONS TO BE RESTORED, SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE AT OTHER AGENCIES TO HAVE A REFERRAL SOURCE TO REFER INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED ASSISTANCE WITH BASIC NEEDS, THEIR RENT, UTILITY, ELECTRIC BILL, BUS TICKETS, TRANSPORTATION, WHICH IS CRITICAL FOR A LOT OF OUR VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE THAT NEED TO RELOCATE OUT OF THE AREA. I ALSO WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I AM GOING TO PLACE OUR 211 TEXAS BROCHURES OUT ON THE TABLE, I CAN PROVIDE THESE AS WELL AND ROUTINELY TO REBECCA AND HER STAFF AND TO JJ, THEY PUT THEM IN THEIR OFFICES SO THAT ANYONE WHO IS MEETING ANY KIND OF COMMUNITY RESOURCE CAN CALL US 24 HOURS PER DAY, WE HAVE A COMPETENCE OF DATABASE. WE JUST NEED A Z.I.P. CODE TO SEE IF THERE IS A RESOURCE AVAILABLE NOT ONLY FOR BASIC NEEDS BUT HELP FOR PEOPLE AT HOME, OLDER ADULTS, COUNSELING INFORMATION, CHILDCARE INFORMATION, JUST A VARIETY OF RESOURCES. LAST YEAR WE ANSWERED 48,000 CALLS FOR THE COUNTY AND ABOUT 20,000 OF THOSE CALLS WERE JUST FOR NUECES COUNTY, FOR PEOPLE NEEDING HELP FOR A VARIETY OF TOPICS. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REQUEST FUNDING BE RESTORED FOR POSITIONS FOR THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO CONTINUE THE IMPORTANT WORK THEY DO EVERY DAY AND THANK YOU FOR

[4. BUDGET WORKSHOP: The Court will discuss matters related to the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget, as well as American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), Grants, and Capital Projects. ]

YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, MOVING INTO THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, AND THE HOSPITAL

DISTRICT, YOU ARE UP FIRST. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS,

[00:05:11]

WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST PAGE, I WANT TO CONFINE MY COMMENTS TO THE YELLOW COLUMN BECAUSE THAT DEALS WITH THE HOSPITAL DISTRICTS FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGET. OVERALL, THE BUDGET HAS A DEFICIT. THE DEFICIT IS COVERED BY AN OPENING GENERAL FUND BALANCE, SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT WILL BE COVERED BUT ON AN OPERATING BASIS, IT IS AT A DEFICIT AND IT DOES USE SURPLUS FROM THE PRIOR YEAR GENERAL FUND TO COVER IT AND NEXT YEAR WE PLAN TO CLOSE FISCAL 25 WITH AN ADDITIONAL, OR ANOTHER BALANCE IF YOU WILL FOR THE GENERAL FUND. SO STILL ON THE FIRST PAGE, IN THE REVENUE SECTION, WE HAVE ALL OF THE ROWS NUMBERED ON THE LEFT TO HELP ORIENT THIS, AND WE HAVE THE COLUMNS IDENTIFIED BY NUMBER ABOVE. IN THE DISTRICTS REVENUE, THE DISTRICTS REVENUE CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF TAX REVENUE AND MEMBERSHIP REVENUE THAT WE SHARE WITH SPOHN. IN THAT ARRANGEMENT WE CONTRIBUTE REVENUE SHARES, AND THOSE ARE THE TWO SOURCES, THE SPOHN CORPORATE REVENUE CONTRIBUTES RIGHT AT 75% OF OUR REVENUE. THAT NUMBER IS IMPORTANT. SO THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THAT IS THAT OUR RELIANCE IS NOT SOLELY ON TAXES, MOST OF OUR RELIANCE FOR THE THINGS WE DO COMES TO US FROM REVENUE OTHER THAN TAXES. SO, MOVING DOWN, STARTING ON ROW 10, STILL CONFINING MY COMMENTS TO THE YELLOW COLUMN. THESE ARE INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS AND THE MONEY THAT UNDERLIES THESE TRANSFERS COMES FROM WHAT WE CALL OUR LOCAL PROVIDER PARTICIPATION FUND OR LPF FUND, THAT IS WHERE YOU RECALL THE HOSPITAL DID A COUPLE LEGISLATIONS AGO, TO GET THE LEVY ON THE ASSESSMENT ON ALL THE LOCAL HOSPITALS IN OUR COUNTY BASED ON THEIR NET REVENUE. AND THAT ASSESSMENT IS 6%, IT IS UNIFORM ACROSS THE STATE, SORT OF THE ORIGINATOR AND KEEPER OF ALL OF THOSE

[00:10:05]

BUT THE IDEA IS TO GET MONEY TO OFFSET WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN, AND THOSE EFFORTS ARE GENUINE, WE HAVE SELECTED A LOBBYIST THAT WORKS BOTH WITH US AND WITH SPOHN, AND HE IS AGREEABLE TO WORK WITH BOTH OF US, PARTICULARLY ON THE NOTION OF FINDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO OFFSET THAT. THE NEXT ONE, ROW 12 IS WHAT WE REFER TO THE COUNTY HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT IN ANOTHER PAGE, THE REST OF THESE ITEMS THAT ARE ON HERE ARE ONES THAT RELATE MORE TO TAKE CARE OF THE DISTRICT AND HOW IT GETS IT'S WORKED ON, WE HAVE A 3% INCREASE BUILT-IN TO 3% MERIT INCREASE BUILT INTO THE SALARIES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE STEPPED UP OUR CONTROVERSY -- CONTRIBUTION, WE ARE GOING TO STICK WITH OUR EFFORTS TO PAY THE PEOPLE, AND WE WILL CERTAINLY COVER THE PREMIUMS THAT YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED ALREADY AND WE ARE GOING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 10% ON TOP OF THAT IF THERE IS CONCERN THAT EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO GENERATE DISBURSEMENTS

IN EXCESS OF THEIR PREMIUMS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, WE

APPRECIATE THAT. >> AND INHERENT IN THAT PREMIUM IS OUR SHARING OF THE PEACE OF THE STOP LOSS, SO WE ARE STEPPING IT UP ALL THE WAY ON MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENS. AND THE GOAL OF COURSE NEXT YEAR IS TO SEE ABOUT GETTING COMMERCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES . I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS YOUR PLAN BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, WE HAVE DONE THAT A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THE SITUATION WAS DIFFERENT. WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE, ENOUGH YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR POOL TO GET THE BEST PREMIUMS, WE'VE ALREADY HAD OFFERS FOR PEOPLE TO ASSIST US WITH THAT. IN FACT ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS IS AN

INSURANCE AGENT. >> AND I BELIEVE IT IS THE COUNTY'S INTEREST AND OUR THOUGHTS MOVING FORWARD, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AS WELL, IT IS NEVER OUR INTENT TO EXCLUDE THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, YOU CAN BE A PART OF OUR

OPTIONS AS WELL. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT, JUDGE. I THINK WHEN YOU GO FOR INSURANCE, IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE MASS, IF YOU WILL, SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING

[00:15:03]

WE WOULD TAKE YOU UP ON. >> YOU ARE A DIFFERENT ENTITY THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE OF ALL THAT YOU DO FOR THE COUNTY AND THE HEALTH INDUSTRY.

>> AND WHAT WE VOTED ON, THEY REPRESENT HALF OF THOSE EMPLOYEES, THEY REPRESENT HALF OF THE 45, SO --

>> BUT, I THINK THAT WAS GOING TO BE OUR INITIAL ASK MOVING FORWARD, TO SEE WHAT THE COST IS TO INCLUDE THEM BECAUSE WHAT

THEY DO FOR THE COUNTY. >> I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING, THEY REPRESENT HALF OF THOSE 45 EMPLOYEES, AND WITH FAMILIES AND SO FORTH, THAT WAS THE CASE. THAT IS WHY WE TALKED

ABOUT -- >> I JUST SAID WE WERE GOING TO ASK WHAT THE COST IS, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF US EITHER AND I THINK SINCE THEN WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING THAT DATA AS WELL ON WHAT THE COST IS AND THE VOTE WAS FOR THIS YEAR IF THEY WOULD CONTINUE AND COVER THEIR COST, THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE THEM, BUT I THINK GIVEN THE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE AND MOVING FORWARD, THAT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IF THEIR COSTS WERE COVERED, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TWO. THAT WOULD BE A VOTE BY ALL MEANS.

>> AND I WANT TO ADD, WHAT I JUST SAID FOLLOWS THE PATH YOU TALKED ABOUT ORIGINALLY, THAT WE WOULD PAY OUR WAY AND MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED IN TERMS OF PAYOUTS AND PREMIUMS AND IF YOU ALL WANT TO LATER CONSIDER PUTTING US INTO CONSIDERATION, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO DO THAT BUT WE ARE PREPARED TO GO OUT AND GET OUR OWN INSURANCE NEXT YEAR.

>> OKAY. AND AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE A 3% INCREASE FOR THE EMPLOYEES ON THE RAINBOW PAGE, AND THE LAST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY, WE ARE CONTINUING IN THE BUDGET OF $50,000 SUBSIDY TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS, ALTHOUGH WE PAY OUR POSITION THERE, WE USE ALL THE ACCOUNTING , THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO USE THOSE, THAT SUBSIDY WAS ESTABLISHED A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND WE PLAN ON CONTINUING. IT IS UP TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT IT BUT WE HAVE IT IN THERE. SO, WHAT I WANT TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TURN YOU TO THE NEXT PAGE, THE SECOND PAGE, THIS IS A CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THE DISTRICTS OF FUNDS. THE INS AND OUTS, BASICALLY THE BUDGET FOR ALL THREE OF THEM INCLUDING THE ONE I JUST COVERED. THE TOTALS ARE AT THE RIGHT IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHERE OUR FUND BALANCE IS FOR THOSE FUNDS. THE DISTRICT CONTINUES TO HAVE GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OUR ASSETS AND STUFF. I WANT TO TURN YOU TO THE THIRD PAGE, WHICH WOULD BE WHAT I REFER TO AS THE COUNTY HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES. AND WE USE THIS LABEL FOR THESE EXPENSES BECAUSE BACK IN 1996, WHEN JUDGE ORCHARD WAS HERE AND WE HAD OUR FIRST SETTLEMENT, IT WAS A TOBACCO SETTLEMENT AT THAT POINT. HE CAME TO US AND SAID, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE, THE COUNTY WOULD LIKE OUR ASSISTANCE BECAUSE IN THAT FIRST PAYMENT YEAR, WE SEE THE PER CAPITA PAYMENT, WHEN IT WAS A PER CAPITA PAYMENT. AND AS I RECALL, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, I THINK JUDGE ORCHARD SAID TO ME SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, JOHNNY, WE NEED TO RAISE THE CAUSEWAY AND WE NEED TO FREE UP SOME FUNDS. SO WITH THAT NOTION WE WENT TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT YEAR WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF REPRESENTATIVE LUNA, AND HAD A UNIQUE LAW THAT PASSED FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, THAT WOULD ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO FIND FOUR THINGS WITH ITS NONTAX MONEY. SO THAT WOULD BE A JAIL HEALTHCARE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH AND WE CONTINUE TO FUND THOSE AND WE HAVE DONE THAT SINCE DAY ONE WHEN WE WERE ASKED. WITH REGARD TO THIS ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE PAGE, I HAVE NUMBERED ON THE LEFT THE SECTIONS, AND THE FIRST SECTION DEALS WITH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE, THEY HAVE STEPPED OUT OF THE STATE AND MAINTAINED THEIR OWN FUNDING FROM CERTAIN PROGRAMS FROM THE STATE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PAYMENTS

[00:20:01]

GOING TO BE. >> SO THOSE COSTS EXCEEDED THAT 40,000, IS THAT WHY THAT INCREASED IT?

>> THEY BELIEVED THOSE COSTS WERE GOING TO GO UP THIS YEAR, AND WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD IS THEY HAD TO DO MORE WITH THE COST OF GAS THEN ANYTHING ELSE. MOVING ON TO SECTION 3. THESE ARE THE MONIES THAT WE PROVIDE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND WE REIMBURSED THESE ESD'S FOR CALLS THEY MAKE INTO THE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTIONS. SO, THE 650 HAS BEEN A STATIC NUMBER FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE OUR SUPPORT OF THOSE AND THE COUNTY EMERGENCY COORDINATOR OFFICE HELPS US MAKE SURE FROM A GPS OR GIS STANDPOINT THAT THOSE CALLS ARE IN FACT IN PLACES THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THIS JURISDICTION. NUMBER FOUR IS OUR SUPPORT OF JUVENILE DETENTION FROM CENTERS HEALTH SERVICES, THEY CONTRACT WITH PHYSICIANS AND DOCTORS AND NURSES TO SEE THEIR DETAINEES, AND THIS IS TO REIMBURSE FOR THOSE. IT DOESN'T COVER ALL OF THEM BUT IT COVERS QUITE A FEW OF THEM. AND THEN THE FIFTH ONE OF THE MAIN ITEMS HERE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAD A CHANGE IN THE PROVIDER FOR JAIL HEALTH SERVICES, THE ORIGINAL PROVIDER

[00:25:03]

SO I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE WITH THAT, THAT WE HAVE AGAIN COME FORWARD TO YOU ALL THIS YEAR WITH A PROPOSED BUDGET.

THE BUDGET WE HAVE GIVEN YOU ALL, YOU SET THE TAX RATE, OUR SUGGESTION IS THAT WE CAN DO WITH THE NEW REVENUE TAX RATE THIS YEAR WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY, IN MY OLD DAYS WAS THE AFFECTED TAX RATE, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER FOR THE DISTRICT AND JUST TO CLOSE FINALLY, THE BUDGET THAT THE DISTRICT HAS SATISFIES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND ARRANGEMENTS WITH SPOHN AND IT SATISFIES THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF HOW WE CAN SPEND OR NOT SPEND OUR FUNDS.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE, JUDGE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. I WANTED TO FOCUS ON NUMBER THREE. SO, WHEN IT SAYS OUTSIDE OF THE ESD DISTRICT, I FELT THE DISTRICT PRETTY MUCH WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY, ARE THERE SOME POCKETS THAT DON'T HAVE COVERAGE OR OVERLAP FROM A SPECIFIC DISTRICT?

>> THESE PEOPLE MOSTLY GET DISPATCHED BY 911 AND SOMETIMES THEY GET DISPATCHED BASED ON WHO IS AVAILABLE AND THEY GET SENT TO OTHER PEOPLE'S ESD'S, AND I UNDERSTAND ALSO FROM THESE FOLKS THAT IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE COUNTY, THEY WORK REFERRED TO AS THE HINTERLANDS BUT THERE'S PLACES OUT THERE WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THESE EMS SERVICES. IN ADDITION TO THESE, I DID MENTION ALTHOUGH WE FUND THESE ESD'S, WE ALSO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE CITY WHENEVER IT WAS FORMED, FOR CALLS THAT THEY MAKE INTO THE COUNTY. SO, THIS HAS SORT OF BEEN A PROCESS BUT THE BASIS OF THAT IS THAT THEY SUBMIT BILLS, I THINK MAYBE IT IS $300 PER CALL TO WHERE THEY ACTUALLY PICK UP PEOPLE AND THEY SUBMIT THE ADDRESS AND THE COUNTIES GIS PEOPLE HAVE A WAY TO LOOK UP THAT ADDRESS AND TELL IF IT IS BASICALLY INSIDE THE CITY OR NOT, BUT THE DISPATCHING, WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT, AND I THINK 911 SENDS THEM WHOEVER

THEY CAN GET OUT FIRST. >> I'M THANKFUL THAT THIS COURT TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF OF MY ASSISTANTS HANDS, BECAUSE PRISCILLA AND MY FORMER ASSISTANT WERE THE ONES THAT HANDLED THE CALLS, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN . IT CAN GET PRICEY OBVIOUSLY, FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, TO DISPATCH THEM, IT TAKES A LOT TO ROLL THEM OUT EVEN IF THERE IS NO REAL EMERGENCY, THEN I LOOK AT THE NEWS AND I SEE EMERGENCY CALLS FOR CRASHES OR FIRES, OR EVEN ALONG THE INTERSTATE, MAYBE SAY IN BISHOP EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT, SO I KNOW THEY ARE BUSY. THAT IS A BIG AMOUNT, OVERALL, 5.4% OF YOUR OVERALL BUDGET IS TO THAT, SO I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE STATEMENT YOU MADE AS FAR AS THE COST FOR AREAS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY DISTRICTS, ASSUMING THAT THEY WERE AND MAYBE IF THERE ARE, WHICH I'M SURE WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, OR MAYBE THAT IS

[00:30:03]

BUT THAT IS FOR YOU AND YEAR DIRECTORS TO DECIDE. BUT THE FACT THAT THAT IMPACTS US IS SOMETHING THAT GOT MY

ATTENTION. >> I WOULD JUST ADD, PERSONALLY I THINK THE 650,000 IS A BARGAIN. IF THE COUNTY HAD OPERATED ITS OWN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SYSTEM OR OPERATE ONE THAT IS COOPERATIVELY SHARED WITH THE COUNTY, IT WOULD NOT

BE THIS NUMBER. >> THEY PAY TAXES IN THOSE DISTRICTS ALREADY, SO WE MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE, SO I MEAN, IT IS STILL BEING PAID, IT IS NOT THE FULL AMOUNT, BUT I GET WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT. I GUESS THAT IS MY MAIN QUESTION ON THAT. YOU DID CLARIFY THE ISSUE ON THE ROBSTOWN HEALTH SERVICES SALARY AND BENEFITS, SO THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> COMMISSIONERS, WHAT THE PLAN IS, I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET, IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR BOARD MEETING ON AUGUST 27TH , WE HAVE ADOPTED A TENTATIVE BUDGET, IF THERE IS SOME BACK-AND-FORTH THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON OR DO WHATEVER WE CAN DO UP UNTIL THAT POINT. ONCE THE DISTRICTS ADOPT THE OFFICIAL BUDGET, THEN IT SATISFIES ITS REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE ONE, THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR ME TO DO IS TO DELIVER IT TO THE COURT. AND ALL THOSE THINGS TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 11TH AND WE WOULD BE GLAD TO COME INTO A PUBLIC HEARING AND PROVIDE WHATEVER INFORMATION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND DO ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR WORK ON THE 11TH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH AND APPRECIATE YOUR HELP WITH ALL OF THESE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE

COUNTY AND PROVIDING SERVICES. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. MR. DALE, MOVING ON TO THE NUECES COUNTY BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 24-25. YOU ARE UP, WHICH SHEET ARE WE GOING BY?

>> WELL, LET'S FIRST GO INTO THE REVENUE EXPENSES FOR THE COUNTY, MY STAFF AND I DID A THOROUGH EVALUATION ESTIMATING THE BALANCES FOR EACH OF THE, THE MIDDLE COLUMN IS WHERE THE ACTUAL CZAR. -- ACTUALS ARE.

>> BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CENTER COLUMN WHERE IT SAYS ACTUAL, YOU'LL SEE THE TOTAL REVENUE AND THE 111 MILLION, AND THE BEGINNING BALANCE OF 25 MILLION, NOW IF YOU GO TO E.

>> WAIT, I HAVE TO CATCH UP, TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE, FOR 23

AND 24? >> YES.

>> THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, TOTAL REVENUE AND TRANSFERS.

>> OKAY, GOT IT. >> SO, ON THE BEGINNING BUDGET OF $25 MILLION, AND IT WAS PRESENTED IN OUR ANNUAL FUNDS REPORT THIS FISCAL YEAR, NOW GOING TO EXPENSES, THIS IS THE THIRD COLUMN, FOURTH COLUMN FROM THE RIGHT. ON E, YOU WILL

SEE AS WE GO DOWN THE LIST -- >> E4?

>> ACTUALLY, E6, SHOWING THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE YEAR. WHICH SHOWS THAT WE DID INITIALLY A SMALL LOSS OF $104,000, NOW WE ARE PRESENTING OUR BUDGET FOR OUR ESTIMATION AT 25 MILLION, SO IT IS A SMALL DECREASE. WE WENT THROUGH OUR EVALUATIONS AND WE PUT THE COST THAT WE KNEW WERE COMING UP, THAT WERE VERY LARGE THAT WE KNEW WERE COMING FOR OUR CLAIMS AS WELL AS HEALTH INSURANCE, SO THOSE NUMBERS ARE INCLUDED IN

THIS. >> THEY ARE? SO, THE 25 MILLION INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE LOSSES FOR THE ENTRANCES AND SO FORTH?

>> YES, IT DOES. >> OKAY, JUST MAKING SURE,

[00:35:04]

>> IT IS ALL OF THAT STUFF, YES.

>> RIGHT NOW, THE FUND BALANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT DID GO DOWN, IT WAS ONLY $3000 OR $4000, SO WE ARE STARTING THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR AT $25 MILLION FOR THE FUND BALANCE, THAT IS THE NUMBERS WE HAVE TO GO WITH, IF WE WANT TO GO FORWARD, WE CAN START DISCUSSING ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WE MAY NEED TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE FROM THE BUDGET. TERESA, WHENEVER YOU

ARE READY. >> OKAY, BUT I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFER, THERE WAS 111, AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT WAS 10 MILLION.

>> YES. >> AND WHERE DOES THAT ONE COME FROM? LIKE, HOW DID WE COME UP WITH 10 MILLION?

>> THE OPERATING TRANSFERS WE PROVIDE TO SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, WE DO HAVE A REQUIRED TRANSFER THAT WE TRANSFERRED TO THE BRIDGE MANY YEARS AGO, THE STATES THAT WE COULD NOT INCLUDE SALES TAX IN THAT DEPARTMENT, SO THE COURT , WHEN WE WERE PAYING THE SALES TAX REVENUE, THEY DECIDED THEY WOULD TRANSFER THE GENERAL FUND, THE SALES TAX MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND SO THEY COULD LEGALLY EXPAND ON THE OPERATIONS THEY HAD. WE ALSO HAVE OPERATIONS FOR PARKS AT 1.8 MILLION AND AIRPORT IS 60,000. FOR OUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, REAL -- IT REQUIRES DIFFERENT TRANSFERS, ONE OF IT IS SECURITY, THESE ARE REQUIRED TRANSFER SO THE DEPARTMENT CAN OPERATE THEIR FUNDS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO THESE HAVE ALL BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COURT AND THESE ARE DISCUSSED FOR CONTINUATION IF NEEDED.

>> SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS WAS, EVERYTHING ABOVE IS A BALANCE FOR EACH OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS THE MONEY WE TRANSFERRED OVER TO

THEM FOR OPERATIONS. >> OKAY, SO IT WAS GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THEM FOR OPERATIONS, BUT THE 25 IS THE BALANCE, BUT WHERE WERE WE BEFORE THE 25? DO WE KNOW THAT?

>> IT WAS AROUND $83,000 OR $4000 DECREASE.

>> WE WERE AROUND 25 FOR A WHILE, IF YOU REMEMBER, OUR TARGET WAS AROUND 27, 28, SO WE ARE A LITTLE BIT BELOW TARGET.

OUR TARGET IS 25% OF OUR BUDGET REVENUE.

>> WE CAME DOWN TO 25 OR 26 POINT

>> ON THE BOTTOM LINE [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> AND THAT IS OF ALL EXPENSES? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> LIKE I SAID, THESE ARE ESTIMATED ACTUALS, THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING WE DIDN'T FORESEE BUT MY STAFF AND I LOOKED AT AS MUCH AS WE COULD DO, AND WE WORKED WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS ASKING IF THEY HAD ANY OTHER LARGE EXPENSES, BUT THIS DOES INCLUDE SOME CLAIM EXPENSES AS WELL AS OUR HEALTH INSURANCE OVERFUNDED AND NEEDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS, THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS NUMBER.

>> OKAY, SO UNDER PENDING, WHERE WOULD THOSE BE, WHAT AREAS DO WE EXPECT THOSE THAT ARE STILL MAY BE PENDING

>> WE MAY HAVE MORE EXPENSES COMING OUT, WE ARE ANTICIPATING WHAT THE HEALTHCARE IS BUT WE STILL HAVE A FEW MONTHS.

[00:40:04]

>> THE ESTIMATING CLAIM TO COVER THE COST OF THE EXPECTED TRANSFER, THAT IS WHY IT WAS PUT IN THE BALANCE OF OVER $10

MILLION. >> WHAT IS THE BALANCE RIGHT NOW, IF WE PUT 2 MILLION AND WE HAVE A COUPLE MONTHS LEFT, IS THAT GOING TO COVER IT, I KNOW LAST YEAR WE HAD TO ADD

ADDITIONAL FUNDS AFTERWARDS. >> WE HAVEN'T TRANSFERRED ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO HEALTH INSURANCE, WE EXPECT IT TO BE

$2 MILLION. >> SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS

WHAT OUR RESERVE WILL BE AFTER? >> CORRECT, BUT THOSE FIGURES,

EXPECTING THIS TO HAPPEN, YES. >> WE WILL SEE.

>> SO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET RIGHT NOW IS 111 POINT

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> MOVING ON.

>> IS THAT THE ONE YOU JUST PASSED OUT THIS MORNING?

>> YES, MA'AM. THIS ONE? >> THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. I GAVE IT TO PRISCILLA TO PUT IN YOUR BINDER. PROBABLY BEHIND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, COMMISSIONER. IN THE BEGINNING,

BEHIND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT, BECAUSE EVERYBODY MOVED MY STUFF AROUND THIS MORNING.

>> THEY TOOK MINE IN THE BINDER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID WITH MINE. THEY CAME AND TOOK MY BOOK AND MOVED EVERYTHING AROUND. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND TERESA, YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF DISCUSSION ITEMS?

>> SO, THIS LIST IS ITEMS , SOME ARE INCLUDED AND SOME ARE NOT, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT, FOR INSTANCE, THE CONTINUANCE PAY IS INCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS A POLICY. SO, STARTING OUT THAT BUDGET NUMBER WAS WHAT, 136 FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT NONE OF THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE BUDGET.

>> FOR NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, NO, THEY ARE NOT. I WILL LET YOU KNOW, THAT IS A PART OF THE BUDGET, YES.

>> WHICH PAGE ARE WE ON NOW? >> WE ARE JUST GOING THROUGH

THE DISCUSSION ITEMS. >> ONE AND TWO ARE NOT ALREADY

INCLUDED. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> EMILY SHOULD HAVE PUT IT IN YOUR BINDER, COMMISSIONER.

PROBABLY BEHIND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.

>> I COULDN'T FIND MINE EITHER, MY STAFF TOOK MINE AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY PUT IT. NO, THAT IS NOT IT.

>> IT IS NOT INCLUDED. >> DID YOU FIND IT? I FOUND

[00:45:03]

MINE FINALLY, SORRY. >> OKAY, SAY THAT AGAIN, ONE

AND TWO ARE NOT INCLUDED? >> CORRECT.

>> SOME ARE REGULAR, THAT HE HAS ALREADY BUDGETED FOR. BUT,

WHEN WE GO THROUGH THEM -- >> THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR, THAT 111 MILLION, WHICH IS -- AND WE DON'T KNOW.

>> THE PERSONNEL THAT ARE HERE WILL BE ADDED LATER, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE WILL BE ADDED TO THE BUDGET AT THE MOMENT, BUT THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN THE NUMBERS THAT

YOU SEE IN THE BINDER. >> IS THAT ONE THE 111 OR THE

136 THAT I WAS TELLING YOU? >> THE BUDGET OF 24, 25, THAT

IS 125. >> WHAT PAGE WAS THAT ON?

>> 125, BUT THE TOTAL IS 136 SO ARE WE GOING BY THE 136 OR THE 125? THE TOTAL AT THE END, THE BUDGET NUMBER.

>> IT IS TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OF TRANSFERS, THAT NUMBER.

>> THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS 111 MILLION, LAST YEAR.

>> YES. >> SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT SHE'S

ASKING ABOUT, THE 137. >> THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, THE DIFFERENCE IS A FEW NUMBERS, THE NUMBER IN QUESTION IS THE ONE THAT'S AS TALL A PREPARATION OF TRANSFER, 125, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE AND THIS COULD BE POSSIBLY REDUCED WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS YEAR. AND AT THAT TIME WE MIGHT HAVE TO BRING THEM OUT. I WILL EXPLAIN

WHICH ONES. >> WE WILL BE ADDING TO THAT NUMBER, ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS, THE 111 IS THE TRANSFERS, THE TOTAL TRANSFERS HERE. THAT IS THE 111. BUT WE ARE STARTING WITH THE 125, THE 23 AND 25 BUDGET NUMBER.

>> OKAY, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO E.

>> THE SECOND COLUMN FROM THE LEFT. THE THIRD NUMBER FROM THE

BOTTOM. >> OKAY, SO THEN THE TRUE

BUDGET WAS 124 MILLION? >> FOR BUDGET 24, WE WERE UNDER BY $12 MILLION, AND WE ARE SPENDING 111.

>> OKAY, WHEN WE HAVE THAT POLICY ON RESERVES, IT IS 25%

OF THE ACTUAL BUDGET. >> 25% OF THE REVENUE.

>> OKAY, AND THE REVENUE WAS, IF WE GO BACK TO D4. OUR BUDGET WAS 130 MILLION, TAKE 25% OF THAT.

>> OKAY, THAT IS THE NUMBER I'M TRYING TO GET, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE JUDGE IS FOCUSED ON. SO, THAT WOULD BE

WHERE WE WOULD TRY -- >> 25% OF THAT, THAT IS OUR

TARGET. >> GOT IT, OKAY.

>> IT IS AROUND 27 MILLION. >> I GOT 28 MILLION FOR 26.

YEAH.

>> SO, LET ME ASK YOU, THAT IS AN INTERESTING POINT , WHY WOULD IT BE 25% OF THE REVENUE, I KNOW IT IS NOT A BIG NUMBER DIFFERENCE, BUT WHY WOULD IT BE 25% OF THE ACTUAL BUDGET BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD GENERALLY BASE YOUR RESERVES ON, WOULD BE WHAT YOU NEED TO OPERATE

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET BOOK, IT SAYS WE WANT 25% OF OUR BUDGET REVENUE INCLUDING TRANSFERS, THAT IS WHERE OUR

[00:50:02]

>> THAT IS A MILLION-DOLLAR DIFFERENCE IN RESERVES, ALMOST, THAT IS MORE ATTAINABLE FOR THE COURT TO TRY TO WORK TOWARDS.

DOING MY MATH REALLY QUICK, I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT I DO. THAT

IS BASED ON THE MONEY I SPEND. >> YES, NEXT TIME I WILL MAKE

SURE THAT REFERENCES THAT. YES. >> OKAY, GOING THROUGH THE LIST, SORRY, GOING BACK TO TERESA.

>> OKAY, ONE AND TWO ARE NOT INCLUDED, SO IT IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE BUDGET, 125 IS OUR EXPENSES RIGHT NOW, WHERE DALE

IS AT. >> BUT THOSE TWO, WE HAVE TO DO BUT THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY UP FOR DISCUSSION, ONE IS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND ONE

IS THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE. >> THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ON NUMBER TWO, THE DISTRICT COURTS, THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE COURTS AND THERE ARE TWO OR THREE THAT REQUIRE THE INCREASE, THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THAT. AND FOR THE JUDGE, THAT THEY NEED TO BE PAID BASED ON THE STATUTE OF THE LAW AND WE BELIEVE THAT IS THE INCREASE THAT WE ALSO ARE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN, MANY YEARS AGO IT SAYS THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE OR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, BUT TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CHANGED BASED ON YEARS OF SERVICE AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE IS THE SAME WAY. SO THIS COULD CHANGE. SO WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH HER.

>> THESE ARE KNOWN INCREASES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

>> BUT THAT IS THE ONE I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WITH BECAUSE THAT MEANS IN SOME YEARS, IF THERE IS SOME EQUITY IN MY OPINION, NOT EVERYBODY AGREES, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY BUT THE CONTINUANCE PAY, SOME EMPLOYEES GET X AMOUNT, SOME YEARS THEY GET X PLUS AMOUNT, SO SOME YEARS THEY ARE GETTING MORE RAISES THAN WHAT OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE GETTING. SO I THINK THAT POLICY SHOULD BE RE-LOOKED AT AS SOMETHING ACROSS THE BOARD BECAUSE TO ME, IF WE ARE GIVEN A RAISE, WE ARE GIVEN A RAISE AND EVERYBODY SHOULD GET THE SAME RAISE. I THINK IT WOULD CREATE SOME REAL EQUITY IN OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE WE ARE FAVORING EMPLOYEES ON THIS CONTINUOUS PAY BUT I GET THAT I MIGHT BE ON THE MINORITY OF THAT. BUT I GET THAT SOME MIGHT BE SAYING I DON'T THINK THIS

IS AN EQUITY POLICY. >> BUT IT IS HARD, I THINK WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST YEAR AS ONE OF THE THINGS HE COULD'VE CUT, BUT THEN YOU STOP IT IN THE MIDDLE AND YOU'VE GOT ALTERNATE YEARS WHERE PEOPLE GET IT, SOME PEOPLE GOT IT AND YOU ARE TAKING IT AWAY BEFORE THEY ARE GOING TO GET --

>> BUT I'M SAYING, YOU SHOULD CHANGE IT TO WHERE WHATEVER WE GIVE, EVERYBODY GETS THE SAME PERCENTAGE RAISE, PERIOD, NO STAGGER. IN OTHER WORDS, EVERY THREE YEARS IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT, THEN EVERYBODY OUGHT TO GET IT. ANYWAY, --

>> WHY DID WE STAGGER IT? >> IN 2004, THAT IS WHEN IT STARTED. AND THEY SAID THIS NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH THIS YEAR WOULD GET THIS, AND THEN THEY DO THREE TEARS EVERY THREE YEARS, AND SOME GET THIS AND THIS AND THAT IS HOW IT HAS CONTINUED BASED ON THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO FOR

THE POLICY. >> MAYBE WE NEED TO COME UP

WITH A NEW PLAN. >> NEXT YEAR IS THE BIG YEAR

[00:55:01]

>> THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO DO IT.

>> BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO START IT, I THINK YOU SHOULD

STARTED FROM THE BEGINNING. >> AND THAT IS A GOOD POINT, MAYBE WE WILL LOOK AT NEXT YEAR AND WE CAN KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN. BUT LET'S HOPE WE NEVER DO THAT.

>> I WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME, AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS VERY UNFAIR THEY DID NOT LIKE IT EITHER. HAD TO WAIT THREE YEARS BEFORE THEY GET A PAY RAISE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK

IT WAS RIGHT. >> IT IS A PAY RAISE BECAUSE OF YOUR THREE YEARS BUT, AS THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, YOU GET A RAISE, EVERY THREE YEARS. BUT WE CAN'T GIVE THEM A RAISE IN THE INTERIM, LIKE THE COST OF LIVING? I WORKED FOR THE STATE, I THINK WAS EVERY TWO OR THREE YEARS OR SO, IT IS THE INCENTIVE, I DON'T KNOW, IT IS THE INCENTIVE TO STAY, IT IS HOPING THAT IF YOU DON'T DO A PAY RAISE THAT YEAR THEN AT LEAST YOU MAY STILL GET ONE IF THE COURT WASN'T ABLE TO AWARD ONE THAT YEAR FOR EVERYONE, AT LEAST YOU ARE GETTING ONE IN YEAR TWO OR THREE. I THINK THERE IS A REASON, OBVIOUSLY I WASN'T AROUND HERE BEFORE THAT, BUT IT MADE SENSE, THIS WAS DONE BY A LOT OF ENTITIES. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FAIRNESS ASPECT, I THINK IT IS INCENTIVE, UNLESS SOMEBODY

EXPLAINS TO ME DIFFERENTLY. >> AND IF THERE IS NO RAISE GIVEN, THEN YOU GET NOTHING, SO SOME PEOPLE GET IT SOME YEARS BECAUSE WE DON'T GIVE RAISES EVERY YEAR, I'M SAYING WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A WAY TO GIVE RAISES TO EVERYBODY EVERY

YEAR. >> EVERY YEAR, A CERTAIN NUMBER

OF EMPLOYEES QUALIFY. >> YES, BECAUSE SOME YEARS WE CAN'T GIVE RAISES AND SOME YEARS WE DO.

>> HAS THERE EVER BEEN A TIME WHERE WE HAVEN'T? I'M SAYING,

PREVIOUS TO THIS. >> BUT IF EMPLOYEES GET RAISES, AND SOME YEARS EMPLOYEES GET MORE THAN THE OTHER PEOPLE, SO WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A SYSTEM.

>> INCENTIVE TO STAY. >> SOMETIMES WE COULDN'T GIVE RAISES AND IF YOU DON'T, AND SOMETIMES YOU GET A DOUBLE

WHAMMY. >> I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING,

COMMISSIONER. >> WE EITHER DON'T DO IT OR DO IT FOR EVERYBODY EVERY THREE YEARS, SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE

HAVE TO LOOK AT. >> OKAY. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT PROBABLY NEXT YEAR IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF THE CYCLE.

>> I WILL WORK WITH TIM ON REVIEWING THAT, YES.

>> OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE. >> WE HAVE ZERO IMPACT FOR PRIOR POSITION MIDYEAR CHANGES, NUMBER 4, THE RETIREMENT IS GOING TO DECREASE, THAT IS OF 152,000, AND THAT IS NOT

INCLUDED? >> TELL US WHEN SOMETHING IS

INCLUDED. >> THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, WE WANTED TO INCREASE THEIR LEGAL FEES, THE BUDGET UP TO $400,000, RIGHT NOW IT IS 328,000 AND YEAR TO DATE IS MY

291 ALREADY. >> SO THE 181 WOULD BE THE

INCREASE TO THAT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, TO BRING IT

UP TO 400,000. >> IS THAT YOUR REQUEST?

>> NO, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, IT IS CONTINUOUSLY CHARACTERIZED AS COUNTY ATTORNEY LEGAL FEES BUT, THAT ACCOUNT IS USED FOR SERVICES THAT THE COURT HAS. I WANT EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER, WE WANT OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT WE CONTROL

[01:00:07]

>> THE LEGAL FEES ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE COURT.

>> OKAY. ZERO FOR THE JAIL OVERTIME, WE USE THE VACANCIES, TRANSPORTATION OF INMATES, $100,000 INCREASE.

>> THOSE ARE IN THE REQUEST, YES.

>> AND METRO NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE OF $19,952.

THE BUDGET WILL BE 1.936, WE DO HAVE A BALANCE --

>> HOLD ON, I WANT TO GO BACK TO NUMBER SEVEN. JAIL TRANSPORTATION OF INMATES, $100,000. HOW MUCH WERE WE PAYING, IS THIS AN INCREASE OR WHAT?

>> IT IS AN INCREASE, THIS IS KIND OF MINOR, THEIR COST OF WELL ABOVE AVERAGE, THEY NEED MORE FUNDS IN THEIR TRANSPORTATION BUDGET. FOR THE INMATES.

>> IS THE MAIN REASON WHY THEY NEED THE TRANSPORTATION IS THE NUMBER OF VACANCIES THEY HAVE AT THEIR OFFICE, THEY CAN'T DO

IT THEMSELVES. >> BUT IF WE ALSO USE THE VACANCIES, SO THAT IS WHY THE MAC --

>> I'M JUST SAYING , THAT IS THE ONLY TIME WE ARE PAYING MAYBE 250,000 FOR TRANSPORTS. WASN'T THAT HIGH?

>> I HAVE IT, JUST A SECOND. IT IS ON PAGE Q79 IN YOUR BOOK.

>> WHAT IS THAT AMOUNT? >> THE BUDGET WAS 199,800, THE ESTIMATE YEAR END IS [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> AND WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL SO FAR THIS YEAR?

>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. >> I DON'T THINK THEY COULD GET ANYBODY TO DO THE TRANSFER, I THINK IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, THEY COULDN'T GET ANYBODY TO DO THE TRANSPORT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE ACTUAL POINT

>> THIS IS JUST FOR TRANSPORTS, TAKING INMATES BACK AND FORTH?

>> NO, THE NUMBER FOR 899 IS MORE THAN JUST THE TRANSPORTATION OF INMATES, THAT IS THE BUDGET CATEGORY, SO EVERYTHING NOT SHOWN AS A LINE ITEM, ESTIMATE DOWN BELOW IS ADDED IN THAT, THAT IS WITHIN THAT BUDGET CATEGORY, OR THAT CATEGORY IS ROLLED INTO THAT COST, THE 899 INCLUDES MORE THAN JUST THE TRANSPORT OF INMATES. I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH

THAT LIST, IT IS A LONG LIST >> THAT IS RIGHT HERE.

>> TRANSFERS TO DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, STUFF LIKE THAT,

TOO. >> YES.

[01:05:02]

>> WE PULLED THE NUMBER FOR THE ACTUALS RIGHT NOW, SO WE CAN GET THAT NUMBER FOR YOU IN JUST A MINUTE.

>> I HAVE WAY TOO MANY NOTES APPEAR -- UP HERE, TO SHOW WHY THAT WAS NECESSARY TO DECREASE THAT.

>> DOES IT INCLUDE OTHER EXPENSES LIKE FUEL OR

MAINTENANCE FOR THE VEHICLES? >> NO, THE 899 DOES NOT, IT INCLUDES OTHER THINGS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT I CAN REMEMBER, WELL, YOU SEE YOU'VE GOT YOUR CONTRACTUAL VEHICLE LEASES IN THERE, YOUR INSURANCE EXPENSE, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS, YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUES, CERTIFICATIONS IS IN THAT NUMBER. IF THERE IS ANY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE HAS ANY, BUT IF THERE'S ANY OUTSIDE AGENCIES THAT WOULD ROLL UP INTO THAT 5410 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES, LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT IS IN THAT BUDGET CATEGORY, THAT IS GOING TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE WEARING APPAREL, BULLETPROOF VESTS, THEIR BADGES, HATS, SHOES, UNIFORM COSTS ARE IN THAT NUMBER. SO, THERE'S OTHER STUFF INSIDE THAT 5410 BESIDES THE TRANSPORT OF INMATES, AND AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT I REMEMBER. I'M POSITIVE THAT ALL OF THOSE ITEMS ARE IN THAT BUDGET CATEGORY BUT, THE LIST IS PROBABLY, BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY LARGE BUDGET CATEGORY, THE LIST IS PROBABLY LIKE 100 DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT, THE BULLETS ARE IN THAT CATEGORY, THERE'S A LOT.

>> COMMISSIONER, YOU SHOULD BE A SEPARATE LINE THAT SAYS

GASOLINE FUEL. >> OKAY.

>> IS THAT OKAY, ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON?

>> THE INCREASE IS 19,593 FOR METRO COME FOR NEXT YEAR. WE DO HAVE A BALANCE OWED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, 23-24, OF 138,971 THAT WE USED FOR RESERVES FOR THAT PORTION DUE TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR, SO WE ARE GOING TO SUBMIT AN AGENDA ITEM TO PAY

FOR THAT THROUGH ARPA. >> BECAUSE ORIGINALLY, THE FIRST PAYMENT GOING INTO THIS, IN GETTING MORE EQUIPMENT, WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT ARPA HAD PAID FOR THAT, THAT WASN'T AN

ALLOWABLE EXPENSE FOR THIS. >> IT WAS ALLOWABLE?

>> YES. WE CHECKED, YES. >> NUMBER NINE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HE WANTS TO MAINTAIN THAT

BUDGET FOR THE TEMPORARIES. >> AND THAT NUMBER WAS PUT IN FOR THE REQUEST, IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET. IT IS CURRENTLY, THE NUMBER IS CURRENTLY IN THERE, YES. NUMBER NINE. IT IS CURRENTLY INCLUDED, YES.

>> OKAY, SO YOU SAID ONE AND TWO WERE, AND SEVEN AND NINE

CURRENTLY IS. >> SEVEN IS, YES.

>> YOU JUST PUT IN THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, TELL ME WHY

YOU DID THAT. >> AS YOU UNDERSTAND, THE REFERENCE WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THIS, RIGHT NOW I FEEL WHEN WE DID THE EVALUATION, IT WAS A QUALIFYING EXPENSE, I LEFT IT IN THERE, BUT IT CAN BE REMOVED.

>> IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM ALL OF US THAT WE AGREED THAT

IT WAS A QUANTIFIABLE POINT >> IT JUST NEEDS TO BE NOTED, IT IS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET TO THIS BOTTOM LINE, WE HAVE TO BACK THOSE NUMBERS OUT.

>> EXACTLY. >> OKAY, JUST TELL US THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT ITEM, APPRECIATE IT.

>> YES POINT >> NUMBER 10, THEY HAVE SECURITY MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR THE CAMERAS, $59,000 IS THE INCREASE. AND THAT HAS ALSO BEEN INCLUDED.

[01:10:10]

>> WE ARE LOOKING FOR SALARY SUPPLEMENT FOR INTERIM

DEPARTMENT HEAD STAFF. >> PEOPLE THAT GET PUSHED INTO A POSITION, WHERE THEY ARE DOING ADDITIONAL WORK, SOMETIMES BEFORE PREVIOUS HISTORY, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAD LEFT AND IS NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE BUT WHEN THEY ARE STILL AN EMPLOYEE AND COLLECTING THEIR SALARY, THERE IS NO BUDGET FOR THEM TO GET ANY KIND OF 10% INCREASE, TEMPORARY INCREASE WHILE THEY ARE DOING THE JOB OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD THAT IS OUT.

>> WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO PASS A CORE NEED A POLICY. I THINK IT IS FAIR, WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE.

>> I THINK IT IS RIGHT FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE TO DO THAT

WORK BY ALL MEANS, YES. YES. >> WE AGREE. IT IS A FAIR CONCEPT. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL.

>> 12, THE NEXT ITEM FOR THE ANNEX IN THE JAIL, IT IS ALSO FOR THE SECURITY CAMERAS, THE INCREASE IS 118,000.

>> AND THAT IS CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.

>> THIS IS ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, THIS IS FOR THE

MAINTENANCE. >> AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO REALIZE AND REMEMBER WHEN WE ALLOW THESE THINGS, THERE ARE MAINTENANCE FEES THAT COME WITH THIS EVERY YEAR AS WELL.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR PURCHASING, WANTING TO RESUME THE LEASED VEHICLES FOR NEXT YEAR. BECAUSE IT WAS STOPPED LAST YEAR, IN THE BUDGET, COVID. VEHICLES THAT WERE IN THE PIPE, THOSE WERE STOPPED, SO WE STILL HAVE LEASED VEHICLES BUT HE IS GOING TO RESUME AND PICK UP 13. IT WOULD BE TWO FOR PUBLIC WORKS, FOUR FOR COASTAL PARKS, EIGHT FOR THE SHERIFF AND ONE FOR EACH OF

THE FIVE CONSTABLES. >> AND THAT IS 13 VEHICLES? DID I MISSED SOME SOMEWHERE? THAT IS NOT IN THE BUDGET ALREADY?

>> ALSO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, MICHAEL HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THEY ORIGINALLY WANTED FOUR FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THEY WILL BUY THE EQUIVALENT THAT GOES INTO THE CARS FOR THEM, SO HE AGREED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. ALSO MICHAEL TOLD US THAT THE CITY FOR METRO IS SAYING THAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN THE CARS WE HAVE MAY NEED TO BE

REPLACED. >> AND TERESA AND I JUST WENT TO A MEETING WITH METROCOM AND THEY DID NOT MENTION THAT TO US AT ALL, I NEED TO CALL THEM AND FIND OUT WHAT THE DEAL IS BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT DISCUSSION WOULD HAVE COME UP AT THOSE MEETINGS WHEN WE MET WITH THE CITY.

>> OUR COMPUTERS ARE DIFFERENT MODEL THAN THE CITIES SO OURS MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET UPGRADED, SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO. FROM WINDOWS 10 TO WINDOWS 11.

>> SO WE MAY NOT HAVE THAT 600,000 I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS

THE AMOUNT FOR THAT INCREASE. >> IT IS ITEM NUMBER 52, THE

LAST ITEM. >> SORRY, WE ARE JUMPING AHEAD

OF OURSELVES HERE. >> WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THIS, RATHER THAN BUYING THEM AND AUCTIONING [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> BEFORE WE STARTED THIS, WE HAD ABOUT $500,000 AS A BUDGET FOR VEHICLES AND BECAUSE THE COST WAS ONLY ABLE TO REPLACE SEVEN OR EIGHT PER YEAR WITH THIS LEASE, THE FIRST YEAR LEASE, WE ARE REPLACING 52 AND THE SECOND YEAR, WE WERE ABLE TO GET MOST OF THE OTHER CARS OFF THE LEASE, AND NOW IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME PRICE OR A LITTLE BIT MORE IF WE DO THE SAME THING. WE GET MORE CARS FOR THE LEASE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT HAS THE MAINTENANCE CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT WE PAY A

[01:15:01]

THE EXPENSE. >> IT COULD TAKE A LONG TIME --

>> ACCORDING WHAT WE DO, WHEN WE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WITH ENTERPRISE, THEY HAVE MANY LOCATIONS, THEY JUST HAVE TO BE ONE OF THE APPROVED LOCATIONS. THERE ARE MANY LOCATIONS. THE OFFICER CAN CHOOSE ANYONE AS LONG AS IT IS PREAPPROVED. THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE THEY WANT, AS LONG AS IT IS AUTHORIZED.

>> OKAY. ARE THEY PRETTY STRICT ON THE MILEAGE OF THE VEHICLE? BECAUSE I HAVE HEARD SOME VEHICLES ARE BEING WELL USED

MORE THAN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. >> WE CAN ONLY BUY SO MANY AT A TIME AND THEY ARE HARD TO REPLACE, SO WHEN WE FIRST DID THE LEASE AGREEMENT, IT WAS AROUND 50 OR 60 CARS AND WE REPLACED THE OLDEST FLEET, SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET IT UP WHERE WE ARE ELIMINATING THOSE CARS THAT ARE STILL OLD AND THE REPAIRS ARE TOO HIGH AND THEY CAN'T FUNCTION AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET THOSE REPLACED. WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH ENTERPRISE, EVERY FIVE YEARS THEY WILL BRING A CASE SAYING WE NEED TO REPLACE THESE BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH IT COSTS AND WE WILL SELL THE CARS THAT WE HAVE AND GIVE YOU THIS MUCH

MONEY FOR IT. >> SO WE GET THE CREDIT BACK.

ALSO, ON THE CAPITAL OUTLAY ON THIS ON THE EQUIPMENT, IS THAT FOR THE HIGHER-PRICED EQUIPMENT OR IS THAT FOR THE BASIC

EQUIPMENT? >> THAT IS FOR THE SHERIFF.

>> BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WANTED HIGHER-PRICED LIGHTS.

>> THE NEWER EQUIPMENT, WHERE THE LIGHTS WERE INSIDE THE CARS, IT WAS MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT NOW WE ARE MAKING SURE THE CONSTABLE IS ABLE TO DO THAT AS WELL. BUT WE COVER A VERY MINIMAL NUMBER OF CARS BUT IT'LL STILL REDUCE COSTS. WE CAN SAVE ABOUT $20,000 OR $30,000.

>> SO THE CONSTABLE IS GOING TO DECIDE THAT?

>> IT WAS AGREED THAT IT WAS ALL TO GO INSIDE, AND THE

SHERIFF SAID [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THE SHERIFF WAS ALSO WILLING TO USE HIS FUNDS TO PAY FOR THINGS, WHEREAS THE CONSTABLE IS MAYBE GOING TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL COST?

>> WE WILL WORK WITH EACH ONE OF THEM, YES.

>> OKAY, WELL IF THE SHERIFF ISN'T GETTING THEM, THEN THEY

SHOULDN'T GET THEM. >> IT SHOULD BE ACROSS THE

BOARD. >> BUT NONE OF THOSE ARE

INCLUDED. >> THE EQUIPMENT IS BUDGETED IN THE CAPITAL OUTLAY, WE HAVE 250 FOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, SO THE DIFFERENCE WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM CONTINGENCY WITHIN

THAT DEPARTMENT. >> 250,000 IS BUDGETED. OKAY.

MOVING ON. THE LOBBYING, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS, AND THAT IS PUTTING THEM BACK UP BECAUSE THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE YEAR AND THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB FOR US, I THINK THERE IS SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS

NEXT YEAR AS WELL. >> THE BUDGET WAS NEVER REDUCED LAST YEAR, THIS NUMBER WAS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET.

>> AND I THINK WE HAD ALWAYS REDUCED THEM AFTER THE SESSION TO A DIFFERENT AMOUNT, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS NUMBER WOULD GO DOWN BUT IT IS IN THE BUDGET AS THAT AMOUNT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY, AND I'M SORRY, DID

YOU SAY -- >> LOBBYING IS INCLUDED.

>> BUT THIS IS TO PUT IT BACK IN?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> NUMBER 15, TRAVEL BUDGET. EVERYONE CUT THEIR TRAVEL LAST YEAR, THOSE WHO COULDN'T, PEOPLE OR SOMETHINGS, SO WE HAVE IT IN HERE TO ADD BACK THIS YEAR.

>> WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE REQUESTS, NOT MANY ARE PUTTING IN ADDITIONAL TRAVEL REQUESTS BUT WE WILL WORK WITH YOU IN THAT OFFICE TO SEE IF THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INCREASE, BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD BE IF WE PUT IT 100% BACK IN, SO I DON'T FORESEE IT BEING THE FULL AMOUNT, BUT THAT IS

[01:20:02]

>> AND NOT REQUESTED, EITHER. >> SOME DO, BUT NOT MANY.

>> YES. NUMBER 16, EMERGENCY SERVICES, DECREASING THE BUDGET FOR THE FIRE INSPECTIONS, $25,000 TO GO TOWARDS THE NEW POSITION THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FOR EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT. >> I LEFT THAT IN THE BUDGET, SO IT IS ALREADY A REDUCTION OF THE BUDGET.

>> MOVING ON TO 17. >> THE INCREASE IS 3615.

>> AND THAT IS A CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT OR WHATEVER AGREEMENT OR

WHATEVER? >> WE DO IT EVERY YEAR, YES.

THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE IS JUST THE ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, IT USUALLY CHANGES AS WE GET CLOSER, PROBABLY IN THE BUDGET WE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER AND WE WILL HAVE TO OFFSET THAT NUMBER. SO THIS INCREASE IS ONLY WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THEM RIGHT NOW. AS OF RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVEN'T ADOPTED THEIR BUDGET OR ANYTHING, AND IT IS 146,000 FOR GENERAL FUNDS AND 2446 FOR THE ROAD FUND.

>> THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, WE DON'T REALLY GET A SAY IN THAT, RIGHT? HOW DO WE DO THAT? BECAUSE NO OFFENSE, BUT THEY GIVE THEMSELVES RAISES LAST YEAR WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE HAD TO CUT BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM AND THE REFINERIES. AND REMEMBER, WHICH WAS ANOTHER THING I WAS REALLY BOTHERED ABOUT. LIKE EVERYBODY OWNS CUTS BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM AND THE REFINERIES AND YET, I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK THEY STILL PUT FORTH RAISES LAST YEAR WHEN THEY KNEW WE WERE ALL STRUGGLING AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE WERE STRUGGLING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TELL US THE INFORMATION TIMELY WHERE WE COULD HAVE FIXED IT DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEY PUT US IN THIS BIND. SO IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING THAT WE JUST GET A BILL FROM THEM AND HAVE TO PAY IT. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO AND MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO BE ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT, OVER THESE BUDGETS THAT THEY JUST GET TO GO WILLY-NILLY APPROVE AND SEND US A BILL FOR. BECAUSE THAT IS JUST --

>> THERE IS SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN DISPUTE THESE CHARGES FROM THEM AND QUESTIONED THEM BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. BUT THIS IS BASED ON EVALUATION, BASED ON CERTAIN VALUES.

>> WELL, THAT'S AT THE VERY LEAST PUT THIS ON OUR LEGISLATIVE ITEMS TO GO BACK TO SEE IF THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO SINCE THE LEGISLATURE IS ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT TAXES BEING RAISED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAUSES US TO RAISE POTENTIAL TAXES. IT IS NOT A HUGE NUMBER BUT IT ADDS UP AND IT IS EVERY YEAR THEY COME BACK TO US AND THEY TELL US, HERE IS YOUR BILL. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE TOTAL, IS THIS WHAT WE PAY

FOR THE GENERAL FUND RIGHT NOW? >> YES.

>> THIS IS THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET THAT WE PAY, SO WE ARE $111 MILLION ACTUAL BUDGET, SO WE ARE PAYING 1.2 MILLION, WHICH IS 1%? 1% OF OUR BUDGET GOES TO PAYING AN ENTITY THAT WE HAVE NO SAY OVER, BUT THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND JUST JACKET ALL THE WAY UP AND WE GET THE BILL AND WE HAVE TO PAY IT. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND WRONG. AND NOW THESE ARE GOING TO BE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT HAVE LESS INPUT, HOPEFULLY THEY ARE GOING TO BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE, BUT THEY ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EVEN LESS SAY SO I THINK WE NEED TO PUT THIS ON THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, SO TAKE NOTE OF THAT OR I WILL TRY TO REMEMBER.

>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD THING TO TALK ABOUT, YES.

>> KAITLYN IS NOW ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND CHANGES

[01:25:01]

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. >> IS THIS INCLUDED IN YOUR

NUMBERS? >> NO, IT IS NOT.

>> OKAY. MOVING ONTO INSURANCE PROPERTY, THAT IS JUST AN INCREASE IN OUR POLICY. IS THAT INCLUDED?

>> WHENEVER WE INCREASED POLICY PREMIUMS, THIS JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO DURING COMMISSIONERS COURT, THOSE COSTS GET PASSED ON TO THE DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE OUR SELF-INSURANCE FUND IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND AND THE COURT HAS TO BE FULLY FUNDED AND RUN AS A SEPARATE BUSINESS, SO ALL THE EXPENSES THAT GET PAID HAVE TO BE COVERED BY OFFSETTING REVENUE. SO THE REVENUE TO THE ENTERPRISE FUND IS THE EXPENSE TO EVERY OTHER FUND THAT IS BENEFITING FROM THIS SELF-INSURANCE FUND. THOSE COSTS ARE ALLOCATED AMONGST THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE EXPENSES OR POLICIES. DEPARTMENTS AND FUNDS.

>> 20. >> 20 IS A NEW ITEM THAT WE ARE WANTING TO BUDGET AS AN EXPENSE IN 1285 GENERAL MINISTRATION FOR CLAIMS AND SETTLEMENTS. $1.5 MILLION.

>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE USUALLY DO THIS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS IN A BUDGETED ITEM WHERE WE CAN KEEP TRACK AS WE GO IN AND HAVE OPPORTUNITIES AND GET QUESTIONS AND IF WE HAD A RUNNING TOTAL, WE COULD GO TO IT QUICKER, THAT WE COULD SEE WHAT OUR OPTIONS WERE, HOW MUCH WE HAD THAT MIGHT HELP US TO MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS. THAT

WAS JUST THE BUDGETED ITEM. >> IN THE PAST, WE WOULD RECORD AND ESTIMATE LIABILITY BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM THE ACCOUNTING -- COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. LIKE WE JUST MENTIONED, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 MILLION WHERE IT MIGHT BE THE

CASE. >> BUT THIS IS IN THE BUDGET.

>> YES. USUALLY. >> BUT IT IS SOMEWHERE, BUT IT

IS NOT GOING TO COST -- >> THIS SHOULD ALREADY BE IN

THERE, YES. >> SO THIS IS A WASH. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS. AGAIN, AT THE END OF THIS, WHEN WE ARE COMING DOWN TO ALL THESE THINGS, HE NEEDS TO BE BACKED OUT, TOO.

>> WE JUST WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT MORE CLEARLY.

>> I THINK THAT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE. WE ARE JUST CREATING A

NEW ACCOUNT. OKAY. >> 21.

>> ESTIMATED INCREASE FOR THE HEALTH PREMIUMS, THE HEALTH

FUND. >> YOU ARE WANTING TO BUDGET

THIS YEAR. >> THIS IS FOR NEXT YEAR.

>> YOU WILL INCREASE THE PREMIUM NUMBERS FOR THE COUNTY AND EMPLOYEES AND THE INCREASE FOR THE GENERAL FUND IS $2.2 MILLION, THE INCREASE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN FUND RESOURCES, $136,000 INCREASE , AND FOR COASTAL PARKS, $52,000 INCREASE AND FOR THE SMALL ONES, 15, 16, THE LIBRARY AND

AIRPORT, [INDISCERNIBLE] >> OKAY, WHAT IS THE 2.2

MILLION? >> ON TOP OF THE REGULAR BUDGET AND AMOUNT LAST YEAR, THIS WAS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAD LAST YEAR, WE ARE INCREASING THE TOTAL. DO WE HAVE WHAT THE TOTAL MIGHT BE WITH THIS ADDED TO IT, WHAT THE COUNTIES

BALANCE WOULD BE? >> FOR THE GENERAL FUND, IT IS

PROBABLY $12 MILLION. >> PLUS THIS, THAT WOULD BE

ABOUT 14 POINT >> YES.

>> THIS IS ADDED, NUMBER 21 WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT BECAUSE HEALTH INSURANCE HAS GONE HIGHER.

>> WE ALWAYS PULL OUT THE RESERVES EVERY YEAR WE HAVE IT

OVER. >> THE BOSS IS SAYING HERE'S

[01:30:01]

>> SO WE WON'T HAVE TO DO THOSE TRANSFERS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, SO YOU ARE NOT HIT WITH AN UNKNOWN BILL THAT YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> IT IS TRYING TO BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF DOING A TRANSFER AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. AND WHEN WE SEND OUR NEXT HR NEWSLETTER TO OUR EMPLOYEES, AND WANT THEM TO SEE IF WE ARE SPENDING, SO IF PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT WHATEVER RAISES WE GET, LET'S REMIND THEM OF THE $2.2 MILLION MORE THAT THEY ARE ALSO GETTING, THIS IS AGAIN THAT AREA THAT , IT ISN'T GOING TO REGISTER WITH THEM, I WOULD RATHER TAKE THE $2 MILLION AND PUT IT TOWARDS RAISES AND CHARGE WHATEVER THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T FOLLOW THIS INSURANCE PREMIUM AND WE ARE KEEPING THEIR INSURANCE NUMBER LOW AND THEY JUST DON'T COUNT IT, IT IS A HUGE BENEFIT FOR EMPLOYEES, SOMETIMES WE FORGET IT, BUT THIS IS A HUGE BENEFIT IF WE HAVE TO DO THIS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS AND BUILD UP YOUR RESERVES. YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO BUILD UP BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT DRAWING FROM IT IF YOU DO THIS BECAUSE YOUR RESERVES WILL STAY THE SAME AND NOT GO DOWN AND MAYBE GO UP A LITTLE DEPENDING ON WHERE IT WASHES OUT TO.

>> THIS IS INCLUDED IN YOUR NUMBER ALREADY. THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER ALREADY.

>> HUGE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT. >> 21 AND 20?

>> AND JUST TO KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE, WHAT IS T■HE PERCENTAGE THAT WE PAY OF THE INSURANCE PREMIUM?

>> 85%. >> IF ANYONE CAN FIND A PLAN --

>> NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO ARE INCLUDED.

>> THE ONE FOR THE CLAIM IS A TOTAL WASH, SO 20 CAN BE THE

CLAIM NUMBER. >> 21 IS NOT INCLUDED.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> 22.

>> SO 19 AND 20 ARE ALREADY ADDED OR NOT?

>> 20 IS COVERED IN THE BUDGET, 21 IS NOT, 20 IS.

>> 19 IS NOT. >> REMEMBER, I PUT THAT IN? YES, SO 19 IS, 20 IS NOT, 21 IS NOT.

>> 21 IS MORE OF A WASH, SO TECHNICALLY IT IS IN, YES.

>> OKAY, 22. THERE'S THE GRANT MATCH FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE NEXT YEAR WILL BE $85,000, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. AND WE APPROVED THAT, THAT IS NOT INCLUDED.

>> THERE IS A NUMBER IN THE BUDGET FOR TRANSFERS TO GRANTS, WHICH IS ALWAYS MORE THAN WHAT WE NEED, SO WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE NUMBERS TEMPORARILY ARE. SO IT MAY BE THERE.

>> BUT SHE CAME IN AND SAID WE CAN USE ALL THE GRANT UNTIL

JULY OF NEXT YEAR. >> THIS IS THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO USE THE 1.4 THAT THEY HAVE LEFT, THEY HAVE ALLOWED US TO GO BACK AND USE LAST YEAR'S BUT, THEY ESTIMATE IT IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN 85,000, SO WE NEED TO MAYBE BUDGET FOR AT 85 JUST IN CASE.

>> OKAY. BUT I'M SAYING I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO YEARS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 100%, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, SHE CAME IN AND SAID WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS, BASICALLY UNTIL JULY OF NEXT YEAR WHICH WOULD BE NEXT YEAR, OR IS THIS THE BETWEEN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> THE FIRST TWO YEARS, THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE FIRST YEAR THEY REALLY WEREN'T EVEN DOING ANYTHING, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE AN OFFICE. SO THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ALLOWING US, WE'RE

[01:35:03]

>> BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY SOME MONEY.

>> BUT SHE CAME TO COURT AND WE ASKED HER FOR THOSE NUMBERS AND SHE DID, I MEAN , THEY HAVE DONE OVER 600 CASES THIS YEAR OR SOMETHING, THEY HAVE MOVED CASES. THEY ARE WORKING VERY HARD AND THEY ARE TOTALLY STAFFED.

>> SO NEXT YEAR IT COMES DOWN TO, OR NO, NEXT YEAR WE ARE GOING TO BE FULLY FUNDED, IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING?

>> WE ARE STAGGERING. >> BUT NEXT YEAR IS THE YEAR THAT IT STARTS TO KICK US IN THE TEETH. OKAY.

>> THIS IS PROBABLY IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE WE HAVE A BUDGET NUMBER FOR GRANTS AND I HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON WHICH ONES ARE GOING TO BE POSTED, I KNOW PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT, SO RIGHT NOW I WILL SAY IT IS IN THERE BUT IT MAY CHANGE.

>> NUMBER 23. >> BASED ON THE AGREEMENT, INCREASING THE SALARIES FROM LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR, IT IS A $25,000 INCREASE, THAT IS NOT IN THE BUDGET AMOUNT BUT IT IS A FIXED AMOUNT BASED ON THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.

>> AND WE INCREASED THEM IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THING FOR

NEXT YEAR? >> AS OF THIS MORNING, AND THIS LAST YEAR OF THE CURRENT CONTRACTING, THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE AGAIN. BUT THIS INCLUDES BENEFITS. IT HAS NOT

BEEN INCLUDED YET. >> OKAY. 24.

>> 24 ARE JUST ESTIMATES BASED ON THE AHI THAT WAS SELECTED, WE ARE PUTTING IN AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE FIGURES.

>> DO WE HAVE A BETTER ESTIMATE OR IS THIS WHAT WE ARE ASSUMING? I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE LIKE 400 OR SOMETHING.

>> IT IS GOING TO BE HIGHER BUT THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE IS NOT VERY CLEAR HOW THEY ARE CALCULATING IT SO WE NEED TO WAIT. THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE IS NOT REAL CLEAR HOW THEY ARE CALCULATING THE INCREASE, SO WE ARE GOING TO WAIT.

>> DIDN'T PUBLIC WORKS COME HERE AND SAY THEY DIDN'T GET THE TRANSFER, IT WASN'T ENOUGH, SO NOW IT IS GOING TO INCREASE, SO I ASSUME. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, LISA.

>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A CLOSED THEN, WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. BUT THE ESTIMATE THAT WE GOT, IT IS VERY VAGUE. I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING AS YOU, THIS LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING DOWN. BUT WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND MICHAEL, THAT NUMBER IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE BUDGET GETS ADOPTED BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A CONTRACT HOPEFULLY BY THEN, SO WE WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT, BECAUSE WE WILL KNOW THE AMOUNT.

>> WE NEED A SEPARATE SPACE ON THERE SO IT IS IDENTIFIED.

>> AND SOMETHING IS ALREADY PUT IN THE BUDGET.

>> IT IS ANOTHER CATEGORY LIKE LISA WAS SAYING, AND THIS

INCREASE IS NOT. >> AND BEFORE LAST YEAR THEY SAID IT WAS LIKE 350 OR SOMETHING?

>> AROUND THERE, YES. >> VERY GOOD. 25.

>> NUMBER 25 IS JUST TO REMIND YOU GUYS THAT [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> AFTER TALKING TO DALE LAST YEAR AND THE COMMISSIONER LAST YEAR, WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT THIS BACKUP, BUT I WASN'T AWARE OF THIS 1.165 THAT WE HAVE IN HERE HAS TO BE SPENT BASICALLY ON THAT PROPERTY, WE THOUGHT WE COULD DO --

>> THE MONEY WAS ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE WE HAD -- BECAUSE IT WAS BOUGHT BY PROCEEDS, IT HAD TO BE MAINTAINED , THE PROCEEDS

[01:40:03]

WISHES TO DO. >> PERFECT, OKAY, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY BECAUSE WE PAY 250,000 PER YEAR FOR THE WORKERS WAREHOUSE THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS AND BUILD A WORKERS WAREHOUSE OUT AT THE FAIRGROUNDS LOCATION TO MOVE OUR STUFF IN. BUT, I

THINK -- >> AND THAT IS CURRENTLY IF YOU NEED TO FINANCE SOMETHING, YOU COULD USE IT AS FINANCING.

>> YES. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK AT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PEOPLE AT THE WAREHOUSE, THEY REALLY WANT US TO LEAVE AS WELL. THE BUILDING NEEDS A LOT OF REPAIRS, I THINK THEY WOULD LIKE TO SELL IT AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT FOR THE FUTURE, THE RENT WENT UP AND I THINK EDWARD BROUGHT US AN ESTIMATE ON SOMETHING THAT WAS ONLY 2 MILLION, BUT I THINK THAT WAS ONLY LIKE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT. I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IS 60,000 SQUARE FOOT, I DID TALK TO I.T. AND DARRELL AND HE SAID THERE'S A LOT OF RECORDS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO PURGE OUT OF THERE THAT ARE OLD RECORDS THAT NEED TO BE DESTROYED AND WE DON'T HAVE TO MOVE THAT MUCH. I'M KIND OF THINKING EDWARDS ESTIMATE WAS A LITTLE BIT LOWER, MAYBE IF WE DID HALF OF THAT OR SOMETHING , THAT IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.

IF YOU HAD THIS FOR A DOWN PAYMENT AND THIS WOULD MAKE YOUR PAYMENTS, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT OF DEBT TO BUILD A WAREHOUSE AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. JUST AN IDEA FOR THE FUTURE.

>> NUMBER 26, A REQUEST TO PUT THE $100,000 BACK INTO THE BUDGET FOR THE 20 K EACH FOR OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDS.

>> AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.

>> NUMBER 27, 28, 29 ARE ALL ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS, DUES, ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE BUDGET, THINGS THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR AND THE AMOUNTS ARE ALREADY IN.

>> I KNOW SOME OF THESE WE DON'T USE ALL THE TIME, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE -- WE ARE ACTIVE AS A COURT, THE COUNTY JUDGE, THE ASSOCIATION, I DON'T KNOW COMMISSIONER GONZALES YOU STILL ACT AS WITH THE TEXAS CUC? YOU ARE STILL ACTIVE, THOSE ARE THE ONES I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, BUT THE I 69 BOARD JUDGE, DO YOU SERVE ON THAT? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD OR SEEN ANYTHING, AND I KNOW IT RUNS THROUGH THREE PRECINCTS, ONE, TWO AND THREE AND WE ALL HAVE A CHUNK OF IT AT LEAST. SO, I MEAN, THAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, OVERALL, IT IS NOT THAT MUCH COMPARED TO THE MILLIONS WE ARE DEALING WITH BUT WE CAN REALLOCATE THAT, IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING, SO MAYBE IF WE CAN DESIGNATE SOMEONE IN CHARGE, MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMEONE TO LOOK INTO THAT TO SEE THE

VALUE. >> I'M SENDING PEYTON A

MESSAGE. >> WHICH ONE?

>> THE I 69 ALLIANCE. AND I DON'T KNOW FOR SENATE BILL ONE AND SIX, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS AS WELL. SO MAYBE IF WE CAN JUST GET AN UPDATE ON ALL OF THEM, SOME OF THEM WE KNOW PARTICIPATE WITH OTHERS THAT ARE MAYBE NOT SO FAMILIAR, AND MAYBE AT SOME POINT THE COURT WAS INVOLVED WITH BUT IT

HAS BEEN YEARS. >> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF ALL THE ONES THAT I GO TO. THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SOUTH

[01:45:01]

>> YES, MAYBE REMIND THEM, WE ARE PAYING THIS MUCH MONEY EVERY YEAR, GET AN UPDATE, GET AN EMAIL, GET A PRESENTATION ONCE A YEAR OR SOMETHING, JUST TO JUSTIFY WHY WE ARE WITH THEM. EVEN THE MILITARY TASK FORCE, THANKFULLY WE HAVEN'T HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THAT BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT DECISION WILL COME UP AGAIN FROM CONGRESS. I KNOW THERE IS SOMEONE ON STANDBY, BUT THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES OUT THERE THAT I KNOW THAT ARE GROWING WITHIN THE STATE THAT MAY BE A BETTER PARTNERSHIP THEN MAYBE I 69, ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD TO BYPASS AND THE SUN LIKE I SAID, MAYBE FOR THEM TO RE-ENGAGE US JUST TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS WORTH IT.

>> I GO TO A LOT OF MEETINGS BUT I DON'T RECALL GOING TO

THAT ONE, SORRY. >> COMMISSIONER, MAYBE YOU WANT THEM TO COME AND JUST DO A PRESENTATION?

>> JUST SOMETHING, OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN LIKELY THE JUDGE IS GOING TO BE THE DESIGNEE FOR MOST OF THESE THAT WE ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH OURSELVES INDIVIDUALLY, BUT IF WE ARE GETTING UPDATES OF AT LEAST SOME SORT OF WORK WE ARE DOING ON THEIR BEHALF COLLECTIVELY, JUST TO WRAP THEM UP. OR SAY WE ARE SENDING YOU TAX DOLLARS FOR A REASON AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE GETTING OUT OF IT.

>> WE CAN DO A REPORT IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IF THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO PRESENT.

>> I KNOW YOU ARE LOADED UP, I'M JUST OFFERING.

>> THAT IS A GREAT IDEA, YOU CAN BE MY ALTERNATE.

>> I MEAN, I HATE TO SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON ITEMS THAT DON'T COST MUCH BUT WHEN YOU ADD THEM UP, THEY DO MAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNT, JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY. I KNOW I 69 IS VERY ACTIVE, EVEN PART OF LLOYD NEIL, SINCE THEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW ACTIVE THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE AT LEAST PORTION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. BISHOP IS PRETTY MUCH FIXED, BUT MAYBE THEY ARE DONE, MAYBE THERE'S NOT MUCH WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ON OUR PART OF THE STATE. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT GOES FROM THE MEXICO BORDER ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CANADIAN BORDER BUT DO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH THEM?

>> WE WILL HAVE THAT FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, PAYTON IS CHECKING WITH THEM FOR NOW, SO THAT IS PERFECT.

>> JUST TO BASICALLY DISTINGUISH WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SP 1 AND SENATE BILL ONE AND SIX, IS IT WATER, FLOODING, WASTEWATER? I KNOW THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RULES THEY OVERSEE, SO JUST TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE SO WE KNOW WHAT

THAT MEANS. >> THEY KNOW THEMSELVES WHAT

THEY ARE DOING. >> JUST TO CLARIFY. I DEAL WITH ONE MORE THAN THE OTHER, SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW MYSELF WHICH ONE STANDS FOR WHICH, JUST SO WE CAN GET A BETTER IDEA WHEN WE OR THE PUBLIC ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THAT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID. WAS THAT DOWNSTAIRS? DO THEY REPORT TO US ON ANYTHING?

>> THEY REPORT FOR ANNUALLY. THEY TELL DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF

THE THINGS THEY DO. >> AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN MENTAL HEALTH, IS THAT A DUPLICATION, IF THIS IS SOCIAL MENTAL SERVICES? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT

THEM. >> IT COULD BE, WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT, I KNOW THE WORKLOAD CHANGED IN 21, SO THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DOING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN MY OFFICE AND MY OFFICE TOOK THAT BACK IN 2021. SO I'M NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THEIR CASELOAD IS LIKE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK THEY ARE DOING MOST OF THE WORK, NOT AT THE OFFICE

BUT REMOTE. >> WE HAVE GONE IN THAT SPACE, THAT IS THE REASON I WAS ASKING, WE HAVE GONE DOWNSTAIRS

[01:50:03]

IF THEY ARE WORKING FROM HOME, I MEAN, IF THAT IS WHERE THEY WORK, THAT IS FINE BUT WE DON'T NEED TO NOT UTILIZE THAT SPACE IF THEY ARE NOT HERE. OUR OFFICE HAS TRIED A COUPLE TIMES

AND THEY DON'T RESPOND. >> I THINK THEY MUST BE WORKING

OUT OF OFFICE, IS IT AGNES? >> IF THEY DON'T NEED THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY PAY RENT EITHER.

>> BUT IF THEY DON'T NEED IT, THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO

WASTE THE SPACE. >> THAT IS A TYPO, THE EXPENSE

IS IN 3200 LEGAL AID? >> IT IS NOT MENTAL HEALTH, IT IS LEGAL AID, AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR THE POINT OF CONTACT IS REBECCA FLANAGAN I BELIEVE. AND I DO HAVE CONTACT

INFORMATION FOR HER. >> PERFECT. PEYTON IF YOU ARE LISTENING, PLEASE CONTACT LISA ABOUT THAT, THANK YOU.

>> BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THAT OFFICE RIGHT NOW, I SEE THEM

GOING IN THERE AT THAT SITE. >> I SAW SOMEBODY JUST

YESTERDAY. >> WELL, GOOD. MAYBE JUST WHEN WE WENT, THEY WEREN'T. MOVING ONTO 30, IF THAT IS NEXT.

>> THE CAPITAL CREDITS, WE FUNDED ALL OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS LAST YEAR FROM THE CAPITAL CREDITS FUNDING THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE STATE COMPTROLLER. WE USUALLY GET THESE FUNDS LATE IN SEPTEMBER AND LAST YEAR I BELIEVE WE GOT MAYBE 99,000, SO WE ARE ESTIMATING $90,000 COMING IN THIS YEAR, THE FUND BALANCE RIGHT NOW IS 146,000 97, IF WE GET 90 K, IT'LL BRING US BACK UP TO 235 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS FUNDED THIS YEAR IN CONTRACTS.

>> AND THAT NUMBER IS NOT A BUDGET NUMBER FOR THE GENERAL FUND, THIS IS A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, SO THIS DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

>> IF WE GET THE 90,000 THAT COVERS OUR ALLOCATIONS, BECAUSE IF SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL, IF WE DO WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR, WE ARE ONLY ANTICIPATING RECEIVING 235, SO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR ALLOCATIONS TO THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE

LIMIT WE HAVE. >> AND I CAN GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE LIST OF EVERYBODY THAT WAS FUNDED THIS YEAR.

>> PERFECT. >> THEY ARE NOT THE ANNUAL ONES

LISTED. >> BUT AS LONG AS WE GET TO 90, THE CAPITAL CREDITS IS IN THE BUDGET. 27, 28, 29, 30 ARE ALL

IN THE BUDGET. OKAY. >> YES. 31, WE JUST HEARD FROM, THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, THOSE CHANGES, SO I DON'T KNOW, THE ONE THING I GUESS WE NEED TO HIGHLIGHT IS, VECTOR CONTROL

COMING BACK TO THE COUNTY? >> YES.

>> THAT WOULD BE A COST TO THE COUNTY?

>> I PUT IT AS A BUDGET CHALLENGE, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS GOING TO BE FUNDED FROM YET, WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE

THAT OUT. >> BUT IT IS NOT ALREADY IN THERE, SO IT IS AN ADDITIONAL COST.

>> THEY TAKE IT OUT OF THEIR BUDGET.

>> I KNOW, BUT WE ARE STILL GETTING THE 1.85, SO WHATEVER MONEY THEY GIVE US, THEY COULD INCREASE IT.

>> THAT NUMBER INCLUDES THE AMOUNT THAT WE ARE FUNDING TO THE CITY, THE 1.7 IS THE CITIES AMOUNT, IF THAT CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED NEXT YEAR.

>> BUT THEY CAN PAY OUT OF THERE'S, USUALLY IT IS PAID SEPARATELY. WE COULD USE SOME OF THOSE MONIES TO PAY FOR

OTHER THINGS. >> BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL SEPTEMBER SO THIS HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN OUR BUDGET AS AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE THAT.

>> SO, 31 IS IN THE BUDGET, OTHER THAN VECTOR CONTROL?

[01:55:04]

>> YES. >> I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WE COULD USE IT FOR THAT.

>> AND I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WAS SAYING WE NEEDED MORE VECTOR

CONTROL. >> THEY HAD RECLASSIFICATION

FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. >> 261 IS OFF, OKAY, YES.

MOVING ONTO 32. >> WE REQUESTED A FEW DIFFERENT EVALUATIONS, WHETHER WE DO A COST-OF-LIVING ESTIMATE FOR THIS, I PREPARED FOUR DIFFERENT LEVELS, WE DID A 2.5 INCREASE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES EXCLUDING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE TWO

MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO MUCH FURTHER, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK -- IF WE DO FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, A MEDICAL EXAMINER IS NOT A CONTRACTOR ANYMORE, THEY ARE EMPLOYEES, AS MUCH AS I THINK THEY ARE VERY HIGHLY PAID EMPLOYEES AND I WISH WE COULD DO THAT BUT --

>> A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.

>> YES, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD EXCLUDE THEM IF PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED, WHEN I ASKED THEM TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR US TO LOOK AT, JUST THE BACKGROUND BEFORE HE GIVES YOU THOSE NUMBERS, I WAS HOPING THAT WITH ALL OF THESE RECLASSIFICATIONS THROUGH THE YEAR, BASICALLY THEY ARE PAY RAISES, I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD TAKE WHATEVER SOMEONE GOT THIS YEAR AND MAKE IT MATCH WHATEVER, IF WE WERE WILLING, IF WE FIND THE MONEY AND WE ARE ABLE TO GIVE RAISES TO BALANCE THAT, NOT TO GIVE THEM AN ADDITION TO THAT. AND I WAS TOLD THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IF THEY HAVE BEEN RECLASSIFIED, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM TO ALL EMPLOYEES WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY POINT, WHY WE CAN'T EXCLUDE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER OR THE ASSISTANT BECAUSE THEY ARE EMPLOYEES, THEY ARE NOT

CONTRACTS. >> IT WOULD BE A SMALL INCREASE, BUT WE WILL STILL GO WITH THESE NUMBERS IN GENERAL.

>> HOLD ON, THAT IS KIND OF A BIG DEAL. BECAUSE WHAT ANGERED -- AN INCREASE THAT WOULD BE FOR THE TOP OF THE PAY SCALE IN THE WORLD. YOU'VE GOT TO WORK ON THAT.

>> AND I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO CHECK INTO THE EXCLUSION PROCESS, THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING JENNY, I THINK YOU ARE THE ONES THAT SAID WE COULDN'T DO IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE EMPLOYEES, IF THEY HAD CHANGED WITHIN THE YEAR TO THIS

INCREASE. >> WE GOT THIS QUESTION YESTERDAY AND STARTED LOOKING AT IT. IT IS NOT STATED, I'M NOT SURE WHAT PARALLEL IS BEING DRAWN. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PERSONNEL MANUAL THAT SAYS THAT IT IS 100% ACROSS THE BOARD AND I KNOW IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE PAST BUDGETS THERE HAS BEEN A CONCENTRATION AT TIMES ON THE LOWEST POINT

>> WE DO THAT RIGHT NOW IF WE DO HALF OF THE PEOPLE EVERY THREE YEARS, WE DON'T GIVE IT TO EVERYONE EVERY YEAR.

>> THAT IS CONTINUANCE, BUT WE HAVE DONE PARTIAL BEFORE, THINK A COUPLE YEARS BACK WE DID A COLA FOR SCHEDULE A AND EXCLUDED EVERYBODY ON SCHEDULE P. WE HAVE DONE THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, SO AS LONG AS YOU TREAT EVERYBODY THAT IS ON THE SAME PAY SCHEDULE THE SAME. BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN PAY SCHEDULE JUST LIKE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE ON THEIR OWN PAY SCHEDULE AND NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEES ARE ON ANOTHER.

>> BUT I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAD ALREADY GOTTEN A RAISE THIS YEAR, IN THE LAST MONTH . THAT IS WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO THOSE RECLASSIFICATIONS DURING THE YEAR BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET THAT AND SOMETHING, THAT IS WHY THIS

SHOULD NEVER BE DONE. >> AND IF WE HAD A POLICY IN PLACE THAT REFLECTED THAT, JUST A THOUGHT.

>> YES, BELIEVE ME, THAT IS A FEAR OF MINE. BUT, WE DON'T EVEN FOLLOW THEM. BUT IF IT IS A POLICY, THEN WE HAVE TO KICK IT BACK TO THE PERSON REQUESTING IT AND SAY LOOK THAT IS A VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS ON IT, THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE COURT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THEM, WE CANNOT TREAT YOU DIFFERENTLY.

[02:00:02]

>> I AGREE. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO ADDRESS.

>> BUT DON'T SAY WE ARE EXCLUDING THOSE, WE HAVE TO DO

THAT SEPARATELY. >> WE CAN BRING THEM BACK NEXT

YEAR. >> AND THEY ARE COLLECTIVE-BARG AINING, EVERYBODY ELSE IS NOT PART OF THE COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING, BUT THEY ARE. >> 2.5% COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE FOR THE EMPLOYEES HE MENTIONED, 2.5 MILLION, WE DID A 5% ACROSS THE BOARD, SAME EXCLUSIONS FOR 3,558,000. D IS PERCENT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES , AND ALL OF THE PROFESSIONALS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AT 2.5%, 4 MILLION, AND WE CAN CALCULATE ANY ADDITIONAL ONES THAT YOU REQUEST AT THE MOMENT BUT THESE ARE THE FOUR WE HAD SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME.

>> AND NONE OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE INCLUDED IN OUR BUDGET, THIS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL COSTS. OPTIONS FOR US TO DISCUSS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOVING ONTO 33. SORRY, TERESA. SHE HAS BEEN HERE, JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONSIDERATION OF A COLA, THE PROPOSALS FOR THE RECLASSIFICATIONS ARE LIMITED, WE ARE WAITING TO SEE IF WE DO THIS POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO RECLASSIFICATIONS AND DO THIS WHICH IS WHAT I SAID GETS US INTO TROUBLE.

>> DALE, HAVE YOU GIVEN US THE NUMBER, OR LISA, OF WHAT THE PROJECTED NEW GROWTH MONEY IS GOING TO BE FOR THE COUNTY? IS

IT IN HERE AND I MISSED IT? >> IT IS IN TAB P, IT'S THAT PRESENTATION I GAVE YOU FOR THE REVENUE AND THE VOTER APPROVED, THAT NO NEW REVENUE INCREASE MEANT, THAT IS --

>> BUT WE WON'T GET THAT UNTIL WE GET THE CERTIFIED RUN, THEN

WE HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER. >> YES.

>> NUMBER 34 WAS RECLASSIFICATION FOR THE DIRECTOR OF VETERANS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, TO GROUP 372, IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF 24,000 POINT

>> WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, THE VETERAN SERVICES, AND WE ARE ADDING FIVE EMPLOYEES TO HIS DEPARTMENT AND AS A DEPARTMENT HEAD, HE MAKES LESS THAN ANY OF THEM THAT WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. I BELIEVE DALE I CHECKED WITH YOU AND THE STATE MATCHES A PORTION OF HIS THAT

PAYS 30,000 POINT >> THERE IS A FEE THAT COVERS SOME OF THE COST OF THE COUNTY AND THAT COVERS HIS. MOST OF

IT, NOT ALL OF IT, YES. >> AND I DID TALK TO JJ AND ASK HIM ON OUR CALL WITH MR. KELLY TO SEE IF THE STATE WOULD BE WILLING TO MATCH A PORTION OF THIS INCREASE FOR HIM TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF ALL THREE DEPARTMENTS AND IT WOULD ONLY PUT HIM AT THE 92, OR 88, WE CAN GO DOWN OR WHATEVER, HE IS A DEPARTMENT HEAD AND MAKING LESS THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS. HE IS RIGHT NOW AT 32. HE LISTED THE EMERGENCY, HE LISTED ALL OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, GRANTS, ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE AND HE WAS WELL BELOW ANY OF THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IN THE PAST.

>> BECAUSE WE EXPANDED VETERAN SERVICES, THEY USED TO DO X IN THIS COUNTY AND NOW HE IS DOING A LOT MORE. AND WE HAVE JUST GIVEN HIM MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND A CEMETERY, HOPEFULLY THE STATE WOULD BE WILLING TO COME HERE BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT HE

[02:05:01]

IS A BIGGER DEPARTMENT. >> I FELT THIS WAS VERY MUCH

NECESSARY, YES. >> ITEM B. THE TWO EMPLOYEES APPROVED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO VETERANS FOR VETERAN SERVICES.

>> THOSE ARE ALREADY BUDGETED FOR.

>> ITEM C, THE THREE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES THAT WERE GOING TO BE

TRANSFERRED IN THE BUDGET. >> YES. THE ONLY INCREASE.

>> AND SO ON, YOU SEE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COMING OUT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SO IT IS A WASH. NUMBER 35, IN THE PARKS, CERTIFIED POOL AND SPLASH PAD OPERATE , THAT IS FOR ALL OF THESE SPLASH PAD WE WERE DOING THAT REQUIRES CHEMICALS AND TREATMENTS, AND SUMMARY THAT KNOWS CHEMICALS AND TREATMENTS, I WILL STATE THAT THIS IS A VERY NECESSARY THING WITH THE SPLASH PAD WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND UNFORTUNATELY THE HAZEL SPLASH PAD IS DOWN SO WE NEED SOMEBODY THAT IS KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE DOING ON POOL EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE A LOT OF SPLASH PAD THAT ARE GOING TO BE SITTING THERE AS CONCRETE SLABS IF WE DO NOTHING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. REALLY, WHEN WE PRESENT THESE THINGS, THE MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO ATTENTION, NOT KNOWING THE COST OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT IS

DEFINITELY NECESSARY. >> IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS QUALIFIED TO ATTEND TO THESE THINGS,

HOPEFULLY WE GET SOMEONE SOON. >> IS THERE A MARKET FOR THAT? HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR? WILL WE END UP HAVING TO JUST GET A CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR OR TWO TO COME

AND DO IT? >> THEY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS COME FROM SAN ANTONIO I THINK IS WHAT EDWARD SAID, THAT THEY HAVEN'T UTILIZED, THIS WOULD BE AN EMPLOYEE THAT IS TRAINED THAT WANTS TO DO THIS AND TAKE CARE OF IT SO IT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT WE ARE HAVING TO DO.

>> WELL, WE WILL HAVE TO GET THEM TRAINED. TALKING ABOUT HEATING COSTS, THERE IS A COST TO THAT, I DON'T DOUBT THE NEED FOR IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT COULD BE CHEAPER IF WE GOT A LOCAL POOL COMPANY, WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE ON A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE WITH THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS THAT GOES

INTO THAT. >> THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND I CAN TELL YOU WITH THE PARKER POOL IDEA, MY HUSBAND AND I NEEDED TO HAVE A SAN ANTONIO POOL COMPANY TO COME AND SERVICE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO COME THAT FAR TO DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES.

>> YOU MIGHT BE CALLING THEM AND CALLING THEM AND CALLING

THEM. >> THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I THINK THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT IS BETTER WITH THESE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO COST US IN THE LONG RUN.

>> LIKE I SAID, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED OF IT, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN 48,000, IT IS GOING TO BE TRAINING AND GETTING SOMEONE CERTIFIED AND HOPING WE CAN RETAIN THEM .

[02:10:03]

>> AND WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, CHEMICALS ARE INCLUDED IN THOSE BUDGET, YOU'VE GOT CHEMICALS THAT GO INTO THOSE THINGS, SO NONE OF THE MAINTENANCE IS INCLUDED IN ANY OF THOSE.

>> WE WILL HAVE TO INCREASE THE TRANSFER INTO THE PARKS. HE INCLUDED THE COST SO THAT TELLS US WE NEED TO DO A TRANSFER.

>> AND THAT WAS ONLY FOR PARKER OR WAS THAT FOR THE CHEMICALS OF THE SPLASH PAD'S, TO ? THAT WAS ONLY FOR THE PERSON THAT HE WANTS TO GET TO HANDLE THOSE THINGS AND BE ABLE TO WORK ON IT. WE REALLY NEED SOMEBODY THAT IS MORE OF A MECHANIC FOR THOSE PUMPS AND THINGS THAT GO OUT, SOMEBODY THAT CAN DO ALL.

>> IF YOU ARE DOING THE CHEMICALS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO

IT ALL. >> I THINK WE WILL SEE WHEN WE

GO OUT. >> ITEM NUMBER 36, THE SHERIFF CAME TO ME, WE HAVE BEEN UTILIZING THE SHERIFF'S PUBLIC LIAISON ASSISTANT FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, HE HAS GRACIOUSLY LET HER WORK FOR US AS WELL AND DO OUR THINGS AND CREATE THINGS ON OUR WEBPAGE AND GOT THE TRAINING AND ACCESS. SO HE IS ASKING BECAUSE WE IS HER AUNT BECAUSE -- AND BECAUSE WE SPLIT THE COST WITH THE COUNTY JUDGES OFFICE AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR US TO BOTH BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT. THAT'S THE 27 INCREASE. THE SECOND ITEM IS TO POSSIBLY, IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF OUR YEAR, PROBABLY FEBRUARY OR MARCH, GOING OUT FOR A BUDGET ACCOUNTANT, THAT IS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, ANSWERING TO THE COURT, LIKE STEVE WATERMAN USED TO BE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, WE ARE THINKING WITH DALE LEAVING, A NEW PERSON COMING IN, AND THEN WITH US GETTING READY FOR A NEW YEAR AND HAVING THAT PERSON AVAILABLE, WE THOUGHT BUDGETING FOR A HALF YEAR THIS FIRST YEAR TO GET SOMEBODY IN THAT CAN GIVE US INFORMATION TO WORK WITH US TO PLAN FOR THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. I'M ASKING FOR IT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE BUT I REALLY THINK IT IS A NECESSARY THING FOR THIS, I KNOW DALE ANSWERS TO THE BOARD OF JUDGES. WE NEED A PERSON THAT WE CAN GO TALK TO AND MAYBE RELIEVE THE PRESSURE OVER THERE AND WORK TOGETHER SO WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT AGAIN. THAT IS MY ASK.

>> IS THIS ON THE BUDGET ACCOUNTANT, IS THAT A DIFFERENT ROLE THAN WHAT TERESA CURRENTLY SERVES?

>> YES, TERESA HAS BEEN DOING THIS AS WELL FOR US, BUT SHE IS HERE AND HAS WORKED AT NIGHT AND ON THE WEEKENDS WITH ME, WHICH DEFINITELY NECESSARY. TERESA WORKS WITH US ON EACH OF OUR ACCOUNTS AND GETS US MONEY AND PAYS OUR BILLS AND APPROVES OUR INVOICES, THIS WOULD BE MORE LIKE A DALE POSITION.

>> IT IS NOT BUDGETED AT THAT LEVEL BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN MY POSITION, IT IS NEEDED, YOU KNOW WE HAVE TWO

BRAINS HERE WORKING TO HELP. >> YES, AND I'M NOT SURE IT IS BUDGETED CORRECTLY BECAUSE I THINK YOU ALMOST NEED A SKILLED PERSON IN THERE AS YOU WERE SAYING. IT IS JUST A START, IT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS TO HELP US TO HAVE ONE ON OUR SIDE LIKE HE USED TO HAVE, I THINK IT WORKS A LOT BETTER WHEN WE HAVE

SOMEONE. IT'S AN ASK. >> IF IT IS NEEDED, I WOULD SUPPORT IT. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE PUBLIC LIAISON ASSISTANT. MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, HOW DO YOU EQUITABLY SPLIT UP THE TIME SPENT BETWEEN OUR NEEDS AND THE SHERIFF'S NEEDS BECAUSE YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IS A FULL-TIME POSITION THAT NEEDS FULL-TIME PERSON DEDICATED TO DOING THAT. AND I KNOW THAT WE UTILIZE THIS POSITION TO HELP GET THE

[02:15:01]

>> I DEFINITELY KNOW BEING IN THIS OFFICE THAT THE POSITION IS JUSTIFIED THAT WE NEED IT, WHETHER I THINK WE SAW IT ESPECIALLY DURING EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT JUST IN OUR REGULAR, YOU KNOW, THE IRT, THIS IS A DIFFERENT EVENT WE ARE HAVING AT EACH OF OUR PRECINCTS AND THINGS. SOMEBODY THAT GOES AND REPRESENTS AND HELPS WITH THOSE QUICK RELEASES, DEALS WITH THE MEDIA, IT'S THAT NOTICE OUT, I WAS ASKING JUST TO START OUT SMALL BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A DIRECT COST, IF THE FUNDS ARE THERE, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE THIS NEEDS TO BE A FULL-TIME BUDGETED ITEM.

>> IT IS A SPLIT JOB, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU ARE WORKING ON A PROJECT AND YOU NEED, YOU KNOW --

>> WELL, IN HER DEFENSE, SHE HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE AND BEEN AT THE MEETINGS AND DONE THE POSTINGS, AND WAS THERE AT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS WEEKEND, SHE HAS DEFINITELY BEEN RESPONSIVE TO BOTH, BUT I THINK THAT THE SHERIFF WANTED TO RAISE HER UP AND THIS WAS JUST A NEGOTIATED WAY WHERE WE COULD RAISE HER UP AND STILL UTILIZE HER BECAUSE I WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS EMPLOYEE, FOR CERTAIN, YES.

>> WELL, LIKE I SAID, TO ME MAYBE WE START OFF WITH JUST A HALFTIME POSITION THAT IS SEPARATE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS HOW YOU SPLIT IT UP. BUT, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN EFFECTIVELY TO THE COMMUNITY WHERE THERE TAXPAYER MONEY GOES AND TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE EVENTS WE ARE DOING, ALL THE ACTIVITY WE ARE DOING INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A WHOLE, COLLECTIVELY THROUGH THE COMMUNITY AND TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF COUNTIES IN OUR AREA THAT DO THAT EFFECTIVELY, SIMILAR SIZED COUNTIES. AND I THINK IT IS HELPFUL SO THE PUBLIC CAN AT LEAST SEE THIS IS WHAT IS GOING ON AND THE PIECE MAILING WE ARE DOING IS HELPFUL, I THINK WE HAVE A BETTER SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE NOW THAN WE HAVE. BUT, IT HAS GOT TO GROW AND EXPAND.

I'M ALL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNING . MAYBE IF THIS IS THE YEAR WE START OFF WITH THIS AND SEE HOW IT LOOKS AND COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND LOOK AT MAYBE PUTTING UP A FULL-TIME POSITION. I WILL SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I FEEL BOTH POSITIONS ARE NEEDED AND WE CAN JUSTIFY THEM.

>> SO, IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPLIT WITH THE SHERIFF, THEN I WOULD ASK FOR IT TO BE FULL-TIME BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DO A

PART-TIME JOB. >> THE OTHER THING COULD BE, YOU CALL IT THE BUDGET ACCOUNTANT BUT YOU HAVEN'T REALLY DEFINED THAT PERSON EITHER, MAYBE THAT COULD BE THE PERSON THAT IS A P.I.O./BUDGET ACCOUNTANT. THAT MIGHT BE A HARD GOAL TO FILL, BUT MAYBE , BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT THAT ROLE IS YET AND WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO DO IT UNTIL NEXT YEAR ANYWAY SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DO IT BUT I'M OKAY WITH THE SPLIT TO START WITH BECAUSE I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER, WE TRIED AND IT HASN'T WORKED, BUT ALSO BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF MONEY, ONE OF THEM WAS ARPA FUNDED AND WE DIDN'T VOTE TO EXTEND ARPA MONEY INTO A FULL POSITION

[02:20:01]

IT IS UP FOR DEBATE. >> WE WILL WORK ON THAT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN COME UP WITH AS A PLAN MOVING FORWARD. BUT I APPRECIATE IT AND I THINK IT IS NECESSARY AND BOTH OF THOSE TWO POSITIONS WOULD BE ANSWERING TO THE FULL COURT, NOT TO THE COUNTY JUDGE, EXCUSE ME IF I MISREPRESENTED THAT. IT WOULD BE LIKE TERESA AND TARA. YES. MOVING ONTO 37 POINT

>> THIS YEAR BUT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR IT TO BE REMOVED. NONE OF THESE ARE IN THE BUDGET. 37, I PROPOSE WE MOVE AS WE HAVE THE CHANGES TO STAFF, SO I REVISED THE ADDITIONAL

PROPOSAL. >> BUT THEY PROVIDED A REVISION. DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE REVISION OR ARE YOU

NOT INCLUDING IT? >> FOR NOW, I WILL HOLD THAT OFF FOR NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE REPRESENTING THAT AT THE

MOMENT, NO. >> OKAY. NUMBER 38. THOSE ARE THE TWO POSITIONS THAT WE VOTED TO CONTINUE THAT WILL BE MOVED

FROM A GRANT TO THE COUNTY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET?

>> THE NUMBERS, THE VALUES ARE GOING TO BE REALLOCATED SO THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE BUDGET FOR THIS.

>> THE POSITIONS WILL BE MOVED. >> NUMBER 39, FOR THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY. >> THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS REQUESTING A SECOND ASSISTANT D.A., HE IS RELIEVING TWO POSITIONS FOR A NET SAVING OF $5868.

>> THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE THOSE POSITIONS ARE IN THERE SO THAT IS NOT AN INCREASE. THAT WOULD

BE A WASH. THAT IS A REDUCTION. >> BUT WHAT IS HE DOING WITH

THAT? >> HE IS CREATING A SECOND ASSISTANT. SO HE IS CREATING ANOTHER ASSISTANT D.A. NOT THE RECLASSIFICATION, HE IS CREATING A WHOLE NEW POSITION,

DELETING TWO POSITIONS. >> NUMBER 40, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WE HAVE TWO NEW POSITIONS FOR PATROL, A SERGEANT INVESTIGATOR. HE IS DELETING ONE POSITION, THE GAME ROOM ADMINISTRATOR POSITION, AND THERE IS A TRANSFER OF THE CRIME DATA CLERK FROM THE JAIL TO ADMIN, THAT INCREASE IS 100,000, AND IT IS COMBINED WITH NUMBER 41 BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE JAIL AND THE JAIL WAS THE POSITION THAT WAS GOING TO BE SHARED WITH THE COUNTY JUDGE AND THE CRIME DATA CLERK COMING OUT OF THE JAIL GOING INTO ADMIN SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE A SAVINGS OF $52,580 SO THE NET INCREASE BETWEEN BOTH

DEPARTMENTS IS $52,997. >> WITH ALL OF THOSE CHANGES.

>> TERESA, IS THE SHERIFF GIVING UP THAT OTHER POSITION

THAT JULIE HAD? >> YES, THEY ARE DELETING THAT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OVER?

>> THAT POSITION WILL BE DELETED. THAT IS HIS PROPOSAL.

[02:25:02]

>> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. >> HE WILL ABSORB IT, HE WILL

TAKE CARE OF IT. >> NUMBER 42, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAS REQUESTED AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST, IT IS $55,476 WITH THE SAVINGS FROM EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE 25,000, A NET INCREASE OF $34,000 FOR $76 -- 34 776. AND WE HAD TWO PEOPLE LOST AFTER THE ARBOR -- ARPA FUNDED POSITION BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE GRANTS ON THE DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY WERE REALLY SHORT ONE POSITION, SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL

PERSON THAT CAN HELP WITH THAT. >> NUMBER 43, THE DEPUTY CONSTABLE, IT IS A TRANSFER FROM AN ARPA POSITION, FOR

CONSTABLE PRECINCT FOUR. >> AND THAT IS ONE YOU WERE

PAYING FOR? >> IT HAS BEEN PAID FOR THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS FOR A WHILE, I THINK RACHELLE PAID FOR IT AT

FIRST. >> OKAY, I THOUGHT IT WAS YOUR

ARPA MONEY. >> IT WAS ARPA MONEY FROM THIS YEAR, BUT IT WAS VACANT, THEY ARE JUST NOW HIRING SOMEBODY.

>> THE CONSTABLE HAS BEEN REQUESTING IT FOR YEARS, SHERWOOD, THEY ALL REQUESTED IT AND IT HAS BEEN GRANT FUNDED.

IT HAS BEEN FILLED OVER TIME, JUST A GUY RETIRED AND IT TOOK

THEM A WHILE TO FILL IT. >> AND THAT IS CHANGING FROM ARPA TO GENERAL FUNDS, THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.

>> SO THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.

>> 44. 44 IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR SEPARATING PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING AND FACILITIES . THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HAS 50% OF HIS SALARY BUDGETED IN BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT, THAT WAS A. FOR B, CREATING A NEW POSITION FOR FACILITY DIRECTOR.

SO THAT IS AN INCREASE -- >> WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE BECAUSE OF OUR PROJECTS COMING UP AND ALL OF THE WORKLOAD, AND MAYBE SOME OF THE INCIDENTS THAT HAVE GONE ON AND THEY ARE HAVING TO NEED SOMEBODY FOCUSED MORE ON BUILDINGS AND MAINTENANCE AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE TWO MAJOR PROJECTS WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE COURTHOUSE. I THINK THAT WE ASKED THEM TO COME TO US WITH THIS SUGGESTION AND THEY NEVER HAVE SO THIS WAS JUST PUT ON BY MY OFFICE, JUST GIVING YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT WOULD COST, AS I SAID BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS FUNDABLE RIGHT NOW OR IF THIS IS ABLE TO BE DONE, BUT I THINK FOR THE FUTURE, JUST AN IDEA. WE HAD TALKED TO HIM ABOUT BRINGING IN A PROPOSAL AND WE HAVE YET TO RECEIVE ONE SO WE JUST THREW IT IN AT THE LAST MINUTE. I THINK THERE'S 48 EMPLOYEES WITH THE ROADS AND BRIDGES AND 29 OR SOMETHING, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME. EMPLOYEES WITH THE BUILDINGS AND MAINTENANCE, AND SOME OPEN POSITIONS THAT COULD GO. ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WAS POSSIBLY THE ENGINEERS, WHERE THEY WOULD GO BECAUSE THEY ARE A SEPARATE BUDGET ITEM, SO THIS IS A MAJOR UNDERTAKING, I'M NOT SURE THAT RIGHT NOW WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO TO START THE DISCUSSION.

>> WHERE ARE WE AT? I WOULD JUST MOVE ON AND WE WILL SEE MAYBE IF JUAN IS WATCHING, AND HE WAS TO BRING US SOMETHING

[02:30:04]

ABOUT IT, HE WILL. >> NUMBER 47, WE HAVE FIVE ARPA POSITIONS FOR NEXT YEAR, TRUCK DRIVER, DEPUTY CONSTABLE THREE, COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS AN OFFER, ATTORNEY TWO AND ATTORNEY FOUR AND DEPUTY CONSTABLE FOR PRECINCT 5 WHICH IS THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER. 242,000 IS THE COST FOR NEXT YEAR.

>> NONE OF THAT IS IN THE BUDGET. YOU HAVEN'T PUT IT IN.

ANYBODY HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? >> I THOUGHT WHEN ARPA

ESTABLISHES ITS POSITIONS -- >> RIGHT, BUT THESE ARE ALL ASKS BY SOMEONE TO KEEP THEM IN, SO THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD

HAVE TO CONSIDER. >> SO, IS THIS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED LATER? OR IS THIS THE TIME TO TALK, BECAUSE IF I HAVE FUNDING, THERE'S POSITIONS I WOULDN'T MIND SUPPORTING ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. I'M JUST SAYING, IN GENERAL. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS BUT, IF THERE ARE CERTAIN NEEDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. BUT ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT LATER? POINTING TO THE GRANT WORKS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT, IS THAT HOW

IT IS STRUCTURED TODAY? >> THEY ARE GOING TO GO OVER

THE GRANTS, THE STATUS POINT >> SO I WILL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE, FOR WHATEVER ELECTEDS AND DIRECTORS ARE LISTENING, ONCE AGAIN, IF I HAVE FUNDING THERE MIGHT BE SOME LIMITED SUPPORT. I WANT TO USE THAT UP.

>> I THINK WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, SINCE WE ARE IN THE WORKS, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR INPUT.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC BUT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, BY FRIDAY IF ANYBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, AND LET ME KNOW AS I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN DOING THAT.

>> RIGHT NOW, ALL THE POSITIONS ARE FUNDED FROM COUNTYWIDE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TRUCK DRIVER WHICH IS FUNDED FROM THE

COMMISSIONER >> POSITIONS LIKE THAT ARE HARD TO FILL, TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE COST OF BURDEN ON THE GENERAL FUND. BECAUSE THOSE ARE HARD TO FILL AND HARD TO RETAIN POSITIONS. SO THAT IS THE IDEA I'M THINKING. NOTHING SPECIFIC BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GO DOWN THAT PATH IF POSSIBLE.

>> TERESA , THAT IS FUNDED NOW BUT IT EXPIRES.

>> THAT IS FUNDED BY COUNTYWIDE FUNDS. IT IS NOT FROM YOUR COMMISSIONER, IT IS FROM THE COUNTYWIDE.

>> I THOUGHT MINE WAS SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE THIS DECEMBER OR

NOVEMBER. >> FOR WHICH ONE? THE SCHOOL RESOURCE? IT IS, IT IS COMING FROM COUNTYWIDE, IT IS NOT

COMING FROM YOUR FUNDS. >> OKAY, I'VE GOT TO HAVE MY

ARPA FUNDS. >> SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER. >> IT IS A DEPUTY CONSTABLE ONE. THAT'S WHAT WAS POSTED, THAT'S THE POSITION.

>> AND IT SAYS PRECINCT 5? >> IT IS FOR CONSTABLE PRECINCT 5, IT IS DEPUTY CONSTABLE ONE AND IT IS FUNDED FROM

COUNTYWIDE. >> OKAY, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT IS NOT MINE. MINE IS EXPIRED ALREADY.

>> YES, NUMBER 48, THE DISTRICT JUDGES COUNTY COURT JUDGES I MEAN WOULD LIKE TO EQUALIZE THEIR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER'S TO THE SAME LEVEL AS THE DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS. SO TO RECLASSIFY ALL FIVE POSITIONS, IT WOULD BE A

NET INCREASE OF $25,654. >> ARRAYS FOR THEM?

>> THEY WANT TO MAKE THE SAME PAY LEVEL AS THE DISTRICT

COURT. >> IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OR

[02:35:01]

THEY ARE JUST ASKING? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> THE DISTRICT COURT IS ALSO

ASKING FOR A RAISE. >> NO, YOU ARE ALL ON 48? AND 49 ARE THE COURT MANAGERS. THESE EMPLOYEES HAVE RECEIVED THEIR CERTIFICATIONS, SO THEY GET THE POLICY, BUT THESE ARE GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. AND YOU HAD THAT IN THE BUDGET?

>> NOT AT THE MOMENT, NO. >> AND IT MAY NOT BE THE EXACT TOTAL, IT IS GOING TO BE BUDGETED FOR NEXT YEAR BUT WHENEVER THE DOCUMENTS ARE TURNED INTO HR, THEY WILL PUT THAT EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IT. $40,870 INCREASE, IT IS NOT INCLUDED. NONE OF THE PERSONNEL IS INCLUDED. AND JUST TO NOTE, AS FAR AS THE TRANSFERS, THE INCREASE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE THE TRANSFER TO INLAND PARKS FOR PARKER PULL --

POOL. >> WE SAY PARKER POOL BUT WE SAY THAT BECAUSE WE MEAN PARKER POOL AND SPLASH PAD, WE NEED TO STRESS THAT . WE NEED A PERSON TO DO BOTH.

>> AND OF COURSE DALE HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE GRANT FOR THE TWO DEFENSE POSITIONS, WE MAY NOT TO HAVE TO MOVE THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT, BUT IT IS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET. AND THE INCREASE IS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET FOR THE OUTSIDE AGENCY

ALLOCATION. >> CORRECT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE AN AMOUNT FOR PARKER.

>> AND POSSIBLY DOING COLA AND THE ADDITIONAL COST, TO INCREASE THEIR EXPENSES WHICH MAY INCREASE THE TRANSFER, SO WE WILL HAVE AN ESTIMATE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

>> 51, WE ARE GOING TO INCLUDE THE $140,000 FOR THE PROPER BURIALS, TO TRANSFER COMING OUT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THAT BUDGET, SO IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL INCREASE, IT IS JUST GOING TO

BE TRANSFERRED. >> AND THAT SAME TOKEN, TRANSFERRING THAT AMOUNT, WE NEED TO ALSO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL OFFICE SUPPLIES AND INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE THIS COURT VOTED AFTER JJ AND HIS REQUEST, I THINK HE WANTS ONE OF THOSE PRINTERS AND WE NEED TO INCREASE THE SUPPLIES, WE DON'T JUST GIVE HIM ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND NOT INCREASE

THOSE. >> YES, SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS WOULD GO UP BUT IT IS OFFSET BY SOME OF THE DECREASES IN THAT

DEPARTMENT, YES. >> I HAD A MEETING WITH HIM YESTERDAY AND HE SAID HE ALREADY TURNED AND STUFF HIS

STUFF IN. >> WE WILL ENSURE THAT IS

ADDRESSED, YES. >> AND 52 POINT

>> THAT IS QUESTIONABLE, WE HAVE TO CHECK THAT OUT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AWARE AND WE PROBABLY ALSO NEED TO GET WITH -- DID I.T. BRING THIS? THEY ARE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY, WE NEED TO CHECK WITH THEM.

>> WE NEED TO CHECK WHETHER THIS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE SOME OF THE VEHICLES COULD POSSIBLY BE UPGRADED BUT, THE LAPTOP CAME WITH THAT OPTION, WINDOWS 11, SO MOST OF IT COULD BE EASILY UPDATED. WE HAVE TO CHECK WITH I.T. TO MAKE SURE

THAT IS POSSIBLE. >> YES, AND WE NEED TO CHECK WITH TERESA ON OUR END, YES. THAT'S THIS LIST.

>> DO YOU HAVE MORE TO ADDRESS ON YOURS, DALE, ON THE BUDGET?

>> NO OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS AT THE MOMENT.

>> OKAY. >> 51 AND 52 ARE INCLUDED OR

NOT? >> 51 IS A TRANSFER FROM THE DEPARTMENT SO IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET, 52 IS

NOT. >> WE ARE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT, MAYBE CREATING A CAPITAL PROJECT.

>> IF WE HAVE TO DO IT, WE ARE NOT SURE IF THAT IS REQUIRED YET, WE HAVE TO CHECK. JUAN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO

[02:40:06]

ADDRESS ? >> NO, JUDGE, I JUST CAME IN JUST IN CASE I HAD ANY QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. >> WE WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THAT IS A BIG STEP. OKAY.

>> HUGE. YES. YOU ARE DONE WITH THE COUNTY 24-25 BUDGET, I CAN

MOVE ONTO ARPA? >> WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO, WE

HAVE TO GO THROUGH K ? >> WHETHER WE CLEARED THE REVENUE FOR TAX VALUES, WE HAVE DONE A FEW SCENARIOS FOR K1 AND K2, AND K3 AND K4. FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE AREA, BUT IF I PUT IN FOR CONTINUANCE FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, INCREASES AND DECREASES FOR RETIREMENT AND POSSIBLY WITH VECTOR CONTROL HERE, THE 3.816 MILLION, IF YOU GO THROUGH K2, YOU WILL SEE AT THE VERY TOP, THE BUDGET AND THE REVENUE TAX VALUE, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE THIS YEAR. AGAIN, IF WE TALK ABOUT THE NUMBERS FOR BUDGET, THERE WOULD BE A DECREASE OF 14 MILLION BUT IF YOU ESTIMATE THE ACTUAL BASED ON 100% OF REVENUE, IT IS ABOUT 90% OF EXPENSES. WE WOULD BE AT $-2.2 MILLION INCREASE IF WE

ARE USING INCREASE OF TAX. >> IF WE DO THE NO NEW REVENUE?

>> YES. AND SAME SCENARIO FOR THE VOTER APPROVED VALUES, THE SAME NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE MEASURED BEFORE AND WE GO TO K4, WE SEE THAT OUR ESTIMATED ACTUAL WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF $1.9 MILLION. AND IF WE ASSUME THE UNUSED INCREMENTS ON OUR SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TAX VALUES, THE $6 MILLION AS UNUSED INCREMENTS, $7 MILLION AS UNUSED INCREMENTS

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> DID THEY HAVE THAT ONE?

>> NO, I'M GOING TO PRINT IT. >> WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT IF YOU TAKE 52 ON THAT WORKSHEET? AFTER YOU PUT IT IN AND TAKE IT OUT, DO YOU HAVE THAT ONE? OKAY, COULD YOU PROVIDE THAT? IN OTHER WORDS FOR THE COURT TO KNOW EXACTLY, WHAT ALL THE ASKS TOTAL, JUST WITH THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, AND IF YOU COULD ALSO PUT ON THE SHEET, WHAT COULD THE COURT DO WITH THE UNUSED INCREMENT. YOU KNOW THE LITTLE BUDGET SHEET THAT SAID IF THE COURT WANTED TO DO EVERY SINGLE THING ON THE LIST THAT TOTALED X AMOUNT, HOW MUCH WOULD THEY HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES, LIKE A LITTLE SUMMARY SO IT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL. AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER ASSET THE COMMISSIONERS CAN COME UP WITH, BUT SO FAR THIS IS THE ASK BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO ASK FOR, SO WHAT IS YOUR INCLINATION AND WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WE CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER, THAT IS JUST NOT FAIR TO ASK THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE A SUMMARY THAT SAYS HERE'S THE TOTAL AND I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO SIT THERE AND ADD IT UP WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS, BUT YOU CAN STILL GIVE ME

A SUMMARY SHEET BEFORE. >> YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING WAS WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, NOTHING WITH ONLY THE BASIC THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN, THE HEALTH INSURANCE, THE BIGGEST COST, OUR FUND BALANCE NEXT YEAR WITHOUT ANY OF THESE OTHER PAGE INCREASES IS A NEGATIVE 2.2. IF WE DO THE

NO NEW REVENUE TAX. >> I'M ASKING, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING RIGHT NOW. I'M SAYING, FOR YOU ALL, OR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE ANY COURTROOM DECISION, YOU WOULD

[02:45:04]

WHAT THEY ARE INCLINED TO DO. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT EVEN JUST MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX WITH JUST THE HEALTH INSURANCE OR WHATEVER, WE ARE ALREADY THE FUND BALANCE

AT -2. >> WE ARE GOING TO DIG IN $23 MILLION, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

>> ON YOUR PAGE, K1, IT SAYS NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, THIS BUDGETED ITEM AND OTHER CHANGES TO EXPENSES, JUST WITH THESE BASIC CHANGES, NOT THIS THREE-PAGE THING WE JUST WENT THROUGH, JUST WITH THE BASIC CHANGES, ADDING THE HEALTH INSURANCE ON K1, YOU ARE TELLING ME AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE NEGATIVE RESERVE FUNDS WOULD BE DOWN 2.2 MILLION.

EXACTLY, DOWN. YES. >> AND THAT IS WITHOUT THIS PAGE OF ITEMS. BUT THE ONES WE HAVE EX-SPY, NONE OF THOSE ARE INCLUDED.

>> BUT TO GIVE YOU THE INPUT THAT YOU WANT WITHOUT A SUMMARY

SHEET. >> IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO LUNCH BREAK, MY STAFF AND I CAN PUT THAT TOGETHER WILL QUICKLY AND

HAVE IT BACK BY LUNCH. >> AS LONG AS IT'S RIGHT, I

DON'T WANT TO RUSH YOU. >> IF YOU COULD DO THAT, AND WE COULD MAYBE TAKE A SHORT LUNCH AND THEN COME BACK AND START.

IF YOU ARE READY, WE WILL START WITH YOU, IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE ON. SINCE IT IS 11:30. WE CAN TAKE 30 MINUTES SO THEY CAN BE READY TO PRESENT THEIRS AND IF YOU ARE NOT READY, WE WILL START WITH LULU AND COME BACK. HOW LONG IS YOUR PRESENTATION, DO YOU THINK? WE COULD DO ARPA IF YOU WANTED TO.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY QUICK FOR ARPA.

>> LET'S DO IT. >> THIS IS IN A DIFFERENT BOOK THIS IS NOT IN THIS BOOK.

>> EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT. I THINK WE ARE PRETTY FAR DOWN ON THE ARPA MONEY SO IT SHOULD BE FAIRLY EASY, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF LEEWAY IN ANYTHING WE ARE

DOING. SO IF YOU WANT TO BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGE, I WANTED TO ADDRESS, GOING BACK TO METROCOM, I KNOW THAT WITH ARPA FUNDS, BACK IN JULY OF 2021, AGENDA ITEM 387, THERE WAS A COST THAT WAS USED WITH 546,621, SO WE COULD CONTINUE THAT PAYMENT FOR THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR. BUT OUR REMAINING FUNDS RIGHT NOW UNDER COUNTYWIDE IS 300 SOMETHING. IT IS 303,821 POINT

>> YES, AND WE LEFT THAT, WE WERE GOING TO BRING IT BACK.

[02:50:21]

>> I THOUGHT WE DID SOMETHING WITH THIS 331 AND PUT CONTINGENCY TOWARD SOME OTHER PROJECT.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT DOING IT, WE HAD THAT ON THERE.

>> WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT ABOUT USING THAT BUT IT WASN'T

BROUGHT BACK TO COURT. >> OKAY, AT LEAST I'M NOT

LOSING MY MIND. >> THERE WAS A QUESTION ON WHETHER, DEPENDING ON THE USAGE OR SOMETHING WHETHER WE COULD SPEND IT IN ARPA. THIS WAS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE, LET'S TAKE CARE OF THE DEBT FOR THE COUNTY.

>> THE SHERIFF BUYS A LOT OF STUFF, IT REALLY HELPS THE

COUNTY OUT. >> ALSO I WANTED TO TOUCH BASE ON YOUR REMAINING FUNDS, FOR CONSTABLE, YOU DID ALLOCATE SOME MONIES TOWARDS THE END OF THIS YEAR OR THE FISCAL YEAR, SEPTEMBER 30TH, BUT IF THAT POSITION IS GOING TO BE MOVED, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A REMAINING BALANCE.

>> WELL, MAYBE AS A PARTIAL IF THAT HELPS AROUND HERE, IT IS ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS THE CONSTABLE HAS REQUESTED FOR NOW, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE IT. THE CONSTABLE HAS REQUESTED THIS FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IT, AND WE HAVE COME UP WITH GRANTS AND I HAVE HELPED, AND I'M OUT OF ARPA FUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS GETTING THEIRS. IT IS THE CONSTABLE'S REQUEST THAT WE HAVE IT HONORED FOR FIVE YEARS, WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

>> YOU HAD YOUR MONEY ALLOCATED LAST YEAR AND IT WASN'T FILLED, IT JUST RECENTLY FILLED.

>> IT WAS PARTIALLY FILLED, IT WAS FILLED AND THE GUY RETIRED SO THERE'S LEFTOVER FUNDS AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SO IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO COVER IT FOR THE

WHOLE YEAR. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE

SALARY IS RIGHT NOW. >> IT WON'T COVER THE WHOLE

YEAR. >> WE HAVE TOO MUCH PAPERWORK

ALREADY. >> NO KIDDING. SO, WE SUPPORTED EVERY OTHER CONSTABLE AND THEIR REQUEST FOR THESE POSITIONS, I THINK THIS JUST NEEDS TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND BELIEVE ME, I CAN USE THOSE ARPA FUNDS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO NEED THEM FOR OTHER PROJECTS, TOO.

>> AND FOR THE REMAINING BALANCE, YOU DID HAVE 210, I

DID PARTIAL IT OUT. >> THAT IS GONE.

>> AND I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH BASE, COMMISSIONER, I KNOW THERE WAS TALK OF REALLOCATING SOME OF THE FUNDS THAT YOU HAD, $750,000, IS THAT GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR OTHER REQUESTS

THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW? >> I THINK WE HAVE ONE PROJECT WE ARE WORKING ON BUT, THERE WILL STILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING LEFTOVER, THAT IS THE ONLY PROJECT THAT EVERYTHING QUALIFIES FOR. I WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN FOR THE GREATER GOOD, FOR MY PREFERENCE, I HAVE ALWAYS SAID, USE IN THE PRECINCT 1ST AND USE COUNTYWIDE SECOND AND IF THERE'S ANY POSITIONS THAT ARE TIED INTO ANY OF THOSE, THE MICROSOFT CRITERIA, THEN GREAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEND IT BACK, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE USE OF IT. WE WILL FIND USE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION SINCE YOU ARE BOTH HERE AND THIS IS ABOUT THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATION AND FINANCIAL OBLIGATION AS WELL, THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS ON DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING IN ORDER TO PUT THIS INTO THE REPORTING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR GRANTS TO DO. I THINK YOU HAVE A CONTRACT OR LICENSE FOR THIS CERTAIN THING THAT WE DON'T HAVE, AH1 OR

[02:55:01]

THEM INTO THE PORTAL. >> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAN

BE UTILIZED WITH THE PROJECT ? >> THEY ARE GOING TO BE REPORTING IT, THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO HAVE YOU BOTH HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IN THE PAST I HAVE HAD LOTS OF MEETINGS WITH CUSTOMERS AND CONTRACTORS THAT ARE NOT GETTING PAID. WE ASK FOR IT ONE WAY AND THEN WE CHANGE IT LATER AND WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK, IT WILL COST THEM AND THEIR BUSINESSES.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE AGAIN. WE NEED TO KNOW IF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, THEY NEED TO BE AWARE THAT WHEN THEY GET THESE CONTRACTS AND THEY NEED TO BE TURNING IT IN ON A TIMELY BASIS. WHAT DO YOU ALL SUGGEST?

>> I'M REALLY GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE THE PAY APPLICATION HAS BEEN A THING LATELY. I ALSO THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION TO YOU, SO GRANT WORKS, WE DO NOT HAVE AN IAA LICENSE, SO MY RECOMMENDATION REALLY WAS THAT WE JUST, THAT THE COUNTY DECIDES ON A CONSISTENT POLICY AS YOU ARE SAYING SO WE DON'T HAVE ALL THIS CONFUSION AND THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PROJECTS. SO, WHAT HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER PROJECTS, IS THE ENGINEERS HAVE USED THEIR AIA DOCUMENTS AND THAT THEY HAVE THIS SUBSCRIPTION FOR. THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WITH THE ENGINEER TYPICALLY DOES, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, THEY REVIEW THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THEY SHOW THAT ON THE PAY APPLICATION, IT GETS NOTARIZED. SO THE PAY APPLICATION THAT I SAW THAT NUECES COUNTY HAS USED BEFORE, IT IS NOT A PAY APPLICATION, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SOME SORT OF INVOICE FORM. I'M NOT SURE, I CAN'T SPEAK TO IT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT YESTERDAY AND I THINK LULU SAID SHE CREATED

IT A COUPLE YEARS AGO. >> BUT IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE A

PAYROLL. PAY APPLICATION. >> SO THAT SPREADSHEET, THERE HAS BEEN TWO, IT IS KIND OF CONFUSING, SO THERE HAS BEEN TWO DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND FOR USE, IT HAS BEEN AIA PAY APPLICATION WHICH THE ENGINEER USES AND THERE'S THIS SPREADSHEET, I GUESS NUECES COUNTY HAS USED BEFORE ON OTHER PROJECTS BUT IT IS NOT A PAY APPLICATION. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT NUECES COUNTY COUNTY JUST USES THE AIA PAY APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR OTHER ARPA PROJECTS TO

STAY CONSISTENT. >> CAN DO ALL OF OUR ENGINEERS

HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AIA ? >> I'M NOT SURE, USUALLY --

>> SO HOW DO WE DO THAT, WE ARE ALREADY AWARDING CONTRACTS.

>> SO, IT IS NOT IN THE CONTRACT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR, FOR THE PRICING AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE TO BE ADDED BECAUSE PRIOR THEY WERE, SO THAT CAN LEAD TO A LOT OF CONFUSION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CONTRACTORS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET PAID? WHAT IS THE INVOICE SCHEDULE? YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO ADD SOMETHING THAT DETAILS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE PAID, THE PAY APPLICATION CAN BE ADDED TO THAT. TYPICALLY MY EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER COUNTIES AND CITIES, THE ENGINEERS HANDLE THE PAY APPLICATIONS. SO USUALLY THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ADDED TO THE CONTRACT, THE TEMPLATE

FOR THE PAY APPLICATION. >> SO IF THEY ARE UTILIZING IT, THIS INDIVIDUAL, AS THIS HAPPENED THE ONE TIME, WHAT WAS

THE CONFUSION ABOUT IT? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS BOTH OF

[03:00:07]

TO BE CONSISTENT BY ALL MEANS. >> AND I THINK IT HAS TO HAPPEN IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE THE CONTRACTS GO THROUGH LEGAL AND THE PUBLIC WORKS IS DOING SOMETHING AND EDWARD IS HANDLING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, SO I THINK IT JUST NEEDS TO BE A CONSISTENT PROCESS, WHATEVER IS DETERMINED BECAUSE AT PUBLIC WORKS, THIS IS THE PROCESS THEY USE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ENGINEER JUST

USES THE AIA PAY APPLICATION. >> WE HAVE IT IN PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT NOW, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> THE ENGINEER IT SEEMS THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE, THE PROJECTS THEY MANAGE AND ENGINEERS THEY WORK WITH, THEY

JUST USE OUTSIDE ENGINEERS. >> OKAY, YOU WERE CONFUSING ME

FOR A SECOND. >> I'M NOT CLEAR IF THE COUNTY HAS AN AIA SUBSCRIPTION, I'M NOT SURE. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS WHEN PUBLIC WORKS, THE PROJECTS THAT THEY MANAGE, THE ENGINEERS ON THOSE PROJECTS PROVIDE THIS AIA PAY APPLICATION.

>> MOVING FORWARD, AND QUICKLY BECAUSE ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE MOVING SO QUICKLY, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU ALL GET TOGETHER AND WHATEVER YOU DECIDE IT GOES TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, IT GOES TO PUBLIC WORKS AND EDWARD DOES A LOT OF THESE AND IT IS A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT FOR ALL COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING BUSINESS HERE BUT THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE OUT BUT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE BEFORE THEY GO OUT SO IT IS UNIVERSAL AND EVERYBODY GETS THE SAME RULES. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD WORK SOMETHING OUT SOON.

>> AND YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS BEFORE UNTIL WE STARTED WITH ARPA, SOMETHING KICKED IN, IT STARTED CHANGING.

>> THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MUCH MORE STRICT. YES.

>> BUT LOOKING FROM THE BEGINNING, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE GIVEN ENOUGH INSTRUCTIONS TO SAY THIS IS THE

WAY IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE. >> I THINK MOVING FORWARD, THIS HAS TO BE DONE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PEOPLE THAT IT IMPACTS AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A REQUIREMENT MOVING FORWARD AND EVERYBODY IS AWARE. KEEP THEM OUT OF MY OFFICE. THANK YOU. SORRY I HAD TO INTERRUPT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FINANCE PART OF IT, BUT THIS IS IMPACTING. AND FOR ANY OF YOU GUYS WHO ARE WATCHING AND THINKING WE ARE ADDING MORE RULES, THE RULES FOR FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MUCH MORE AND IF WE DON'T GET THIS DOCUMENTATION DONE RIGHT THEN WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT AND I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THE MONEY BUT WE HAVE TO SEND IT BACK BECAUSE WE DON'T GET TO UTILIZE THAT. SO IT COSTS THE COUNTY DOLLARS.

YES. >> OKAY, AND I GUESS REMAINING FUNDS, AND A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS COURT AGENDA ITEM, WE CAN PLACE THE EXCESS AND SEE WHERE WE ARE GOING TO

USE THOSE FUNDS FOR PAYROLL. >> WITH DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS OR WHATEVER IS LEFT IN THE COUNTY BUDGET.

>> YES POINT >> BUT THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED ON AS WELL, EVEN IN THE METROCOM AND WHAT WE TALKED

ABOUT THIS MORNING. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> ONE OTHER THING I WILL BRING UP, AND I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP IN ANOTHER COMMISSIONERS COURT IN LOST REVENUE, WE HAD SOME INDIVIDUALS, SOME WORKERS THAT BECAUSE OF NOT KNOWING ALL OF THIS AND BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK AND DO THE PAPERWORK, THEY WERE LEAVING THEIR PROJECTS IN THE LOST REVENUE PROJECT AND WE DO NOT NEED THOSE IN LOST REVENUE, THEY NEED TO DO PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND GET THOSE IN THE PROPER PLACE BECAUSE AT ONE POINT WE WERE OVER OUR ALLOCATION AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO CANCEL THE PROJECT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ROOM TO PUT IT IN LOST REVENUE.

SO I TALKED TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS AND I'M ASSUMING

[03:05:06]

TO PUT ANYTHING THAT GETS DONE. >> PRETTY MUCH EQUIPMENT, WE WOULD TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE FEMA, JUST TRACK EVERY SINGLE USAGE OF X EQUIPMENT. AND FOR OUR EMPLOYEES LISTENING, THAT IS ON YOU TO TRACK AND TURN IN THIS PAPERWORK WHEN IT IS REQUESTED BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DON'T. THANKS.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE COST TO THE COUNTY AND WHAT WE CAN FIND AND WHAT WE DON'T. AND WHEN YOU DON'T DO YOUR PART, IT KNOCKS A LOT OF OUR PROJECTS OUT AND COST THE COUNTY MONEY. GRANTS, ADMINISTRATION, WE WILL DO IT TILL 12, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH.

>> WHAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE AND WHAT IS PENDING AS FAR AS SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS, AND IF THERE WAS ANY MATCH TO THEM. SOME OF THEM CURRENTLY WILL END AUGUST 31ST, AND SOMEONE -- SOME WILL END IN OCTOBER AND DECEMBER AND JUNE OF NEXT YEAR BUT THE ONES WE APPLIED FOR, THE ONES THAT WILL HAVE A MATCH IS THE MARCH [INDISCERNIBLE] THAT IS THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS MATCH FOR NEXT YEAR, DO YOU HAVE THAT? WHAT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR IS 70,000 AS FAR AS PENDING APPLICATIONS. I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT THE PDO OFFICE , I HAVE A RECORD AS OF JUNE OR JULY, THEY HAVE 1.8 MILLION REMAINING TO BE USED, SO ALL OF THAT IS 100%

REIMBURSED . >> AND THE SAME TOKEN ON THIS, FOR ANYONE THAT IS PAYING ATTENTION OR FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, THIS SAME PROBLEM ARISES IN THIS DEPARTMENT WHEN WE GO AFTER GRANTS WHEN DEPARTMENTS ASK IF THEY CAN DO A GRANT AND THEN WE SAY YES AND THERE IS A ZERO AMOUNT OR IT COMES TO 20%, THEN WE CAN'T GET A HOLD OF THEM TO GET THE PAPERWORK AND DOCUMENTATION, SO THAT COULD COST THE COUNTY A LOT MORE MONEY, BUT YOU HAVE TO WHEN YOU TAKE THAT ON, WHEN YOU COME BEFORE THE COURT AND ASK IF YOU CAN DO A GRANT AND WE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO DO YOUR PART AND THE COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH WITH THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT SAYS THEY CAN TURN IT IN. I BELIEVE THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THERE, THE 116 ON THE GENERATORS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO EXTEND, AND WE CAN'T FIND PAPERWORK.

THERE WAS SOME COVID MONEY THAT WE SENT ALLOCATIONS FOR, WE HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR MUCH MORE PAPERWORK ON THAT, BUT THOSE THINGS COME BACK AND COST THE COUNTY IN OUR GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS WHEN WE DON'T GET REIMBURSED. THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERWORK IS CRITICAL TO ALL THESE THINGS, THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THEY WANTED ANOTHER PERSON UPSTAIRS, PAPERWORK IS MAJOR. GRANTS, DOCUMENTS, AND ALL OF THIS, TURNING IT IN ON TIME IF WE MISS A DEADLINE, IT WILL COST

US MONEY. >> YES, AND ON ANOTHER NOTE, IF THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS US TO APPLY AND WE GET AWARDED, THEN WE NEED TO CONTINUE WITH THE GRANT. WE GET AWARDED AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T UTILIZE IT . IT JUST SHOWS WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING WE ARE NOT SPENDING. WE APPLY FOR GRANTS, WE DON'T MANAGE THE GRANT, WE ARE NOT IN THE AUXILIARY COURT, ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE MANAGED FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

>> YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THAT GRANT ONCE YOU COME

[03:10:03]

BECAUSE THE MONEY SHOWED UP. >> SO YES, EVEN YESTERDAY WE GOT A LONG LIST OF REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION.

>> THIS WAS YEARS AGO INFORMATION AT TIMES AND YOU TELL ME HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND DOCUMENTS ON YOUR OWN, SO THAT IS WHY THIS STUFF HAS TO BE TURNED IN AND TIMELY , THEY NEED ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS, NOT JUST AT THE END OF THE GRANT WHEN YOU SPEND IT AND TRY TO COME UP AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND FIND THESE, THEY SHOULD BE TURNING

THESE IN ON A REGULAR BASIS. >> AND EVEN IF THE GRANT FINISHES, THEY ARE STILL AUDITING AND REQUESTING ITEMS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO SO IT IS BETTER TO GET IT UP-FRONT, REQUEST MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION THAN TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS LATER AND TRY TO REQUEST

SOMEBODY TO DO IT. >> ALL THE DEPARTMENTS CHANGE EVERYTHING, YES.

>> WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME IS THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON TOP OF ONE OF THEM, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE STILL HAVEN'T CLOSED THAT ONE OUT BUT WE DID PAY THE PERSON WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF IT, SO WHO DO WE BLAME, THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT, THE PERSON THAT WAS IN CHARGE OF IT, WE PAID HER OUT AND SHE WALKED AWAY AND NEVER CAME BACK AND SUBMITTED NOTHING. SO WHERE'S THE PAPERWORK? I DON'T KNOW IF THE GRANTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING WITH HER SIDE-BY-SIDE.

THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAVE SUBMITTED EVERYTHING SO I DON'T KNOW IF SHE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE SHE HAD, SO GIVE US THE PAPERWORK YOU GAVE SUSAN, WHATEVER HER NAME IS, SO WE AT LEAST KNOW WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE --

>> WE HAVE RECEIVED EVERYTHING AND WE SUBMITTED IT, THE LAST PAY REQUEST IS PENDING, ACTUALLY THE BOARD REQUESTED ME TO SUBMIT ANOTHER REQUEST FOR THE PARK WHICH HAS BEEN CLOSED, AND IT'S LIKE OKAY, THEY ARE STILL FINALIZING THINGS.

>> JUST SAYING THAT THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THEY DO HAVE THIS DRAINAGE, THE LAST REQUEST THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THEY ARE STILL REVIEWING IT, IT IS STILL PENDING, IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETELY REIMBURSED, BUT WHAT WE RECEIVED, WE WERE COPIED AND GIVEN THE PAPERWORK FROM SUSAN ROTH, WE WERE GIVEN THE INVOICES , SO WE HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND IT IS

PENDING AT THIS TIME. >> ARE WE GETTING CORRESPONDENCES BACK AND FORTH FROM WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT? I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING COME ACROSS BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMMUNICATING ON WHAT IS GOING ON. AND WE EVEN GOT SOMETHING BACK FROM FEMA AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW THEY DON'T GIVE YOU MUCH OF ANYTHING AFTER THAT , BUT GOING BACK TO AUGUST 20, 21? AND THIS HAPPENED IN AUGUST OF 2020 POINT

>> THIS WAS FROM HURRICANE HARVEY, WE WERE GIVEN UP-FRONT MONEY BY THE DAMAGES THAT WAS DONE BY THE PARKING LOT, AND IT WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY HANNAH, SO THE PARKING LOT CANNOT BE FIXED ANYMORE BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO BE, SO THOSE FUNDS HAD TO GO SOMEWHERE AND BE APPLIED SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND AS FAR AS THE GENERATORS, WE WERE AWARDED A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THE SCOPE OF MODIFICATION, THE BUDGET KEPT CHANGING AND INCREASING, SO THE 25-75 MATCH WAS NO LONGER THAT, IT BECAME THE COUNTY'S MATCH AT 65% AND THE FEMA MATCH WAS

LESS THAN THAT. >> DIDN'T WE SAY WE WERE GOING

[03:15:02]

>> NO. >> WE SHOULD HAVE, I THINK.

>> IT IS LISTED THERE, WHICH -- >> BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT SAYS CLOSED GRANTS PENDING, GRANTS CLOSE OUT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF

THEY ARE PENDING. >> THEY ARE CLOSED AS FAR AS WE CANNOT SUBMIT ANY MORE RECOMMENDATION, AND REQUESTING A DIFFERENT -- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAN WHAT WE DID SUBMIT. WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY CORRESPONDING, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT REQUEST INFORMATION ON THESE AND MANAGE THEM.

>> THE IN BETWEEN PERSON IS NOT PASSING THAT TO FEMA? WHAT IS

IT? >> THE FUNDING IS COMING FROM FEMA, THEY MANAGE IT, THAT IS THE MAIN CORRESPONDENT, THEY

REALLY DON'T COMMUNICATE >> I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT YOU KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT DOING IT. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WE SUBMIT THAT MUCH BAD INFORMATION OR NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, WE TALKED ABOUT FEMA HOW MANY TIMES, AND I KNOW BEFORE SUSAN LEFT AND RIGHT AFTER SHE LEFT, AND WE STILL DON'T GET ANYTHING. SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE, I WOULD THINK IF YOU WANT A PROJECT THAT IS DONE AND COMPLETED AND IT WAS APPROVED I THE BOARD, WHY IS IT STILL OPEN IF THEY APPROVED THE PROJECT? THAT IS ONE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THEY HAVEN'T PAID SUSAN WHAT THEY OWE HER, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN IT SHOULD BE A CLOSED PROJECT. WE ARE THE ONES HOLDING THE BAG

NOW. >> NOT ALWAYS NECESSARILY THAT, SIR. BUT, IT IS THEIR CLOSEOUT PERIOD, WE THINK THEY ARE DONE AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAY WE WERE MISSING THIS DOCUMENT.

>> I THINK IF I REMEMBER BACK --

>> WE TOLD HER WE WEREN'T PAYING HER ANYMORE WHICH IS WHY

SHE LEFT. >> SHE WAS SMART, SHE CHARGED THREE MONTHS AHEAD, SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, AND WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO. SO RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR SOMEBODY THAT DOES THAT, BUT ANYWAY, I JUST THINK, I DON'T KNOW, THIS WILL PROBABLY GO ON FOREVER. WHY WORRY ABOUT THEM, THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THERE. THIS HAS BEEN ALREADY HOW MANY YEARS WITH FEMA?

>> THAT IS TRUE, EVERYBODY THINKS THAT NOTHING GOES ON IN THAT OFFICE BUT THEY GET REQUEST FOR THINGS THAT HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO, NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO WERE IN THAT OFFICE AT THE TIME. NEITHER ONE OF THEM WERE.

>>

>> WE WILL HOLD IT BACK ANYWAY.

>> ISN'T SHE WORKING DOWN THE ROAD IN KINGSVILLE?

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT FEMA . >> THE LADY THAT WAS DOING THE

WORK? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

HOW WILL WE HOLD ONTO THIS THING HERE?

>> AGAIN. WE ARE AT THE BEHEST PICK THEY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE TO PROVIDE IT AND WE THINK IT'S CLOSED BUT EITHER THEY REOPEN IT OR IT STILL PENDING

>> HOW MANY YEARS -- THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. THERE ARE MANY

YEARS THAT GO PAST -- >> THE ANNEX, PERSONALLY, OVERSAW THE COLLECTION OF HURRICANE IKE. IT TOOK ME 10 YEARS TO 10 YEARS TO GET MY REIMBURSEMENT FOR BOB HALL PIER

FOR HURRICANE IKE. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHAT IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN . MANY YEARS THAT GO ON

WITH THESE. >> THE ANNEX GENERATORS WERE FROM THE 2015 BLOOD AND THEN THE COURTHOUSE GENERATORS ARE FROM HARVEY SO, YES, THEY CONTINUE AND UNTIL FEMA

[03:20:04]

>> WE CAN ADD TO IT UNLESS THEY CALL US WITH MORE INFORMATION.

>> CORRECT. >> THIS IS MONEY WE HAVEN'T

GOT BUT WE USED OUR MONEY. >> WE SPENT THE MONEY. IT'S ALL REIMBURSABLE . SO WE USE THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND OR

SOMETHING FROM SOMEWHERE. >> CORRECT.

>> THAT'S JUST MY POINT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS 11:58. WE ARE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY AND

WE WILL BE BACK SHORTLY. >> ONE QUICK COMMENT. THANK YOU TO TARA FOR PROVIDING THIS AND SENDING IT TO EMMA FOR WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET.

NINE OF THE 17 TAXING UNITS WOULD NEED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS DISAPPROVING THE APPROVAL BUDGET FOR THEIR BUDGET TO NOT TAKE EFFECT. SO WE DO HAVE SOME RAMIFICATIONS, SOME REMEDY. WE NEED TO GET EIGHT OTHER TAXING ENTITIES TO AGREE BUT IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING. THERE YOU GO.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL BE BACK SHORTLY. LET'S SAY AN HOUR? YOU NEED AN HOUR?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.