[00:00:02]
[Call to Order]
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025.THE RECORD SHOWED HIS 9 0 1 MOVE TO
[I.A. Discuss the OOG Cybersecurity Initiative grant and take any action the court deems necessary. (James Caywood/ Judge Deen)]
DISCUSS THE SKIDDER AND ACT UPON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS UNDER ITEM ONE APPROVAL AND DISCUSSING THE OOG CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.GRANT, TAKE ANY ACTION TO COURT DEEMS NECESSARY.
JAMES, UH, WANTED TO UPDATE THE COURT.
UH, LAST YEAR WE GOT APPROVAL TO GO OUT FOR, UH, HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
UH, WE WERE AWARDED THOSE GRANTS, UH, LAST YEAR TO COVER, UH, ONE OF OUR INITIATIVES.
HOWEVER, UH, WE WENT AHEAD AND PAID FOR IT, UH, UH, IN OCTOBER.
UH, THE GRANT FUNDING WAS NINE ONE.
USUALLY YOU GET APPROVAL LATER.
HOWEVER, WITH APPROVAL, THE GRANT FUNDING TERMS GOT MOVED OUT INTO, UH, NOVEMBER, I THINK, UH, 11 1 1, 11 1.
AND SO RIHANNA WORKED, UH, DILIGENT WITH THEM.
WE WORKED WITH THEM AND THEN THEY DECIDED IT WAS OUTSIDE THE GRANT FUNDING PERIOD.
SO WE WERE NOT AWARDED THOSE FUNDS TO COVER THAT, SO.
ANY QUESTIONS, ANY COMMENTS, ANYTHING ELSE? SO THE TOTAL, UM, OF THAT WAS 74,250.
AND BECAUSE AT THE TIME, UM, THE BUDGET WAS BEING ADOPTED, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A GRANT AWARD.
WE DID BUDGET THOSE FUNDS IN FUND 10, UM, JUST IN CASE.
AND SO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL FROM CONTINGENCY.
WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE THAT EXPENSE.
AND LIKE JAMES SAID, WE WORKED WITH THEM.
UM, THE WAY IT BASED SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS WORK IS NORMALLY YOU HAVE TO PAY, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE RECEIVING A MONTHLY BENEFIT, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE WHOLE ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION.
AND AGAIN, NORMALLY THEY DON'T CHANGE THE GRANT, PERIOD.
UM, IT WAS A PASS THROUGH FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SO WE DID, UM, THE FIRST TIME WE DID A QUARTERLY REPORT, WHICH WAS IN JANUARY.
UM, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
AND SO WHAT OUR GRANT ADVISOR OR GRANT MANAGER INSTRUCTED US TO DO IS IN OCTOBER, WHICH WOULD BE THE LAST, UM, MONTH OF THE GRANT, IS TO SUBMIT NEXT YEAR'S INVOICE.
SO WE DIDN'T LOSE OUT ON THE FUNDING.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE OPERATING AS BASED ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
WE ALSO ASK THEM TO ASK THEIR, UM, SUPERVISOR TO ENSURE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WHEN IT CAME TO THE END OF THE GRANT PERIOD.
AND SO WE ARE ASSURED, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS TOOK PLACE.
AND THEN WE RECEIVED, UM, AN EMAIL A COUPLE MONTHS AGO ASKING, YOU KNOW, WHY A PROJECT HAD NOT BEEN INITIATED.
UM, WE HAD PHONE CALLS WITH THEM, WROTE LETTERS, AND ULTIMATELY, UM, BASED ON OUR PHONE CALL IS KIND OF HIGHER UP, UM, FOR THOSE GRANT AWARDS THAT WERE LOOKING AT, UM, ANY SORT OF PROJECTS THAT HAD NOT COMMENCED YET.
AND SO BASICALLY THEY WERE, UH, PULLING FUNDING FROM THOSE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, BASED ON HOW THEY CHANGED THE GRANT, AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PROJECT WE HAD, WE DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY SORT OF LAPSE, UM, OR VULNERABILITIES IN CYBERSECURITY.
SO WE HAD TO, UM, GO ON WITH, WITH THAT INVOICE.
AND SO WE WERE, UM, TOLD THAT, UM, WE WILL NOT RECEIVE THIS GRANT FUNDING NEXT YEAR EITHER.
AND SO I ASKED AS TO WHY, UM, WE WOULDN'T GET IT.
AND SO BASICALLY, UM, THE, WHAT THE PROJECT, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY THAT WE APPLIED FOR IS SOMETHING THAT'S A RECURRING EXPENSE.
AND THEY SAID THE INTENT OF THIS GRANT IS NOT TO HAVE, UM, ONGOING RECURRING EXPENSES.
SO BASICALLY OUR PROJECT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THIS GRANT.
AND SO THOSE FUNDS ARE ALREADY BUDGETED IN FUND 10 AS WELL FOR NEXT YEAR.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON NEXT YEAR'S GRANT FUNDING AS WELL AS THIS YEAR'S.
ANY MORE? GOOD NEWS? I KNOW STARTING OFF
[I.B. Discuss/Take action regarding reimbursement from the General Fund to Precinct 3 for work completed on the parking lot at the Sheriffs Office Patrol Building. (Brianna Fowler/ Judge Deen)]
IS NECESSARY ON ITEM A AND MOVE TO ITEM B AND DISCUSS, TAKE ACTION REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PRECINCT THREE FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE PARKING LOT AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PATROL BUILDING, BRIANNA.OKAY, SO IN THE CURRENT, UM, FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGET, UM, LAST YEAR, THE COURT APPROVED FOR, UM, BASICALLY THE FINISH OUT OF THE PATROL BUILDING, UM, TO COME FROM THE TAX NOTE, WHICH INCLUDED, UM, ALL THE SIDEWALKS AS WELL AS THE, UM, PARKING LOT, SO ANY SORT
[00:05:01]
OF THE DIRT WORK AND ALL OF THAT.UM, SO IF WE LOOK AT, THERE WAS ABOUT, UM, 27,266 AND $44 BUDGETED FOR THE PARKING LOT.
UM, PRECINCT THREE PROVIDED THE COST OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS TO DO THE PARKING LOT, WHICH WAS 167,369 AND 45 CENTS.
THEREFORE, WE HAVE A SHORTAGE, UM, TO PAY FOR THIS J JUST A, JUST A COMMENT RIGHT THERE.
UH, THE SCOPE OF THAT JOB TURNED OUT TO BE MUCH GREATER THAN JUST THE PARKING LOT.
WE HAD, UH, CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL REMOVAL, UH, THAT WAS NOT DONE BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE CONTRACTORS THERE.
AND SO WE WOUND UP HAVING TO HAUL OFF OF LOTS OF DIRT, UH, DO LOTS OF DIRT WORK.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE THROUGH, UH, WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO DO THE PARKING LOT, THEN WE HAD TO GO BACK AND DO SOME DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE OF THE A DA, UH, UH, REGULATIONS AND, UH, VISIT THAT THEY HAD.
SO NOT JUST, JUST SIMPLE AS PAVING THE PARKING LOT, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO WITH THAT, UM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS REQUEST THE SHORTAGE FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, MY THOUGHT IS TO PAY FOR THE TOTAL COMING OUT OF THE TAX NOTE.
AND SO WHAT THIS WILL DO IS THIS WILL USE UP THE REMAINING TAX NOTE PROCEEDS.
SO WE HAD PROCEEDS OF $6 MILLION AND 72,000 OF THAT WAS FOR ISSUANCE COSTS.
SO THE REMAINDER COULD BE USED FOR PROJECT COSTS.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED INCEPTION TO DATE, WHICH RUNNING IT YESTERDAY, WE'VE RECEIVED $94,114 IN INTEREST.
WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE THAT INTEREST FOR PROJECTS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ARBITRAGE OR YIELD RESTRICTION REBATES.
UM, SO AS OF, UM, 9 30 20 24, WE HAD A, UM, YIELD RESTRICTION REBATE OF ABOUT 20,000.
SO THIS NOW EXPENDING ALL THE FUNDS WILL STOP THE CLOCK ON THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE DO OUR ARBITRAGE, UM, COMPLIANCE WORK, UH, FOR 9 30 25, WE WILL SEE WHAT OUR OVERALL LIABILITY IS.
SO WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR IS TO MOVE THE SHORTAGE, UM, FROM CONTINGENCY, WHICH BASED ON THE REMAINDER REMAINING OF THE EXPENSES FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR AND THE PARKING LOT, AND DEDUCTING THAT YIELD RESTRICTION THAT WE KNOW THAT WE ALREADY ARE GONNA HAVE TO PAY.
THAT LEAVES A SHORTAGE OF 65,000, ABOUT $930.
AND SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE TO MOVE THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, NEXT YEAR IF WE HAVE A ADDITIONAL THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY, WHICH I'M SURE WE WILL, THEN THAT SHORTAGE TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL.
SO WHO DREW UP THE DESIGN OF THAT PARKING LOT? IT'S A LOT OF WASTED AREA THERE.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE ASKED THAT QUESTION TOO.
THE, UH, THE, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, SOME OF THOSE DESIGN PROBLEMS THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING WERE, SO IT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY, UH, ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE REGARDING LANDSCAPING.
SO THOSE U-SHAPED DEALS RIGHT THERE, THAT PROBABLY COST US, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TO, TO POUR CONCRETE IN, BUT ALSO TO PAVE AROUND, UH, ARE ARE GONNA BE WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED.
IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK THEY'RE TREE SPACES, YEAH, THOSE TREE SPACES COST US NO TELLING HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL MONEY TO, UH, PAVE AROUND, BUT THE CITY MADE US DO THAT.
WAS THERE AN ARCHITECTURE OR ENGINEERING THAT DREW THE PLANS LIKE FOR THE A DA COMPLIANCE OR, YOU KNOW, SINCE THAT SEEMED TO COME UP, 11TH HOUR, BAIRD, HAMPTON OR BROWN? THEY DO THE PLANS.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE, UM, OVERSEEING THE, BASICALLY ALL THE ASPECTS OF IT.
BAIRD, HAMPTON BROWN? YES, SIR.
DO YOU KNOW WHO, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT? SHANNON.
AND THE, THAT, THAT TREE THING IS, IS CITY CODE FOR EVERY X AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES YOU HAVE TO HAVE A A TREE SPACE? YEAH.
THEY, THEY SPECIFY WHAT KIND OF TREE YOU GOTTA HAVE THERE.
CAN YOU HAVE A BANANA TREE THERE? I DUNNO.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS
[00:10:01]
FOR THE SHORTAGE, UM, FOR THIS PROJECT TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND, UM, AT THIS POINT, 65,930.AGAIN, WE'LL PROBABLY NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP THE ADDITIONAL INTEREST, UM, BECAUSE OF YIELD RESTRICTION ON ARBITRAGE, THEN AT THAT POINT, I'LL COME TO THE COURT TO ASK FOR THAT REMAINDER TO COME IN FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT.
BUT THIS WILL AT LEAST STOP THE CLOCK.
SO WE CAN DO THAT FINAL CALCULATION ON THESE TAX NOTE FUNDS.
I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CLARIFICATION.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS NOT TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.
UH, THIS IS FOR THE ACTUAL WORK COMPLETED AT THE RATE THAT WE, UH, AT THE FEMA RATE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT, NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, WE DIDN'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT'S, WE'RE IT'S THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS REQUIRED TO GET THE JOB DONE AT THE RATE THAT WE HAVE TO USE.
SO, UH, THERE'S MY MOTION, I MOTION, I I AGAIN, UH, WE WOUND UP DOING WHAT OTHERS EITHER DIDN'T WANT TO DO OR WEREN'T REQUIRED TO DO.
MOTION BE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR CARRIED ABOUT THAT.
[I.C. Discuss 2025 insurance claims and take any action the court deems necessary. (Kim Rivas/ Judge Deen)]
C ON DISCUSSED 2025 INSURANCE CLAIMS AND TAKE ANY ACTION COURT DEEMS NECESSARY.SO WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT STORMS THAT WE HAVE CLAIMS FOR.
THE FIRST ONE WAS IN THE JUNE 1ST, UM, HAILSTORM THAT DAMAGED SOME PROPERTY HERE IN THE COUNTY.
AND THEN SOME VEHICLES, AND I'LL START WITH THE, THE VEHICLES IN THIS SHEET RIGHT HERE IS ALL THE VEHICLES THAT WERE DAMAGED THAT STILL HAVE NOT BEEN REPAIRED.
WE'RE WAITING FOR THE BODY SHOPS.
UM, WE'RE IN LINE AND THERE'S ABOUT 14 OF THOSE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FUNDS FROM TAC AND WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE REPAIRS.
AND SO WE'D LIKE TO ROLL THE 110,483 TO THE 26TH BUDGET TO COMPLETE THESE REPAIRS.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONING IN DISCUSSION.
SO WE ALSO HAD ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THAT STORM.
UM, THE SPREADSHEET THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS YEAH.
HAS A DETAIL OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND THE AMOUNTS.
SO THERE'S A NON AESTHETIC, WHICH IS FUNCTIONAL DAMAGE IN THE FIRST COLUMN OR THE THIRD COLUMN, AND THEN WHAT THE DEPRECIABLE AMOUNT ON THAT, AND THEN WHAT THE AMOUNT THAT, UM, IS ALLOWABLE ON THE FUNCTIONAL SIDE.
SO THAT TOTAL IT UP TO 337,000 773 86.
AND THEN THE AESTHETIC REPAIRS TOTAL IT UP TO, UM, 3.8 MILLION, LESS THE DE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT OF 1.1 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF $2.7 MILLION FOR THE AESTHETIC REPAIRS.
WE HAVE A LIMIT OF $500,000 FOR AESTHETIC REPAIRS.
SO IF, UM,
WE CAN USE IT FOR ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE PLANS FOR.
AND, UM, GO AHEAD AND CLAIM THAT WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED 287,000 OF THE 3 37 FOR THE FUNCTIONAL, AND SO WE COULD RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE POINT OR 545,000 ON TOP OF THAT.
AND THEN THE 500,000, SO FOR A TOTAL OF 1.383 AND $81, UM, TOTAL THAT WE COULD RECEIVE FROM TAC FOR ALL OF THESE REPAIRS.
AND THAT INCLUDES A DEPRECIABLE AMOUNT PLUS THE FUNCTIONAL THAT IS ALREADY BEEN PAID, AND THEN THE $500,000 FOR THE AESTHETIC LIMIT.
THERE'S A LITTLE EMAIL HERE FROM TACK FROM BRETT ANDERSON THAT EXPLAINS WHAT WE CAN USE, UM, ALL OF THE PROCEEDS FOR IF WE DON'T REPAIR SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS AND SOME OF THE BUILDINGS LIKE THE JUVENILE PROBATION BUILDING, THERE'S NO POINT IN REPAIRING THAT THE, UM, PROPERTY ON BETHEL FOR THE TRAINING CENTER, IF THAT IS STILL GOING TO BE REMOVED IN THE COMING YEARS FOR TAX SOLID TO WIDEN THAT ROAD.
NO SENSE IN, UH, REPAIRING THAT ONE.
MARK WONG HAS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE
[00:15:01]
TO, WE FEELS LIKE WE NEED TO REPAIR THE CSCD BUILDING, THE JAIL AND JUSTICE CENTER, OBVIOUSLY, AND THEN THE SENIOR CITIZENS BUILDING THE, UH, MOST OF THE DAMAGE HERE ON THIS, THIS BUILDING WAS ALL AESTHETIC.WHAT KIND OF DAMAGE DID WE HAVE ON THE SENIOR CITIZEN BUILDING? UM, I, I'VE GOT A, I CAN SEND YOU ALL THE DETAIL OF WHAT THE DAMAGE IS ON IT.
IT'S JUST ROOF REPAIR THE ROOF.
DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW, IS IT ROOF? IT'S IT'S ROOF, YEAH.
SO ANYWAY, WE CAN TAKE THE, THE PROCEEDS, THE REVENUE FROM THESE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA REPAIR AND USE ON ONCE ONE OF THE OTHERS.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT? NO.
AND THEY'RE JUST CLARIFYING THIS ONE.
THERE'S JUST AESTHETICALLY OR YOU SAYING JUST SOME DENTS.
SO NO, NO, NO FUNCTION WHERE THERE'S RISK TO THE INTERIOR.
WELL, THE FUNCTIONALITY ON THIS BUILDING WAS THE WINDOWS AND THEY'VE BEEN REPAIRED, BUT THE ROOF ITSELF WE'RE OKAY.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.
AND THEN ONE OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM WE HAD OUT AT PRECINCT THREE.
THERE WAS A WIND EVENT ON AUGUST 4TH AND THE DAMAGE TOTAL WAS 161,139.
UM, THAT IS ALSO HAS A $50,000 DEDUCTIBLE IN IT.
SO WE COULD RECEIVE A TOTAL OF 111,139 IF YOU ALL APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THAT FROM TAC TODAY.
YEAH, THAT, THAT WILL GIVE US THE, UH, ENOUGH MONEY TO REPLACE THE BUILDING THAT WAS DESTROYED AND, UH, MOVE THAT WE, UH, FOLLOW THE PATH.
MOTION IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE PAPER.
[II.D. Salaries and Benefits for Non-Elected Employees. (Becky McCullough/ Judge Deen)]
TWO ON THE PRESENT.DISCUSS APPROVED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 20 25, 20 26 FISCAL YEAR, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO YOUR ITEM.
MAY CAN WE GO TO, UM, THE SALARY SECTION? JUST WAIT ONE PERIOD, WE GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
SO YOU WANNA GO TO WHICH ONE? UH, THE SALARY ITEM D.
HAS THE ITEM D BENEFITS FAIR TO GET TO SALARIES BENEFITS FOR NON ELECTED EMPLOYEES? YES.
UM, SO ONE ITEM THERE IS A POSITION THAT'S FUNDED BY A GRANT.
UM, IT'S THE, UH, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE IT IN HERE.
UM, THE JUVENILE TRUANCY PREVENTION GRANT.
UM, HISTORICALLY THIS GRANT COVERED THE FULL SALARY AND BENEFITS, UM, OF THIS POSITION.
UM, A COUPLE FISCAL YEARS AGO, UH, THE GRANT, UM, STOPPED COVERING THE FULL AMOUNT.
AND SO BASICALLY THE SHORTAGE WAS COVERED FROM FEES COLLECTED IN 1 73, WHICH IS THE JUVENILE CASE MANAGER FUND.
UM, WE HAD THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DUTIES BEING PERFORMED BY THIS POSITION, UM, WE COULD USE THOSE FUNDS TO COVER THAT SHORTAGE.
UM, IN THE RECENT WEEKS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT I'M NOT SURE IF THESE DUTIES HAVE CHANGED OR WHAT IT IS, BUT, UM, THAT THE DUTIES BEING PERFORMED BY THIS POSITION, WE ARE ABLE TO USE THOSE FEES TO COVER THAT.
UM, THE OTHER THING IS, UM, WHEN THIS, AGAIN, WHEN THIS GRANT WAS FIRST INITIATED, UM, IT WAS COVERING THE EMPLOYEE AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYER'S, UH, PORTION OF INSURANCE.
SO AT THIS POINT, UM, THIS POSITION, THE PERSON IN THIS POSITION IS THE ONLY COUNTY EMPLOYEE THAT IS NOT PAYING THEIR OWN PORTION OF THE EMPLOYEE INSURANCE.
AND SO, UM, FOR YOU ALL, I GUESS THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, THIS EMPLOYEE START TO PAY THEIR OWN INSURANCE PREMIUMS JUST AS EVERY OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEE DOES.
SO THAT BRINGS THAT SHORTAGE DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
AND THEN THE REMAINDER, UM, WOULD COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THAT GRANT CAN BE, UM, THE SCOPE OF IT TO BE EXPANDED, UM, SO THAT WAY WE CAN USE THOSE OTHER FEES OR TO REALLY KIND OF DIG INTO THOSE OTHER FEES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'D BE ALLOWABLE.
BUT AT THIS TIME, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WE CAN USE THOSE OTHER FEES COLLECTED IN THAT FUND TO, UM, COVER THE SHORTAGE, WHICH IF WE, UM, REMOVE THE EMPLOYEE'S PORTION OF THE INSURANCE THAT'S BEEN BEING PAID, THEN IT WOULD LEAVE AN OVERALL SHORTAGE, UM, TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF $2,765.
SO, UM, BECAUSE YOU ALL SET THE SALARY AND BENEFITS OF EACH, UM, POSITION, UM, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE THE ACTION WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE THIS
[00:20:01]
EMPLOYEE TO, UM, PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE.ANY DISCUSSION, ALL THE LABOR MOTION CARRIES ABOUT THAT.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF THIS WOULD BE FOR THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THAT SHORTAGE.
AGAIN, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK WHETHER, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WE CAN USE THOSE FEES, BUT AT THIS TIME IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'LL BE ABLE TO.
SO AGAIN, THAT SHORTAGE WOULD BE, UH, FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR, 2,765 MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE LEADING THE DISCUSSION.
CURIOUS ABOUT, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, THIS IS THE SECOND GRANT THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE NEW POSITION IS ABLE TO STEP IN AND MAYBE HELP US WITH? I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ON THE LIST.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDED IF IT'S NOT, YES.
I MEAN THAT'S SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WHEN CREATING THAT POSITION AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT NICKEL AND DOM START TO ADD UP.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND TO MENTION IT NOW.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE MORE THAT SHE TAKES OWNERSHIP OF GETTING HER FEET ON THE GROUND, WHICH SHE'S DONE VERY WELL AND I THINK JUST PUTTING THAT AND TRYING TO GET THAT MANAGED BETTER AND HAVING SOMEBODY DEDICATED TO THAT'S GONNA HELP ALL WORK.
NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I, THAT'S THE WAY I THOUGHT IT WAS INTENDED TO WORK, SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT NOW SINCE WE'RE HAVING SOME PAINS WITH IT.
IT JUST SHOWS THE NEED FOR IT THAT WE'VE HAD FOR FINAL LAW.
OKAY, SO I GAVE YOU EACH SOME HANDOUTS.
THIS ONE WITH ALL THE SPREADSHEET LINES AND STUFF.
THIS IS REGARDING SB 22 FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED THAT THE 4% COLA BE ON THEIR SB 22 SUPPLEMENTS AS WELL.
I DID NOT FACTOR THAT IN WHEN I GAVE YOU NUMBERS FOR THE COLAS.
UM, BECAUSE SINCE THESE ARE A SUPPLEMENT, IT'S NOT PART OF THEIR COUNTY BASED SALARY.
SO TYPICALLY THE COLA ONLY GOES ON COUNTY BASED SALARY AND NOT THE SUPPLEMENT.
SO, UH, FOR THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND THE INVESTIGATORS, THE TOTAL COST WOULD BE 7,515.
UH, I DID TALK TO THE DA BRIEFER BRIEFLY, UM, AND HE SAID HE KIND OF HAD MIXED EMOTIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT HE SAID IF IT WAS APPROVED FOR ONE, HE FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR BOTH FOR HIS ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS.
THAT TOTAL COST WOULD BE 4,531.
UH, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES HA DOES HAVE ONE POSITION THAT IS COMPLETELY PAID BY SB 22.
SO THAT 4% COLA ALSO IN TOTAL COST WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND IF, AND THAT ONE I DID FACTOR IN, IT'S THE INCREASES TO JUST THE SUPPLEMENTS.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO DO.
SO THE, I'M SITTING HERE LOOKING AT IT, WE GOT A SB 22 COLUMN, A 4% COLUMN, AND I GUESS THE O OTHER COLUMN OVER USING, THAT'S THE TOTAL, IF YOU TOTAL OF THE, IF YOU PUT THE SUPPLEMENT ON TOP OF THE SB 22, A TOTAL OF INCREASE OF THE SALARY OVER WHAT THEY'RE MAKING NOW? NO, JUST ON THE SB 22, THE 4% COLA WAS DONE ON TOP OF THEIR SALARY THAT WAS INCLUDED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TOTAL INCREASE, HOWEVER, COLUMN THAT NUMBER IS, I, I DID NOT BRING A BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL OFFICE.
THIS WAS KIND OF A LAST MINUTE.
SO I'M SITTING HERE LOOKING AT, FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAYS ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY UHHUH
4% MORE ON THAT WOULD BE, SO 4 48, THE 7,515, THAT IS TOTAL COST.
SO THE 6,000 192 51, THAT'S JUST THE SALARY PORTION INCREASE.
THE 7,515 WOULD BE THE TOTAL COST INCREASE BASED ON THIS, THE 4% TOTAL INCREASE YES.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT.
OH, THE, THE THIRD COLUMN OVER HERE USE THE FIRST ONE FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S 11,000, THE 4% IS FOUR 40 AND THEN HAS 11,440.
WHAT IS THAT? 11,440? IS THAT AN INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR'S SALARY? NO, THAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE SB 22.
BUT ONLY 11,000 WOULD COME FROM SB 22.
THE FOUR 40 IS GONNA HAVE TO COME FROM FUND 10 IF THIS IS APPROVED.
OKAY, SO THE TOTAL, THE TOTAL FOR DOING THAT 4% FOR EVERYBODY IS 75 15? YES.
AND THEN DOWN FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS 4,500? YES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS.
I, I, I RECOGNIZE THE, UH, UH, THE DIFFICULTY IN KEEPING THE, UH,
[00:25:01]
ASSISTANT, UH, COUNTY AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, UH, BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THEY WOULD HAVE IN OTHER POSITIONS AND OTHER PLACES IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PLACES TO KEEP HERE IN THE COUNTY.UH, NO MORE THAN WHAT THIS COST IS.
I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE, UH, INCREASE BOTH OF THOSE, ALLOW THE 4% AND BOTH THE, THE, UH, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL OF FAVOR MOTION CARRIES BY, THAT INCLUDES THE CPS PARALEGAL AT THE TOP, RIGHT? YES.
UM, THE NEXT THINGS I DID, I ALWAYS PROVIDE THE, UM, THE COURT ORDERS THAT COME IN FROM THE DISTRICT OFFICES, UM, FOR COURT REPORTERS.
UH, THIS WAS, I'VE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS A 4% INCREASE TO COURT REPORTERS.
UM, THERE'S ALSO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BUDGET THAT HAS THEIR INCREASES.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A MEMO REGARDING THE COURT COORDINATORS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE CCL COURTS.
UM, THIS IS NOT A COURT ORDER, IT'S A MEMO.
Y'ALL CAN ACCEPT THIS OR CHANGE IT, KEEP IT AT THE 4%.
THIS ONE Y'ALL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION OVER.
SO, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE PAGE HERE.
IT SAYS MEMORANDUM ON THE FRONT AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YES, THE, UH, THE COUNTY COURT LAW COURT COORDINATORS AND THE DISTRICT COURT COORDINATORS AND THE DIS DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS AT LAW COURT COORDINATORS.
AND THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT THE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THEM WOULD BE $97,535 PER YEAR.
AND I'M SEEING A NOTE ON HERE THAT THAT WOULD BE A 16% INCREASE OVER WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY MAKING.
AND AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT WE HAVE, THE COURT HAS DISCRETION OVER THAT HERE.
COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS DISCRETION OVER THOSE SALARY.
THERE'S AN OPINION, IT'S JUST FROM GOVERNMENT CODE.
UM, IT JUST SAYS THE, THE JUDGES SHALL DETERMINE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE COURT COORDINATOR COORDINATOR, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT UPON APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF THE POSITION AND COMPENSATION.
THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF THE COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY FUNDING THROUGH THE COUNTY'S BUDGET PROCESS.
COUNTY FUNDS MAY BE SUPPLEMENTED IN WHOLE OR PART THROUGH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE GRANTS.
SO THAT'S JUST THAT SECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND FROM THAT, THE QUESTION THAT THAT GENERATES FOR ME IS, UH, WHAT IF WE, UH, DO NOT ACCEPT THAT AND THEN WE, WE FALL BACK TO THE 4% THAT OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RECEIVE.
ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT? IS THIS A YES OR NO? OR IS ARE WE ABLE TO SET THOSE SALARIES? THAT'S JUST WHAT GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT I GOT IT.
I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO THAT.
SHE'S JUST READING THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
IT'S NOT, IT'S REALLY NOT HER POSITION.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT YOUR POSITION TO BE INTERPRETING THE LAW FOR US.
SHE'S JUST GIVING US THE CODE.
AND DO YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF WHAT THOSE PER THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE PAID? CURRENTLY? IT WOULD BE AN 16% INCREASE EACH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT EACH COURT HAS TWO COORDINATORS.
UM, I DIDN'T BRING MY LAPTOP, SO THAT WOULD BE TWO.
I DID, I JUST RAN THE NUMBERS.
YES, I WOULD CURRENTLY AROUND 84,000, $81 90 CENTS IF THAT NUMBER THERE IS A 16% INCREASE.
SO FROM 84 TO 9 7 5, I GUESS TO ADD ON WHAT COMMISSIONER WALDEN'S ASKED, I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST, THE, THE OH FOUR WOULD PUT 'EM AT 87 4 45.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, IT'S WHAT I'M HEARING IN THE, IN THE CODE THAT'S BEING QUOTED TO ME.
BUT I, I'M NOT ASKING MY QUESTION IS, UH, DO WE JUST SAY NO AND THEY COME BACK, OR ARE WE ABLE TO SET THOSE SALARIES? SO, UM, WHAT WE, WHAT WE TRIED TO DO PREVIOUSLY WAS KEEP THOSE IN LINE WITH WHAT, UH, YOU KNOW, OFFICE MANAGERS MAKE IN OTHER AREAS.
UH, YEAH, BASICALLY THEY TOOK THE SALARY SCHEDULE AND THIS WAS THE MAX SALARY FOR THOSE POSITIONS.
SO YOU MAY HAVE JUST ANSWERED IT, BECKY, BUT THE JUDGE'S JOB IS TO DETERMINE REASONABLE COMPENSATION.
DID THEY GIVE ANY INDICATION ON HOW THEY ARRIVED AT
[00:30:01]
WHY THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS? OH, OH, WE HAVE NUMBER FOUR.I BELIEVE THEY STUDIED, THEY LOOKED AT THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
I DID EXPLAIN, UM, THAT MAX IS JUST, THAT, THAT'S MAX'S SALARY.
AND IF THE COURT DOESN'T APPROVE TO EVER ROLL THAT SCHEDULE, THEN THAT'S IT.
THIS POSITION WILL GET, THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY PICKED.
SO NOW IF COURT DECIDES TO ROLL THE SCHEDULE AT A LATER TIME, THEN THERE COULD BE, I MEAN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS I KNOW WE'VE HAD IS THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A JOB PAYS THIS MUCH AND AT SOME POINT THAT'S JUST WHAT IT PAYS.
SO I DO KNOW THAT, UM, I SEE JOLIE JOLIE WALKED IN.
THERE'S OTHER COURT COORDINATORS CLEARLY ACROSS THE COUNTY AND JP COURTS.
UM, I BELIEVE THE COUNTY CLERKS, THE DISTRICT CLERKS ALSO KIND OF LOOK AT THIS SALARY AS MOVING FORWARD IS WHERE TO PUT THEIR CHIEFS, OFFICE, MANAGERS OF PRECINCTS, OFFICE MANAGERS OF PRECINCTS, CHIEF DEPUTIES.
I GUESS MY POINT IN THIS IS THAT THIS, THIS IS NOT JUST THE SALARY FOR THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, IS IT HOW IT AFFECTS THE OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES? AND WHAT I'VE TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT IS HOW SOME OF THESE SALARIES THAT WERE BEING HANDED, UH, DICTATED, MANDATED TO US TO APPROVE HOW THEY AFFECT THE OTHER SALARIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.
AND THE, THE, THE, UH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
I, UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHETHER WE, UH, ARE ABLE TO GO BACK AND SET THIS SALARY AT 4% ABOVE, UH, PREVIOUS AS WE HAVE DONE FOR OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES LIKE THAT, OR IF WE ARE SIMPLY IN A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD REJECT THAT SALARY AND REMAND IT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURTS.
AND THAT'S A GRAY AREA FOR ME NOW, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
CAN WE ASK JOHN FORREST, COME BACK? THINK PROBABLY WITHOUT, MY QUESTION IS WITHOUT, UH, UH, PROBABLY AN AG OPINION.
WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TAKEN PLACE IN OTHER PLACES OR NOT.
SO THAT WE, WE WOULD KNOW, UH, I SUPPOSE PROBABLY WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT WE, UH, MAKE A DECISION AND THEN
SO I HAVE, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
UH, IS THERE A TIMELINE ON THIS? BECAUSE WE THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE OTHER SALARY GRIEVANCES HERE? NO, NO, NO.
ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE THE ONLY SALARY GRIEVANCE IN THAT TIME HAS PASSED.
THE, THE, THE CURRENT AMOUNTS, THANK GOODNESS, THE 84,000 THAT YOU MENTIONED MM-HMM
THAT'S WHAT THE JP COURT COORDINATORS MAKE AS WELL.
I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THE PRECINCT BARNES SUSTAIN.
I WAS THAT WE SET THAT PROBABLY IN RELATION TO WHAT IT HAD BEEN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THEN THEY GOT AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE LIKE THIS AFTER THE FACT LAST YEAR AS WELL.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE ON THAT, BUT IN MY MIND, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO YEAH.
TO, YOU KNOW, I, I I DID EXPLAIN THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
YOU KNOW, MOST COUNTY EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE FALL BETWEEN MID AND MAX.
OBVIOUSLY AS NEW EMPLOYEES COME ON, THEY START BETWEEN MINIMUM AND MID.
SO THERE'S JUST BEEN MORE INTEREST THIS YEAR TO MOVE PEOPLE TO THE MAX X.
IT'S, IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION, UH, TO KNOW THE CORRECT THING, UH, TO DO.
AGAIN, UH, THE MAJORITY OF, OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD A 4% INCREASE.
COUNTYWIDE, UH, THE, THESE SALARIES WILL AFFECT OTHER SALARIES ACROSS THE, ACROSS THE BOARD, ABSOLUTELY.
SO, UH, I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE, UH, UH, SET THOSE SALARIES FOR THE, UH, DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURT COORDINATORS AT, UH, 4% ABOVE PREVIOUS YEARS.
TO CLARIFY YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER, TO TAKE THE EXISTING SALARY THAT THEY MAKE AND ADD 4% CO AS WE HAVE DONE FOR OTHER, OKAY.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.
UH, AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES FIVE VOTE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY UPDATES I HAVE.
[00:35:04]
UNDER ITEMS A, B, AND C UNDER ITEM TWO, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WE WANT TO PUT PRIORITIZE HERE AND TALK ABOUT NEXT? IF I'LL GO BACK TO ITEM A.WELL, ACTUALLY NO, I'D LIKE TO WORK MY WAY UP IF I MAY.
THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY I WANTED TO DO IT.
[II.C. Capital & Non-Capital Budget Requests. (Kim Rivas/ Judge Deen)]
ON ITEM C, NUM NUMBER TWO, CAPITAL AND NON-CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST, KIM.BRIAN ACTUALLY FOUND AN AG OPINION.
SO UNDER SECTION 74.104 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DETERMINES REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE COURT COORDINATOR SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE DOES NOT POSSESS AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION IN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.
A COURT IS UNLIKELY TO INCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT MAY DISREGARD THE JUDGE'S DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE COMPENSATION AND UNILATERALLY SET COMPENSATION IN A DIFFERENT AMOUNT.
IN THE COUNTY'S FINAL BUDGET, THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT MAY SET THE SALARY OF AN ASSISTANT COORDINATOR.
YOU STARTING ON THIS PAGE THAT THAT'S A DETAIL, SO WE CAN JUST GO TO THE SUMMARY REAL QUICK AND IT'S GOT OKAY.
SO, SO CONSTABLE THREE, YOU ALL APPROVED A VEHICLE, UM, AT THE LAST COURT FOR 52,295, AND THEN THERE WAS OUTFITTING LEFT TO 29,275.
THAT, THAT YOU ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION.
SINCE THAT TIME, UM, DEPUTY CONSTABLE GRAVES HAS REACHED OUT TO DEF DEFENDER'S SUPPLY AND THEY HAVE A, A VEHICLE ON THE LOT THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 70 79 2 70.
AND THAT INCLUDES OUTFITTING ON IT.
SO IT WOULD BE JUST AN ADDITIONAL 26,975 THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO APPROVE TODAY TO, FOR THAT VEHICLE AS A WHOLE.
IT WOULDN'T BE SEPARATE OUTFITTING FROM A DIFFERENT VENDOR.
SO THE, THE, THE CHANGE IS $3,000.
SO THE QUESTION WE HAD, AND, AND WE'D ASK, UH, UH, CHIEF DEPUTY TO COME FORWARD AND KIND OF EXPLAIN THE, THE, THE OUTFITTING AND WHAT IT IS BECAUSE, AND, AND WE'RE NOT PICKING ON YOU.
WHAT IT WAS IS WE, WE GOT, UH, DIFFERENT AMOUNTS FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO RECONCILE THAT AND OBVIOUSLY YOURS WAS THE HIGHEST.
REASON BEING IS WE HAVE, WE, WE TRY TO OUTFIT A PATROL VEHICLE, UH, AND THAT'S A, WITH GUN RACKS IN IT, SECURE BOX IN THE BACK, LIGHTS, SIREN, RADIO CONSOLE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN A PATROL VEHICLE.
A DETECTIVE MODEL IS A PLANE PICKUP WITH A NO LIGHT ON TOP FRONT, UH, NO GUN RACKS, NO SIREN, NO RADIO, NO, UH, JUST A PLAIN PICKUP WITH A LITTLE BIT ON IT.
UH, ALL OF OUR VEHICLES ARE POLICE PACKAGES.
AND WHEN WE PULL UP, THEY KNOW THAT WE'RE THE POLICE.
THEY DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE, THEY KNOW.
THEY DON'T LOOK AT US AND SAY, IS THIS THE NEIGHBOR? IS THIS JOE BLOW? OR WHO, WHEN WE PULL UP, THEY KNOW WE ARE, WE'RE THE POLICE AND WE'RE THERE, WE'RE THERE FOR BUSINESS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, UH, COMPLETELY THE DIFFERENCE.
KIM, COMPLETE THE DIFFERENCE THERE BETWEEN, UH, THE AMOUNT THAT, THAT THEY REQUESTED.
AND THEN FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT OTHER OUTFITTING WAS HOW MUCH THE DI DON'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH THE DIFFERENCE WAS.
DETECTIVE MODELS ARE USUALLY ABOUT $17,000.
AND WE'RE GOING AT, UH, ABOUT $23,000 MORE.
UH, SO, SO WE'RE GOING ABOUT $6,000 MORE TO HAVE A POLICE PACKAGE.
WE ALSO OWE THE BOX IN THE BACK.
I THINK HONOR PROBABLY A SECURE, SECURE AREA BACK AND BACK AS WELL.
OUTFITTING FOR A PATROL VEHICLE IS 29 5.
I'M, WE, UH, APPROVE THE, UH, MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HILL.
UH, I, I WAS GONNA MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE, UH, THE PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE THAT, UH, THAT YOU FOUND THAT'S ON THE LOT AT 79 2 70.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? I MOVE TO JUST A QUICK NOTE.
I, I MOVE TO THE ALL IN FAVOR QUICKLY.
UH, IF, IF THERE'S A PAUSE HERE, UH, I NEED TO GIVE, UH, JUST LET ME KNOW THAT 'CAUSE I DO MOVE QUICKLY ON THIS.
[00:40:01]
SO, UM, CONSTABLE TWO, AND WE NEED TO JUST DO A CLARIFICATION.UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL $2,000 FOR A BALLISTIC SHIELD.
THEY HAVE MONEY IN THEIR CURRENT BUDGET, BUT IT WASN'T GONNA BE ENOUGH.
AND SO THEY NEED TO ROLL THAT FUNDS FOR A TOTAL OF $2,000.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE.
KIM, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL IN FAVOR? CURIOUS.
SO I WANT JUST, IF I INTERRUPT YOU, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE.
SO I NEED TO CLARIFY ON, UH, PROGRAM CONTINGENCIES, WE HAD PUT, UH, $250,000 IN THE RADIO TOWER CONTINGENCY LINE.
AND I, UM, HAD SAID THAT THAT WOULD BE FOR, FOR EQUIPMENT TO GO INTO THE NEW TOWERS.
THIS IS FOR EQUIPMENT FOR THE EXISTING TOWERS.
THAT SMITH, IT'S NOT EQUIPMENT, IT'S JUST THE HELP FINISH.
UH, THE UPGRADED THE EXISTING RADIO EQUIPMENT, PRIMARILY AT THE MAIN TOWER SITE.
UH, THERE'S A NEW BUILDING BEING BUILT.
UH, I WAS ABLE TO REDUCE IT A LITTLE BIT.
WE HAVE A QUOTE FOR SMITH TO FINISH THAT OFF.
SO THIS IS JUST CONTINGENCIES HAVE IN LINE TO HELP COMPLETE THE, UH, SUMMER, UH, SPRING FINISH DATE OF THE UPGRADE.
BUT WE DON'T NEED A MOTION FOR THAT, DO WE? WE'RE JUST ADDING IT.
WE'RE ADDING THAT CONTINGENCY.
YOU APPROVED WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE FOR.
AND THAT AMOUNT WAS 250,000? YES, SIR.
ON THAT NOTE, WHAT AMOUNT IN THE CONTINGENCY IS CURRENTLY PENCILED IN FOR DRONE? FOR DRONE? ALL TOTAL ABOUT 27 28.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING, UH, THAT'S WHAT'S I'M SEEING LISTED HERE IS A 13 8 6 400 7600.
JASON, CAN YOU COME ON UP FOR JUST A SECOND PLEASE? SO I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP AND THEN I'M GONNA TEE IT OVER TO JASON.
WE'VE, UH, WE'VE DISCUSSED THE DRONE STUFF QUITE A BIT IN THE DRONE COMMITTEE, AS Y'ALL WILL RECALL.
RECALL THAT WE HAD SET UP, THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO THE COURT.
NOTHING THAT WE CAN TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION ON TODAY, BUT IT WILL INFLUENCE THE AMOUNT WE PENCIL TOWARDS CONTINGENCY.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION TOO, NOT RELATED.
SO I HEAR LEGISLATION PASSED, UH, REGARDING FLOOD, UH, SIRENS, SIRENS AND ALL THAT KIND OF BUSINESS.
THERE IS, UH, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THAT? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT PASSED? MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND I HAVEN'T DONE A DEEP DIVE INTO THAT YET, WE'VE GOT A MEETING DOWN IN GRANBURY TO TALK ABOUT FLOOD PLANNING MITIGATION STUFF TODAY, TONIGHT.
BUT, UM, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT PASSED THE SPECIAL SESSION, THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION WAS SOME GRANT FUNDING FOR SIRENS ALONG RIVERS FOR FLOODING PURPOSES.
SO THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE WE HAVE AT LEAST THREE SECTIONS IN THE COUNTY THAT I'M AWARE OF, THAT WOULD BE FLOODWAYS, AND THOSE WOULD BE, UH, AT 10 TOP HORSESHOE BEND AND AT BENNETT.
THOSE ARE ALL, UH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOT JUST FLOOD ZONES, BUT THEY CALL THEM FLOODWAYS.
AND WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE, WOULD BE IN DANGER.
SO THE FLOODWAYS ARE WHERE THE CURRENT IS MOVING ALONG THE RIVER.
UM, AND, UM, WE DO HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENT WITH FOLKS IN THOSE AREAS.
NOW THEY'VE, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT ELEVATED AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT, UM, THAT FLOODWAY GOES ALONG THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE RIVER, BUT SOME OF IT'S JUST THE RIVER CHANNEL ITSELF.
BUT SOME OF THE FLOODWAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET OVER BY A COUPLE OF THOSE PLACES YOU MENTIONED YEAH.
OVER EXISTING, OVER EXISTING STRUCTURES.
AND SO I, MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE GONNA BE ON THAT? AND, AND I, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE NEED TO ALLOCATE FUNDING FOR IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
AND YOU, I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW YET, BUT I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THIS IS PROBABLY, THE LEGISLATION'S PROBABLY NOT JUST LIMITED TO THE CURVE BILL.
IT'S PROBABLY, UH, GOING TO AFFECT PARKER COUNTY AS WELL.
WHAT, WHAT I WOULD ALSO SAY TO THAT IS, UM, YES, I BELIEVE THAT THERE, UM, IN THE HILL COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE WHERE THE BULK OF THAT FUNDING ENDS UP GOING TO MM-HMM
HOWEVER, UM, I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SOME AVAILABLE, BUT THERE ARE ALSO A LOT OF RIVERS IN TEXAS.
UM, SO THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A COMPETITIVE SORT OF PROCESS.
UM, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT, UM, UH, I, I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THE SIRENS THEMSELVES.
YOU KNOW, IN TEXAS, WHAT WE'RE USED TO WITH SIRENS IS YOU SET THAT OFF AND
[00:45:01]
THAT MEANS THERE'S A TORNADO.UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, AND THE COUNTY OWNS NO SIRENS, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, AT MY PREVIOUS EMPLOYER, I MANAGED 41 OF THOSE THINGS.
UM, THEY ARE ABOUT 60 GRAND A PIECE.
UH, WELL PROBABLY MORE LIKE 75 NOW.
UM, HOW, AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A RADIO IN THERE TO SET THOSE OFF.
SO YOU'VE GOT, SO YOU CAN SET 'EM OFF WHEN THE POWER'S OUT.
AND, UM, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE INVOLVED IN THOSE.
SO THAT COST JUST CREEPS UP AND UP AND UP.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME STRATEGIES THAT I THINK THAT ARE MORE COST EFFECTIVE FOR PARKER COUNTY THAN JUST PUTTING A ROW OF SIRENS THAT, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN MM-HMM
UM, AND KEEP DIVING INTO THE COUNTY'S CHECKBOOK FOR MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
I WOULD PREFER NOT TO DO THAT.
BUT THERE ARE SOME MECHANISMS, IN MY OPINION, THAT WE CAN LEVERAGE, UH, KIND OF A TIERED APPROACH FOR HOW WE WOULD NOTIFY FOLKS ALONG THE RIVER IN THOSE HIGH RISK AREAS.
AND I'M, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO INTO THAT IN GREAT DETAIL AT THIS POINT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I'M WORKING ON IT.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, AS SOON AS YOU GET SOME MORE INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S GOING TO AFFECT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO FUND THAT THEN GET THAT INFORMATION TO US AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE, UH, UH, WE'VE HAD THESE EXISTING FLOODWAYS THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENTLY, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.
WE, WE HAVE A MORE CONTROLLED FLOODING TYPE SITUATION HERE WITH THE, THE DAMS AND ALL THAT KIND OF BUSINESS.
A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, GENERALLY SPEAKING.
UH, BUT I WAS JUST, UH, CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO BE, UH, REQUIRED TO AND, AND THEREFORE REQUIRE SOME FUNDING TO, WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I HAVEN'T DONE A DEEP DIVE ON THAT LEGISLATION.
IT JUST WAS SIGNED IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO.
OR NOT EVEN, IT'S MORE EASILY THAN THAT, I THINK.
AND, UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MANDATES FOR COUNTIES TO PROVIDE THOSE KIND OF SYSTEMS. OKAY.
BUT I WILL, IF THAT'S, WE JUST CUR I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE OF KNOWING OUR SITUATION DOWN THERE AND, AND, UH, WHAT WE HAVE IN PRECINCT THREE THAT THERE MIGHT BE YES, SIR.
MIGHT BE A, UH, SOME KIND OF I DIDN'T THINK SO, BUT I, I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO ALLOCATE SOME MONEY FOR IT.
AND, AND IF THAT'S INCORRECT, I WILL CORRECT THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NO MANDATORY YEP.
AND COMMISSIONER, BACK TO THE DRONE QUESTION.
YOU MAY HAVE TO REPEAT THAT 'CAUSE I HAD TO DANCE AROUND THERE BECAUSE I WASN'T, YOU DON'T HAVE PERFECT RECALL OF EVERYTHING YOU HEAR.
SO, UH, THE, THE TOPIC HERE IS THE DRONE CONTINGENCY.
WE HAD DISCUSSED IN OUR DRONE COMMITTEE A BUNCH OF STUFF.
Y'ALL KNOW THAT WE DELAYED PURCHASING DRONES SO THAT WE COULD GET SOME PROCEDURES SET UP, MAKE SURE THAT OUR I'S ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED.
BASICALLY, IF YOU ADD THOSE THREE UP, WHAT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DO IS TO EXPAND THAT BY A LITTLE BIT.
THERE'S SOME PROGRAMS THAT, SOME SOFTWARE PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE DONE SOME DEMOS ON THAT HANDLE QUITE A BIT OF THE BACK OF HOUSE RECORDING PROCEDURES, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND IT'S JUST GONNA MAKE SURE WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH SO THAT WHEN, AND IF WE USE A DRONE, WE'RE NOT GETTING SUED OR LIABLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S THE VERY HIGH LEVEL VERSION.
JASON, DO YOU MIND EXPANDING ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? SURE.
UM, SO SOME OF THIS SOFTWARE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, IS IT'S, UH, SURPRISINGLY REASONABLE.
UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WITH DRONES ABOUT PRIVACY AND, UM, WE ALSO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAA.
UM, SO YOU HAVE TO KEEP LOGS JUST LIKE A REGULAR FLYING AN AIRPLANE OR A HELICOPTER.
UM, YOU HAVE TO TRACK THOSE FLIGHT PATHS.
AND THIS SOFTWARE DOES ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
IT HELPS YOU KEEP UP WITH THE MAINTENANCE, UH, AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
AND, AND, AND REALLY, UM, IT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT, UM, TO, TO MANAGING A, A DRONE PROGRAM.
AND, UM, UH, I, I, THAT'S GONNA BE A CRITICAL PIECE.
UM, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME GAPS IN THE EXISTING DRONE FLEET.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, OUR OFFICE, MY OFFICE HAS A DRONE, BUT IT'S NEEDS TO BE RE-REGISTERED.
THERE'S A FEW LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE NEED TO GET ON.
UM, AND I THINK BASED ON THE CAPABILITIES OF THE EXISTING DRONE FLEET, UM, THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN
[00:50:01]
TERMS OF HOW LONG THEY FLY AND SOME OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A, A MISSING PERSON, MISSING CHILD OUT IN THE WOODS, YOU NEED, YOU NEED THERMAL AT NIGHT, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.SO I THINK THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AND, AND PROVIDE A LOT MORE CAPABILITIES ON WHAT WE EXISTING HAVE.
SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU COMMISSIONER, THAT, UM, THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE TOO MUCH, BUT, BUT, UH, IT, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME TO GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
SO INCLUDING THE 28,000, WHAT NUMBER DID WE SAY THAT WE NEEDED TO GET UP TO? WE HAD THOUGHT AS A COMMITTEE, I THINK THAT, UH, FROM WHAT I, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT, UH, THE MAX NUMBER ON THAT WAS A HUNDRED, BUT WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET BY WITH A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT.
I THINK WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET BY WITH 50, INCREASING THAT 28 FROM 28, 2 50.
SO ADDING 22,000 THAT WOULD COVER THE NECESSARY SOFTWARE AND ALL OF THAT.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT COMMITTING US TO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY A PORTION OF THE ALLOCATED CONTINGENCY BEING PENCILED IN TOWARDS THAT, NOT BEING GUARANTEED TOWARDS THAT.
I, I THINK TO BE CLEAR TOO, UM, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S NO INTENT OF THE DRONE COMMITTEE TO, TO LIMIT WHAT'S REQUIRED OR NEEDED OR WHATEVER.
WHAT, WHAT THE INTENT IS, IS TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING AND THAT THERE'S NOT DUPLICATION.
SO, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT COMES ALONG.
AND THAT COMPLIANCE FACTORS KIND OF WHERE A LOT OF THAT EXTRA 22 THOUSANDS BEING DRIVEN FROM.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ADD IN KIM, ON THE DRONE PORTION THAT WE JUST ADD A LINE THAT SAYS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF DRONE SOFTWARE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
THAT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY JUST UNDER 22,000 GET US TO 50,000 TOTAL.
IS THIS FOR COUNTYWIDE OR ONLY SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS? THE SOFTWARE WOULD BE COUNTYWIDE.
AND THERE'D OBVIOUSLY BE MEMBERS FROM EACH, BUT IT'D BE DRIVEN PROBABLY BY MR. LANE OR ONE OF THE CONSTABLES, ONE OF THE FREQUENT USERS.
SOMEBODY HAS TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THIS.
I JUST WANTED IT TO UNDER, I WANTED.
SO WHAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING IS PUTTING TOGETHER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, TRAINING REQUIREMENTS, UM, BESIDES JUST THE, YOU HAVE A LICENSE, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING SURE.
TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY, SAFETY, SOME OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS BEYOND WHAT THE FA A REQUIRES.
YOU NEED TO BE PRETTY PROFICIENT IN NOT ONLY FLYING THE DRONE SURE.
BUT ALSO WITH ALL THE LAWS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT SO THAT, UM, IT'S AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE AND WE'RE PROTECTING PRIVACY LIABILITY, COMPONENT LIABILITY AND PRIVACY AS BEST WE CAN BEEN WORKING WITH KIM ON THE INSURING INSURANCE STUFF.
SO THAT, UM, TAC WON'T INSURE A DRONE THAT IS LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT UNDER PROPERTY, HOWEVER, WE CAN INSURE THEM THROUGH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY AND GENERAL LIABILITY IF THEY'RE WRECKED OR, UM, FOR SOME REASON SOME ELSE IF GEORGE SHOOT ONE DOWN WITH THE SHOTGUN.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INSTANCES WHERE, UM, AND WHERE A DRONE HAS AT SOME OF THESE BIG DRONE SHOWS YOU'VE SEEN WITH THE, LIKE CARTOON LOOKING MM-HMM
STUFF ON SOME OF THOSE BIGGER ONES, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE RUNNING A THOUSAND DRONES AT A TIME, THEY'LL HAVE A FAILURE AND THEY HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO FALL AND HIT SOMEBODY.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE PUTTING ON DRONE SHOWS.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS GONNA BE A PUBLIC SAFETY, LIFE SAFETY SORT OF OPERATION, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ACTS, MECHANICAL FAILURES, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO IT'S JUST A WAY TO COVER, UM, SOME LIABILITY ISSUES WITH THAT.
AND IT'S, I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO TERRIBLE.
THERE ARE UHT TEEING, UH, SO, SO NOT TO BRING UP ANY SOURCE SUBJECTS, BUT, BUT ON THE TOWER ASPECT, YOU KNOW, GIVING THE COUNTY A HEADS UP ON WHERE WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO GO IN THE FUTURE.
SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IS THERE ARE DRONES THAT CAN FLY IN THE RAIN IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE A TORNADO COME THROUGH.
THE WEATHER'S PROBABLY NOT GREAT AFTER A TORNADO.
AND IF WE HAVE MISSING PERSONS SEARCH AND RESCUE STUFF LIKE THAT, THERE ARE SOME DRONES OUT THERE THAT CAN REALLY HELP WITH THAT, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FLY IN THE RAIN.
WE'RE TALKING A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ANYTHING WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT THIS YEAR, BUT THAT IS IN THE FUTURE, SOMETHING THAT I WANT US TO BE AWARE OF AND CONSIDER GOING FORWARD.
WELL I JUST THINK THAT, THAT, I APPRECIATE THE COORDINATION SO THAT WE, UH, UH, ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER.
WE HAVE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, KIM.
WAS MY MATH RIGHT? JUST UNDER 22,000 TO GET US UP TO THAT 50? I BELIEVE SO.
I JUDGE, I THINK IT'S TIME TO TAKE A BREAK.
ABOUT AN HOUR, UH, RECORDS SHOW.
[00:55:01]
WE'LL RECESS AT 9 57.SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY ON THE BALLISTIC SHIELD FOR CONSTABLE TWO, THE TOTAL COST OF THAT SHIELD IS $7,500.
HE HAS 5,500 IN HIS 25 BUDGET THAT HE WANT, HE'S GONNA ROLL OVER AND HE'S REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 2000 PERFECT.
AND THEN ON THE THE DRONE SOFTWARE, IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 20 1009 94.
SO, UM, AND JUST, JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, AND I THINK JASON WILL CORROBORATE THIS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOFTWARE SHOULD COME IN BELOW THAT 22,000 NUMBER.
UM, I'M JUST MAKING IT NEED 50 JUST FOR MY OCD.
SO DO Y'ALL WANT TO DISCUSS THE TWO TOWERS? WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO AT SOME POINT.
HE HAD TO RUN TO, TO THE EOC OR SOMEWHERE QUICK FOR SOME EMERGENCY.
CAN WE WAIT UNTIL JAMES GETS BACK TO TALK ABOUT THOSE? SURE.
UM, THE NEXT THING, SO WE HAVE ALL OF THIS PROGRAM CONTINGENCY THAT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT HANDOUT.
ONLY A FEW ITEMS ON THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED SO FAR.
YOU DID APPROVE THE 250,000 THIS JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO FOR THE EXISTING TOWERS TO COMPLETE.
UM, HE'S ALSO ASKING FOR ANOTHER $40,000 JUST FOR ANY IT RELATED EXPENSE IN CONTINGENCY IF SOMETHING COMES UP, A SERVER NEEDS TO BE REPLACED OR WHATEVER.
SO ONE THING ON THE 40,000, UM, EITHER TWO THINGS.
ONE, EITHER HAVING IT IN IT'S BUDGET OR GIVING THE AUTHORITY TO DO OVERRIDES BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT 40,000, IF SOMEONE'S COMPUTER GOES DOWN OR SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN WAITING FOR A COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE TO KEEP RIGHT.
EITHER A DEPARTMENT GOING OR IT GOING EITHER PLACING THAT IN THEIR BUDGET OR GIVING ME THE AUTHORITY TO DO OVERRIDES UP TO THE 40,000 AND THEN SUBMITTING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT AFTER THE FACT.
SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE, UH, GIVE THE, UH, AUDITOR'S OFFICE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE, UH, FOR IT IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 AS IS NECESSARY.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALTONS.
THEY CAN MAKE COMMISSIONER HOLT HAND THE DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR? IS THAT, CAN I, CAN I CLARIFY, IS THAT 40,000 FOR A ONETIME, UH, THE MAXIMUM LIMIT FOR A ONE TIME PURCHASE? OR IS THAT CUMULATIVE? IT'S CUMULATIVE.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'LL GET INTO KIND OF ISSUES IS KEEPING TRACK.
SO ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT'S KIND OF A PAIN, BUT IF THAT'S HOW YOU ALL WANT TO DO IT, WE, WE WILL KEEP A SPREADSHEET.
IS THERE A BETTER WAY PUTTING, OR AT LEAST PUTTING A PORTION, MAYBE EVEN PUTTING HALF IN CONTINGENCY AND 20,000 IN THEIR ACTUAL BUDGET SO IT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU SHOULD, BECAUSE THIS RIGHT HERE IS FOR, FOR ALL THE CONTINGENCY.
SO BASIC, AGAIN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A COMPUTER BREAKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND YOU NEED TO GET IT ORDERED RIGHT AWAY.
SO WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO IS, IS, IS HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER CONTINGENCY.
IS, IS WHAT OUR, OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN.
AND NOT THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT WHEN WE START MAKING EXCEPTIONS, WE, WE RIGHT.
WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR EVERYBODY.
WE CAN, WE WANT, WE WANT THAT TO BE AVAILABLE.
HOWEVER, UH, I I'M JUST TRYING, I'M STRUGGLING FOR THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE THAT.
UH, WE CAN KEEP A SPREADSHEET FOR ANY, UM, OVERRIDES THAT WE DO FOR THAT, AND THEN SUBMIT A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING AND JUST MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS FOR.
SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE THAT MONEY IN CONTINGENCY, BUT WE WANT A PROCESS OF COURSE, TO, TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE FOR SPENDING.
SO THAT'S WHY I KNOW IT CREATES MORE WORK FOR YOU.
I, I, HOWEVER, THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR INTENT IS.
THAT IS TO HAVE THAT MONEY IN A, IN OUR CONTINGENCY FUND THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS TO UP TO $40,000 OKAY.
BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO COURT.
AGAIN, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO CREATE MORE WORK.
BUT YOU, YOU SEE WHAT THE INTENT IS, OF COURSE.
SO, UM, GOING DOWN THIS LIST, UM, CONSTABLE TWO HAS REQUESTED 5,000 FOR VEHICLE CONTINGENCY.
AGAIN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE ALL NECESSARY, ALL CONTINGENCIES.
WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE CONTINGENCIES AND HAVE THAT MONEY.
[01:00:01]
BE THERE, UH, BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD COME TO COURT FOR, UH, AND, AND TAKE IT OUT OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY? YES.DID Y'ALL JUST WANNA DO ONE VOTE ON ALL OF THIS, OR YOU WANNA DO LINE BY LINE VOTES? WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW.
SO THE BIGGEST PORTION OF THIS IS FOR FIRE MARSHAL EQUIPMENT.
SO I, I LOOKED DOWN THE LIST THERE AND I, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THE, THE THREE 12 GAUGE SHOTGUNS.
WHAT, WHY WOULD THEY NEED THREE 12 GAUGE SHOT? YEAH.
THE OVERALL TOTAL FOR THE 5 43 IS A HUNDRED THOUSAND $289.
THAT'S WHAT THEY HAD BUDGETED REQUESTED IN THEIR CAP, NON CAP BUDGET.
AND ALL THE FIRE MARSHAL STUFF WAS TURNED IN BY THE PREVIOUS, BY THE PREVIOUS MR. FRANKS PERSON, CORRECT? MM-HMM
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE ANY OF THAT AND, AND, UH, AGAIN, HAVE MONEY IN THE CONTINGENCY LINE.
SHOULD THAT, SHOULD THERE BE SOME NEEDS THERE? YEAH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
IS THAT WELL, THAT'S WHAT, WHERE WE ARE ASKING TO PUT THIS IN CONTINGENCY FOR NOW.
BUT DO YOU WANNA DO THAT FULL AMOUNT? UH, I DON'T, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR IT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE A VEHICLE IN THERE AND THE OUTFITTING FOR IT.
UH, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT.
UH, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR MOST OF THIS.
ACTUALLY NOT, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO PUTTING A, A, A SET AMOUNT IN, IN CONTINGENCY FOR THIS, BUT NOT THE, NOT THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S, I ASKED HERE, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA ADD? WELL, MY REQUEST, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAP, NON CAP, BUT, UM, JUST IF TODAY, IF WE COULD GO JUST ON A GENERAL FUND UPDATE TO BASICALLY DISCUSS HOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH THAT BUDGET, UM, TO START THE YEAR, WHETHER WE'RE HAVING AN EMPLOYEE IN THERE, WHETHER WE NEED TO ADJUST CONTRACT SERVICE OR ELSE WE ARE GONNA START THE YEAR WHERE WE, A MONTH INTO IT, WE'RE OVER BUDGET BECAUSE IT'S NOT BUDGETED APPROPRIATELY.
SO MY HOPE WOULD BE, UM, I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE ON CAPTAIN ON CAP, BUT TO ADDRESS THE OVERALL FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET TODAY.
YEAH, I THINK WE, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS COME BACK TO THIS AT THAT POINT.
SO WE'LL SKIP DOWN TO, UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR BUILDING GROUNDS.
YOU ALL DID APPROVE $250,000 AND WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT IN PROGRAM CONTINGENCY.
IS THAT WHERE YOU WANT THAT OR DO YOU WANT THAT MOVED UP INTO THEIR LINE? NEEDS TO BE IN CONTINGENCY.
AND THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEM, YOU ALSO APPROVED 48 5 AND WE'LL PUT THAT IN CONTINGENCY.
SO THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES ALL OF THE CONTINGENCY ITEMS OUTSIDE OF THE, I THINK'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SET AMOUNT THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT IN CONTINGENCY THAT WILL, THAT COULD BE USED FOR SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED HERE.
SO NEXT THING I WANNA DISCUSS IS FUND, OR I'M SORRY, CAN, CAN I JUDGE, IS IT ALRIGHT IF I ADDRESS THE CAN FIRE MARSHAL STUFF? I KNOW, WE'RE Y'ALL GONNA DISCUSS THAT SEPARATELY? AND I'M TRYING TO STAY IN MY LANE AND I'M NOT THE FIRE MARSHAL, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS Y'ALL NEED TO BE AWARE OF.
TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TWO 11 POINT 16 GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST.
AND IT REQUIRES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, WHICH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE IS ONE OF THOSE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PRO THE, THE AGENCIES REQUIRED TO PROVIDE BODY ARMOR LESS THAN LETHAL VEHICLES, UNIFORMS, AND WEAPONS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, WHILE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT I'M NOT SURE PRACTICAL PURPOSES OF A SHOTGUN, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER TWO 11 POINT 16 TO PROVIDE A WEAPON AND THOSE ARE CHEAPER THAN A LOT OF OTHER WEAPONS.
SO THAT'S A FURTHER DISCUSSION.
BUT I WANT YOU TO CLAR, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE CONTINGENCY FOR THOSE ITEMS TO MEET THE TWO 11 POINT 16.
HOWEVER, THE CHIEF WATSON POINTED OUT THAT IF THE COURT OPTS TO CONTINUE WITH THE CONTRACT WITH
[01:05:01]
ESD ONE, IT WOULD BE ON ESD ONE TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES, IS MY, MY UNDERSTANDING.SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
SO TO, TO DOES THAT, DOES THAT INTRODUCE, SORRY.
DOES THAT INTRODUCE ANY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS? I MEAN, YOU, I LIKE, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU CHIEF BARNETT, BUT WHEN YOU GIVE SOMEBODY A GUN, YOU EXPECT EM TO KNOW HOW TO USE IT AND BE TRAINED IN IT AND ALL OF THAT.
SO TO MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY THING WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO IS QUALIFY ONCE A YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THERE THAT MANDATES ANY KIND OF FIREARMS STRAINING.
WE DO, WE DO, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TRAINS AT LEAST FOUR TIMES A YEAR.
OUR OFFERS TRAINING TO OUR STAFF AT LEAST FOUR TIMES A YEAR, WHICH IS WHY OUR AMMO BUDGET'S, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENTLY SO EXPENSIVE.
BUT, UM, THAT TRAINING I ASSUME INVOLVES DECISION MAKING PROCESSES, DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, DIFFERENT TIMES OF DAY, YOU KNOW, DAY SHOOT, NIGHT SHOOT.
IT'D BE MY PREFERENCE COURT THAT REGARDLESS OF WHICH DIRECTION WE GO, CHIEF WATSON, I SEE YOU BACK THERE.
IF, IF WE HAVE OUR OWN INTERNAL STAFF THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A GUN TO, IT'D BE MY STRONG PREFERENCE THAT WHOEVER THAT STAFF IS DOES PARTICIPATE IN SOME WAY IN SOME TYPE OF TRAINING IF WE COULD DO THAT MM-HMM
UH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SO THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE TRAINING.
BUT I JUST, I'M HESITANT TO GIVE SOMEONE A GUN UNDER PARKER COUNTY'S NAME IF WE'RE NOT TRAINING THEM AS WELL.
IS THAT, IS THAT FAIR CHIEF HUNDRED, SIR.
CHIEF BARNETT, IS THAT FAIR? YES, SIR.
SO WE, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER HAS A VEHICLE THAT IS CURRENTLY AT PRECINCT ONE FOR REPAIRS, AND JC SAYS IT, HE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT UNTIL AFTER OCTOBER 1ST.
SO THERE'S $1,315 THAT NEEDS TO BE ROLLED OVER.
CONSTABLE TWO HAS, UM, EMERGENCY OUTFITTING AND, AND SO FORTH FOR VEHICLES, UM, TO ROLLOVER.
AND THAT TOTAL IS $36,422 WORTH.
IT IS IN THEIR CURRENT BUDGET.
CONSTABLE FOUR HAS SOME AMMUNITION AND BALLISTIC PLATES, A BODY ARMOR TO ROLLOVER FOR 16, SORRY, $1,646 TO ROLLOVER.
I'M GONNA INTERRUPT YOU A MINUTE HERE.
THIS, THIS LIST THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OF ROLLOVERS HERE MM-HMM
THIS, THESE, UH, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT CURRENT BUDGET THAT ARE IN CURRENT BUDGET YES.
THAT ARE BEING PAID FOR FROM CURRENT BUDGET AND ARE BEING ROLLED OVER TO, UH, THE, THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
AND, UH, THERE'S NO DECISION TO BE MADE FOR US BECAUSE THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUDGET FOR LAST YEAR.
AND WE'RE SIMPLY ROLLING OVER THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, UH, WITH THE INSURANCE, THE PROPERTY INSURANCE CLAIM, UM, YOU ALL VOTED FOR THE 1.3 MM-HMM
THAT TOTAL THAT'S IN THAT LINE RIGHT NOW THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR IS 287,000.
SO IF YOU CHANGE THAT, SO IF WE HAD A TOTAL THERE, I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR US TO JUST LOOK AT THE TOTAL AND, AND TAKE CARE OF THAT IN ONE, UH, FELL SWOOP RATHER THAN IDENTIFYING EACH OF THESE 2 MILLION, WHICH ARE AUTO REPAIRS AND YES.
AND THERE, THERE'S SOME CHANGE UP ORDERS ON THE TOWERS THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT LIST MM-HMM
UM, THAT NEED TO BE ROLLED TO.
SO IT'S, IT'S A TOTAL OF $2,869,457.
AND THOSE ARE ALL ROLLOVERS FROM CURRENT BUDGET THAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED.
I, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, APPROVE THE ROLLOVER AMOUNTS IT OUTLINED IN OUR HANDOUT RIGHT HERE AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PURCHASING MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, CARRIE.
I DID HAVE ONE ADDITION, UM, ON THE ROLLOVERS.
UM, PRECINCT FOUR HAS ADDED A UTILITY BED TO THE ONE OF THEIR VEHICLES, THE MECHANICS TRUCK.
AND SO NOW THAT AMOUNT THAT NEEDS TO ROLL IS $91,604 IN ADDITION TO THE ROLL, IN ADDITION TO WHAT DAY DARTY MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLLEY.
[01:10:01]
ALSO A ROLLOVER HERE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT I HAVE IN PRE YEAH.AND WE DISCUSSED THAT EARLIER AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, HAS NOT, YES.
WE HAD RESCHEDULING SOME MEETINGS, SO WE'LL HAVE THAT FINAL NUMBER FOR THE 17TH.
AND, UM, IT COULD BE LIKELY THAT WE WILL COME TO COURT TO ASK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THAT PROJECT.
UM, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT FINAL SOLUTIONS ON, UM, HOW WE'RE GONNA PROCESS INVENTORY AND WHAT, UM, EQUIPMENT WE MAY NEED TO CHANGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP THAT THAT WILL, UM, LIKELY COME, YOU KNOW, IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND WE'LL REQUEST THAT CONTINGENCY AT THE TIME.
UM, GOSH, I SEE OTHERS THAT, UH, I SEE OTHERS THAT WERE NOT HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW UP HERE THAT ARE, UH, SO YOU'VE ALREADY, THAT THOSE TOP THREE WE DISCUSSED AND Y'ALL HAD ALREADY APPROVED THOSE.
I, I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER THE ELECTIONS PARKING LOT NUMBER IS ADEQUATE OR NOT.
THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THIS CURRENT BUDGET.
YOU MEAN THIS TIME LAST YEAR? MM-HMM.
COMMISSIONER HALE, HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY OUR HOT MIX PRICING WENT UP THAT ONE WEEK? 42%? YES, SIR.
YEAH, I DID A BID FOR, UH, ONE OF THE CITIES THAT WE WORKED FOR AND I WAS SHOCKED PAYING THAT STUFF ON THE PARKING LOT.
IT CAUGHT ON, IT CAUGHT THE CITY OUT ON ONE OF OUR ILAS TOO.
BECAUSE FROM SOME CHANGES, PRICE CHANGES FROM WHEN THEY GOT IT AND WHEN THEY APPROVED IT.
SO YOU, ARE YOU SAYING YOU GOT AN INVOICE THAT INCREASED THE HOT MIX PRICES? NO, THE PRICES FROM WHEN BALKAN WAS PURCHASED.
SO OUR, OUR, WHEN THEY CONSOLIDATED OUR PRICING FOR MATERIALS YEAH.
HOW MUCH FOR HOT MIX? 46, 42? I THINK IT WAS 42%.
I DON'T RECALL BRINGING THAT TO COURT TO INCREASE THE NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
I'M SAYING IN THE MARKET WITH THE COMPETITORS CANNIBALIZING THE OTHER ONES, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
BUT THEY HAVE TO LIKE FREAKING COURT TO HAVE AN INCREASE IN APPROVAL.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE INCREASING IT ON OUR ILAS AND OUR, IN OUR LOCAL AGREEMENT AGREEMENTS.
SO IT DOES AFFECT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT WHAT Y'ALL ARE PURCHASING DIRECTLY FROM? NO, BUT WHEN WE'RE BUDGETING MM-HMM
AND WE'RE HAVING TO RE LOOK AND BUDGET MM-HMM
THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE'RE FACED WITH.
I WAS, I THOUGHT THEY WOULD JUST INCREASE THE COST ON Y'ALL WITHOUT IT BEING LIKE DIRECTLY FROM VCAN TO APPROVING.
NO, I'M NOT APPROVING ANY NUMBERS OF THAT TO SAY, UH OH.
SO, UM, I BRING THE JP THREE OFFICE HAS A REQUEST FOR CONTINGENCY IN THEIR FUND 73, NO FUND.
57, SORRY, FOR $37,000 THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED FUND 76 AS WELL.
IT'S, IT'S THEIR, THEIR TECHNOLOGY FUNDS AND THEY, Y'ALL JUST HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
SO, UM, FOR FUND 57 IT WOULD BE 22,000.
MOTION TO COVER BOTH OF THOSE? YES SIR.
YOU WISH MAY BOOK MR. WALDEN SECOND BY MR. HOLTZ.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR.
THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR MY CAPTAIN ON CAP IS THE TOWERS AND THEN THEN THE JUVENILE BUILDING.
I KNOW YESTERDAY YOU ALL TOOK ACTION FOR A LETTER OF INTENT, UM, FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING.
SO IS THERE KIND OF A MAX THAT WE SHOULD THEN PUT AS A PLACEHOLDER TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE THAT BUILDING? SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE PURCHASE AND, AND THAT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS SOME RENOVATION AS WELL? CORRECT.
AND SO THAT I GUESS KIND OF TWOFOLD, SO THAT PIECE OF IT AS WELL AS THE RENOVATION.
SO, UM, WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS, AND I'VE SPOKEN, UM, TO ASHLEY, IS THAT, UM, IF THE SALE IS TO GO THROUGH, UM, OR IF IT DIDN'T AND IT WAS LEASING, IF THERE'S THE, UM, ONE-TIME CAPITAL COST IS TO PAY FOR THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND, UM, WHETHER THE GENERAL FUND'S GONNA
[01:15:01]
PAY FOR IT, WHETHER WE DO A TRANSFER INTO JUVENILE OR THE COUNTY FUNDED PORTION OF JUVENILE PROBATION OR FUND 10.BUT WHERE IT COMES INTO PLAY IS, UM, THE STATE IN SETTING, UM, THE BUDGETS, THEY LOOK AT WHAT THE LOCAL MATCH IS.
AND SO IF WE PAY THOSE ONE TIME EXPENDITURES, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THAT BASELINE OF WHAT THE STATE LOOKS AT, OF WHAT, UM, THE LOCAL BUDGET IS.
AND SO WE DON'T WANNA OVERINFLATE WHAT THAT BASELINE IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PAY FOR THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT THAT I'M NOT SURE AND IS, UH, FOR THE UTILITIES PORTION TO ALSO PAY FOR THAT FROM FUND 10 BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, UM, TENANTS IN THE BUILDING AT THE MOMENT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE UTILITY BILLS IS PAYING FOR THE TOTAL AND THEN WE RECEIVE SOME REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THOSE LEASE PAYMENTS.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE'RE PAYING, YOU KNOW, FOR THE WHOLE BUILDING, IT'S OVER-INFLATING JUVENILE'S BUDGET THAT THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT A BASELINE.
I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION FOR ME IS, UH, IF WE WERE TO MAKE THAT PURCHASE AND WE DO THE RENOVATIONS, WHO'S GONNA MANAGE THAT? THAT'S A, THAT'S A, DO YOU REMEMBER THE NUMBER MORING CAME IN HERE WITH WITH JUVENILE? FOUR.
I, I GUESS, WELL, I SAW REAL QUICK ON THE UTILITIES, I SAW A BANK OF THE METERS.
SO I IMAGINE EACH OF THOSE TENANTS ARE INDIVIDUALLY METER AS FAR AS ELECTRICITY GOES.
I'M NOT SURE ON WATER OR, BUT I KNOW ON ELECTRICITY AS FAR AS MANAGING THE INTERIOR REMODEL OR FINISH OUT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW OUR BUILDING AND GROUNDS ARE THEY? I WON'T SAY MARK.
WELL I WOULD, I I JUST WANTED TO CLEARLY DEFINE THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.
NOT, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TODAY.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE A BID FROM ONE CONTRACTOR.
WE WOULD PROBABLY, UH, FOR THAT AMOUNT PROBABLY.
UH, WANT TO GET ADDITIONAL BIDS FOR THAT WORK, BUT THEN SOMEBODY'S GOTTA BE IN CHARGE OF, IT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AROUND TO THAT'S GONNA BE BUILDING AND GROUNDS OR IF IT'S GONNA BE, I, I JUST WANT IT CLEARLY DEFINED.
SO THE MATTER OF HAND IS YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN AMOUNT TO BUDGET FOR AND SO, AND WHAT YOUR FOR BUILDING AND FOR THE PURCHASE FOR THE RENOVATION, THOSE ONE TIME EXPENDITURES.
AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS, I MEAN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REGULATION WILL COME OUT OF GENERAL FUND UTILITIES OR ANYTHING.
SO WE WILL BUDGET HIGH AND ADJUST, ADJUST THE UTILITIES LINE IN FUND 10 FOR THAT TO ADDRESS YOUR ISSUE.
WILL GET A DETERMINATION ON THAT.
WE'LL TALK TO BUILDING GROUNDS.
WE'LL DO WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO, ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE OR, UH, BUT THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE MOTION AT HAND.
BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY PRIORITIZE THAT.
UM, BUT THEN I WOULD ASK, UH, WHAT IS THE SELLING PROCESS AGAIN? WHAT WAS THE INITIAL WELL, I THINK IF WE WERE TO ALLOCATE, UH, IN, IN CONTINGENCY, UH, 4 MILLION FOR THE ENTIRETY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE, THAT THAT WOULD COVER THE RENOVATION AND UTILITIES AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
IS THAT A MOTION? IS THAT, DO WE NEED A MOTION OR WE JUST NEED TO MOTION? I WOULD TAKE ACTION.
SO WHAT I WILL DO IS, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF UTILITIES ARE MORE, I HAVE NO IDEA.
SO, BECAUSE I'M GONNA PUT THAT IN THE ACTUAL UTILITIES LINE.
UM, 'CAUSE AGAIN, WE DON'T DO BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS OR ANYTHING OUT OF THAT LINE.
UM, AND THEN I CAN PUT THE REST IN CONTINGENCY.
SO MY MOTION, MY MOTION IS GONNA BE THAT WE ALLOCATE, UH, UH, $4 MILLION TO CONTINGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE AND RENOVATION AND ASSOCIATED DISPEN EXPENSES.
MOTION BE ABOUT COMMISSIONER WALDEN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONING.
ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM C? UM, THE JIM ROT BUILDING.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ON IT? THAT'S ON MY LIST OF THEIR OVERALL, UM, HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S REQUEST, UM, FROM THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THAT DOES COVER, OR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR REQUEST IS FOR THE JIM WRIGHT BUILDING.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE GOING TO ASK THEM OR HAD ASKED THEM THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEY COULD MATCH WITH THEIR FUNDS.
AND THEN I CONTACTED, UH, BILL WARREN
AND, UH, HE'S BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY,
[01:20:01]
GOT BACK LAST NIGHT.I FOUND OUT, UH, WE WERE IN A MEETING LAST NIGHT AND THEY SAID HIS PLANE WAS DELAYED.
I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH HIM ABOUT THAT.
AND I DON'T WANNA MISSPEAK, BUT I THINK A MAJORITY OF THEIR FUNDS ARE TIED UP INTO FURTHER MATURITIES.
I DON'T THINK WE LOT WOULD, WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE TO PULL.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING INSPECT A LOT FROM THEM.
WELL, THEY DO HAVE INVESTMENTS, HOWEVER, UM, I THINK WITHOUT TAKING A EARLY WITHDRAWAL PENALTY, AGAIN, UM, BECKY HAS THEIR LADDER, BUT IF I RECALL, UM, MOST OF IT'S TIED UP THIS, I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE AN AMOUNT THAT WE, RATHER THAN, WELL CAN WE HOLD OFF ON THIS? WE CAN EARMARK SOME MONEY IN CONTINGENCY BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORKING ON SOMETHING WE CAN EARMARK SOME MONEY IN CONTINGENCY, UH, OR, OR HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER, BUT THEN NOT, UH, NOT DIRECTLY ALLOCATE THAT TODAY.
IT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THAT.
BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEA.
SO I, I NEED TO GET BACK WITH TACK ABOUT THIS.
'CAUSE THEY'RE ADJUSTER SKIPPED THAT BUILDING WHEN THEY COME OUT AND LOOKED AT THE TAIL DAMAGE.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ROOF WILL BE PAID FOR AND IT'S NO DEDUCTIBLE.
IT WON'T BE AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS ALL THE SAME EVENT.
THAT MIGHT BE SOME PART OF IT.
I KNOW THERE'S OTHER, AND, AND IT COULD INCLUDE WINDOWS TOO.
I WINDOWS, I DUNNO IF IT WILL INCLUDE THE WHOLE YEAH.
THE, I THE WINDOWS ONES FACING WEST THOUGH.
I MEAN WE HAD WINDOWS BROKEN OUT OF THAT HOUSE, DIDN'T WE? FROM THE HAILSTORM? YEP.
THERE WAS DAMAGE AND OR ON THE TRIMMING AND AROUND THOSE WINDOWS.
BEFORE WE WERE TO HERE MARK, UH, 50,000 AT THIS POINT.
UH, AND, AND ADD TO CONTINGENCY.
SO, UM, THEIR OVERALL, JUST SO WE KNOW, THE OVERALL REQUEST IS 157,600, A HUNDRED OF THAT IS FOR, UH, THE RIGHT HOME RENOVATIONS.
AND THEN THERE ARE, I KNOW YOU ALL WERE PROVIDED THIS, SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. UM, I'VE LOST CONNECTION FOR SOME REASON, BUT I WAS GONNA TELL YOU WHAT THE TOTAL THAT'S ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET IS RIGHT NOW.
DO THEY HAVE TO COME TO US TO SPEND ANY OF THAT MONEY? UM, DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THAT MONEY? SO UNLESS YOU REQUIRE THAT, I MEAN, WHAT IT'S BEEN IS NORMALLY WE CAN'T JUST LET THEM TAKE THAT MONEY AND SPEND IT.
WELL, LIKE RIGHT NOW, WHEN YOU ALL HAVE APPROVED IT, THEN ONCE THEY DO PURCHASE ORDERS, OTHER THAN JUST BEING SUBMITTED AS PART OF PAYABLES, THERE'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL, UNLESS YOU REQUEST FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE, UM, PURCHASE ORDERS, DEPENDING ON I GUESS WHAT IT IS.
OR THEN YOU COULD PUT OTHER, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT ONCE THEY'RE A BRANCH.
ONCE THE BUDGET IS APPROVED, THEN THEY CAN SPEND, UH, AS THEY NEED TO OR AS THEY DESIRE TO.
JUST LIKE, UH, ANY, ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT, ONCE WE APPROVE THE BUDGET, UNLESS IT'S IN A DIFFERENT, UH, UNLESS THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO, TO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DIFFERENT, UH, WHAT AM I STRUGGLING FOR? I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE THAT WAY.
WELL, UM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A BUDGET.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE A BUDGET OTHER THAN, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT ONE, BUT, BUT AS FAR AS THE LINE ITEMS, ARE THEY ABLE TO MOVE MONEY AT WILL? UM, YEAH, WE'VE REALLY JUST PUT SOME OF THOSE JUST KIND OF LUMPED TOGETHER BECAUSE REALLY LIKE A LOT OF IT, WHEN WE'RE LINE ITEMS, IT'S FOR OBVIOUSLY RIGHT.
THE COURT IS APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THOSE LINES.
AND THEN FOR THEM BEING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, THE WAY WE REPORT THEM, UM, WE DON'T REALLY REPORT IT ANY DIFFERENTLY.
SO FOR US, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE ARE JUST IN A KIND OF ADMIN PIPELINE OR SUPPLIES OR SOMETHING.
SO IT'S NOT BROKEN OUT AT THE SAME LEVEL AS OTHER BUDGET.
IT DOESN'T HAVE BE BROKEN OUT THE SAME DEGREE THAT, THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, PRECINCTS WOULD BE YEAH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO US TO MOVE, UH, FROM ONE, FROM SO TO ANOTHER.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS WHAT YOU ALL APPROPRIATED LAST YEAR, WHICH IS 35,750.
SO, SO IF WE WERE TO EARMARK A HUNDRED THOUSAND,
[01:25:01]
UH, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, INSURANCE PROCEEDS THAT COULD BE, UH, ADDED TO THAT AT SOME LATER DATE, UH, JUST EARMARK THAT IN CONTINGENCY AND THEN, UH, HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BEFORE.SO AT THIS POINT WE WOULD JUST LEAVE.
ARE YOU WANTING TO LEAVE THE 35,750 AND THEN ADD THE ADDITIONAL UP TO THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND IN FUND 10? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR OF WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE FUND.
SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO, UH, PROBABLY NEED TO DO THE, UH, WHAT THEY ASKED FOR LAST YEAR AS, AS A BUDGETED AMOUNT.
AND THEN, UH, THEN THE ADDITIONAL 65,000 THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN THEY, THEY WILL COME TO US AND DISCUSS HOW THAT GETS SPENT AND THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PROCEEDS THAT WOULD BUMP THAT ON UP FOR REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURE.
I DON'T THINK THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, 'CAUSE GEORGE IS AWARE OF, OF, OF SOME OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY HAVE TO GENERATE SOME MORE MONEY FOR THE PROJECT.
AND, UH, UH, I THINK THAT IT'S FAIR TO SET THAT AMOUNT THAT WE SPENT LAST YEAR AS A BUDGET AND THEN ANYTHING ADDITION TO THAT WOULD NEED TO COME BEFORE US FOR APPROVAL.
IS THAT REASON, IS THAT REASONABLE? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE ALLOCATING THE 35,000 NUMBER TWO BUDGET, ADDITIONAL 65,000, UH, CONTINGENCY.
MOTION BE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.
A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? NO, THAT'S NOT OKAY.
UM, IF WE CAN GO JUST TO SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FOR A MOMENT.
WE'RE GONNA, THEN WE WILL MOVE OUT OF C UNLESS WE NEED TO COME BACK TO IT AND GO TO E FOR C.
WE GOT A C ON THIS OR WE JUST TALKING? NO, JUST TALKING ABOUT IT.
UM, SO THE LAW LIBRARY, UM, SENA ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, SHE THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN SUBSCRIPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PAY OUT OF LAW LIBRARY.
SO I DID ADDITIONAL, UM, RESEARCH ON THAT AND I FOUND AN AG OPINION.
AND THEN, UM, SOME PEOPLE POST SOME QUESTIONS ON THE LISTSERV.
AND SO, UM, I THINK WE CAN PAY FOR A COUNTY ATTORNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS WELL AS THE FOUR COURTS.
UM, THEY HAVE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO, UM, LEXINEXIS AND WESTLAW FOR, UM, ONLINE LEGAL RESEARCH.
AND SO, UM, I'M GONNA WORK TO PUT THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER AND CONTACT THOSE DEPARTMENTS.
AND SO IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS, WE COULD TAKE, UM, THE FUNDS THAT ARE IN CONTRACT SERVICE FOR FUND 10 AND PAY FOR IT FROM THE LAW LIBRARY FUNDS.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE, PROCEED.
AND THEN JUST BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK, WE'RE FINALIZING, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER, UH, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS, UM, ON THOSE ONE, IT WASN'T A ROLLOVER HERE, BUT UM, THE COURT HAD APPROVED USING THE JURY FUND, UM, FOR AN UPGRADE TO THAT JURY SYSTEM MM-HMM
AND SO, UM, THAT, UH, PROJECT WILL NOT BE DONE BY SEPTEMBER 30TH.
AND SO WE WILL INCLUDE THAT IN, UM, NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
SO WE'RE WORKING WITH AGAIN, UM, THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS LOOKING AT, UM, TRANSPORTATION BOND, ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF TO GET THOSE FINALIZED.
AND SO, UM, ONE ADDITIONAL IS, IF YOU RECALL, UM, THE COURT SEVERAL YEARS AGO VOTED, UH, WE HAD AN EARLY PAYOFF, UM, FROM TXDOT FOR THE RICK WILLIAMSON PASS THROUGH.
UM, LEMME SEE WHERE MY PAPERS ARE.
SO THE COURT HAD ALREADY TAKEN ACTION TO SPLIT, UM, WHAT WAS IN THOSE FUNDS, WHICH WAS FUND 4 0 8.
SO YOU EACH HALL HAVE 1,750,000.
UM, OR ORIGINALLY BECAUSE, UM, THOSE WERE BOND FUNDS, WE ALLOCATE INTEREST INTO THAT FUND.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THOSE FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPENT, BUT INTEREST IS STILL BEING ALLOCATED UNLESS THE COURT, UM, CHANGES THAT.
AND SO BASED ON THOSE, UM, INTEREST ALLOCATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 900,000 IN THAT FUND, WHICH YOU ALL CAN CHOOSE HOW TO ALLOCATE IT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO SPLIT IT OR HOW YOU WANNA PROCEED.
SO I WAS, I WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE BACK TO THE
[01:30:01]
ALLOCATION OF MY PRECINCTS AND UH, I RECOGNIZE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT, UH, DIFFERENCE IN THE, IN THE ROAD MOD THAT WE'VE GOT.BUT, UH, I THINK PRECINCTS ONE IN FOUR OR ROUGHLY A MILLION DOLLARS LOWER THAN, UH, TWO AND THREE.
AND SO, UH, I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT WE WE'RE ALREADY GETTING ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THAT.
THIS IS JUST THE INTEREST PORTION.
SO YOU EACH ALL HAVE, HAVE 1,750,000 WHICH COULD BE USED FOR, UM, ROAD OR BRIDGE PROJECTS.
I'M, I'M, GO AHEAD OF THAT 1.75 FOR EACH.
HOW MUCH OF THAT HAS BEEN SPENT? NONE.
WHEN WAS THAT MADE AVAILABLE? REFRESH MY MEMORY.
WAS IT EITHER THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO? MM-HMM
AND WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON THAT? UM, JUST ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY, ACQUISITION, A ROAD PROJECT, REPAIRS, UM, NOT, I GUESS PURCHASING EQUIPMENT OR STUFF LIKE THAT.
I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSIONERS.
I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO GIVE, UH, ONE AT FOUR, A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT 900 THAN, THAN WHAT WE KEEP OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE.
THAT'S, THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.
WELL THAT'S JUST WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THERE.
UH, WHEN WE LOOK AT, UH, THE BIG PICTURE, HOWEVER, WE, WE'VE ALL GOT THE ONE, THE 1.75 HASN'T BEEN SPENT YET, BUT THAT, AND THAT 1.75 IS EACH, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.
YEAH, WE CAN SPLIT THAT NINE SOMETHING BETWEEN ONE AND FOUR.
SO, SO WHAT IF WE DID THAT IS QUART FOR THOSE TWO AND ONE 50 FOR US TWO.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLT IN ANY OF THE DISCUSSION.
WELL, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT 101.75 SITTING THERE, YOU HAVEN'T SPENT YET.
YEAH, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN, WE WILL.
IT'S, IT'S BEEN SPENT, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A GOOD LONG WHILE.
SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE IS LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT SO WE CAN CREATE THOSE YEP.
FOUR ONE GOVERNMENT'S ABOUT COMPROMISE.
SO BIANCA, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON LIKE, OPERATING THINGS THAT HAVE, OKAY.
SO, UM, BIANCA'S GONNA GIVE YOU ALL JUST AN UPDATE OF, UM, ANY, YOU KNOW, I, THERE WAS THE APPROVAL OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER CONTRACT OR IF ANY DEPARTMENTS REACHED OUT OF NEEDING TO CHANGE SOME OF THEIR OPERATING COSTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE CAPITAL ITEMS. SHE'S GONNA GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THAT.
AND THEN IF WE COULD CIRCLE BACK ON, UM, WHAT THE COMPOSITION LOOKS LIKE FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR.
SO, UM, I'LL JUST START WITH THE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS THAT, UM, JUST AS ONE UPDATE TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE TOTAL OF THE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS IS NOW 2,981,838.
THE DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS.
SO THERE IS A, OOPS, SORRY, 185,000 FOR THE DISTRICT COURT AND IT'S JUST AN INCREASE IN ATTORNEY FEES AND TRIAL COSTS.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT FOUR 50 FOR THE JUVENILE PROBATION, UM, FOR GAS OIL REPAIR MAINTENANCE.
SO $1,500 ADJUSTMENT THERE ON THE ANIMAL CONTROL.
UM, I HAD AN IN, I THINK I SHOW 171,000 THAT CORRECT NUMBER AFTER SPEAKING WITH CHIEF BARNETT.
SO MAKING, PLEASE MAKE A NOTE AND I'LL SEND YOU AN UPDATED ONE OF THESE.
CAN I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK? SURE.
AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT BACK UP ON THE INCREASE OF ATTORNEY FEES AND TRIAL COSTS IN THE CAPITAL CASE.
[01:35:01]
THAT'S AVERAGED? I MEAN, IS THIS, I MEAN, THIS IS $185,000 LIKE BAM.UM, A A PORTION OF IT IS JUST ATTORNEY'S FEES, JUST CRIMINAL DEFENSE.
SO NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO, UM, A CAPITAL CASE.
UM, SO WE, THE COUNTY IS PART OF THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, UM, WHICH IS, UM, BASICALLY COVERS ANY SORT OF, WE HAVE CAPITAL CASES, BUT CAPITAL CASES WHERE, UM, DEATH PENALTY IS ON THE LINE.
THEN THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, UM, PROVIDES THOSE ATTORNEYS.
HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T COVER THE COST OF, YOU KNOW, ANY REQUESTS FOR EXPERT WITNESS, UM, UM, INVESTIGATIVE COSTS, THAT SORT OF THING.
AND SO, UM, THOSE ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
AND SO AGAIN, I THINK PART OF IT IS JUST AN ESTIMATE, NOT KNOWING WHAT IT WILL BE.
UM, I KNOW SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE HAD A CASE AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REQUESTED AND ORDERED BY THE COURT AND THEN, UM, ALL OF THOSE FUNDS WEREN'T UTILIZED.
SO THEN WE GOT, UM, A REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE.
SO, SO PART OF THE REASON I'M ASKING IS WITH LIKE, WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH SO MUCH THE JAIL BEING FULL, WE HAVE THE POPULATION GROWTH AND TRYING TO BUDGET IN ANTICIPATION.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE WISE THAT WE LOOK FORWARD.
I MEAN, ARE WE GONNA HAVE MORE OF THESE TYPES OF CASES THE LARGER THAT WE BECOME? I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LOGICAL PROGRESSION, RIGHT? LORD KNOWS, I PRAY WE DON'T, BUT, RIGHT.
I MEAN THESE ARE BIG TICKET ITEMS. SEEMS LIKE IF THAT CASE ARISES, YEAH, I MEAN YOU JUST DON'T KNOW OR WHICH, WHICH COURT IS GONNA GET THAT CASE.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, THERE'S LARGER ONES WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THERE'S JUST YOUR REGULAR, UM, ATTORNEY'S EXPENSES FOR CRIMINAL AND THEN ALSO ON THE CPS SIDE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S, YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTATION FOR BOTH PARENTS, CHILDREN.
SO OBVIOUSLY DEPENDING ON HOW MANY, UM, PARTIES THERE ARE TO A CASE, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATION FOR THAT.
AND SO THOSE CAN VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
AND SO I KNOW WE HAD SPOKE PREVIOUSLY AND EVEN IN THIS BUDGET OF LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CCL COURTS BASED ON THEIR HISTORICAL CPS CASES, YOU KNOW, THOSE FUNDS WERE ADJUSTED.
AND THEN, UM, JUST AT THIS LAST, UM, COMMISSIONER'S COURT, UH, WE HAD TO ADJUST BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT JUST FROM NOW THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR MM-HMM
UM, YOU KNOW, IT WAS GONNA GO OVER IN THOSE CRIMINAL FEES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN SOME YEARS WE'VE HAD VERY LARGE VARIANCES WHERE WE ROLL OVER, YOU KNOW, THOSE ATTORNEY'S FEES MM-HMM
AND THEN OTHER YEARS WHERE WE, WE GO OVER.
SO IT IS, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT ESPECIALLY, I MEAN, ON BOTH SIDES OF IT FROM, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTATION OF HOW MANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE GONNA BE INDIGENT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, HAVING THEIR OWN PRIVATE REPRESENTATION.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHAT SORT OF CPS CASES YOU'RE GONNA HAVE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY CHILDREN IS, YOU KNOW, AND REPRESENTATION FOR THE PARENT AND ALSO WHETHER THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE, ARE INDIGENT.
SO THAT'S WHERE IT'S DIFFICULT AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF IT INCREASES OF, OF COURSE ON SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, EXPERT WITNESS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS INCREASE IS FOR COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS.
AND SO WE'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE, I MEAN I'M SURE JUDGE DEAN CAN SPEAK ON MAYBE SOME OF THAT ON THE, ON THAT PIECE OF IT.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A PIECE TO US ON COMPETENCY.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE A-T-I-D-C GRANT, BUT I MEAN IT IS A DROP IN THE BUCKET COMPARED TO WHAT WE PAY FOR FEES.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION WHETHER WE MAY GET SOME SORT OF, UM, PIECE FOR, YOU KNOW, CPS REPRESENTATION, BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED AT THIS TIME.
THE NEXT LINE IS THE SHERIFF PATROL DEPARTMENT 5 63.
THERE WAS A DECREASE IN CONTRACT SERVICES, UM, JUST FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO THE WORKING BUDGET OF 11,173, I BELIEVE IT WAS.
UM, PART OF COULD HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTED TO THE AXON CONTRACT.
UH, THE NEXT ONE IS THE TRANSFER OUT FOR THE JUVENILE PROBATION.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT SINCE THAT WAS JUST APPROVED.
SO, UM, AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE, BUT I THINK WE, AS WE DISCUSSED, PUT THE ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES INTO THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL AS THE UTILITIES
[01:40:01]
AND THEN LEAVE THOSE LEASE PAYMENTS SHOULD, I DON'T KNOW, THAT FALL THROUGH, WE'LL JUST LEAVE THAT THERE.AND, AND WHERE THAT BASELINE BUDGET IS SET IS ACTUAL EXPENDITURES.
SO IF THOSE FUNDS AREN'T EXPENDED, WE CAN JUST PUT THOSE IN PROGRAM CONTINGENCY, BUT THEY'RE SET THERE, UM, AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
BUT AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE'RE MOVING THE OTHERS IS SO IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE BASELINE, WHICH ULTIMATELY, UM, HELPS THE COUNTY ON THE FUNDING.
SO, UH, WE WILL WORK TOGETHER TO SEE WHAT, UM, WHAT THAT NUMBER NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE OPERATING? OKAY.
OKAY, SO THEN THE CAPITAL I, UM, THERE'S A COUPLE ITEMS. SO I ADDED THE AUDITOR, UM, CAP, NON CAP THAT I FOR THE 6,775.
THEN THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS, UM, THAT WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE PREVIOUS, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO IT INCREASED TO 1 42, 2 80 AND THEN THE CONSTABLE THREE, UM, I DID WRITE THAT DOWN IN THERE MANUALLY ON YOUR PACKETS, BUT IT, IT SHOULD BE 1 0 5 8 20 AND THAT INCLUDES WHAT WAS APPROVED TODAY AND UM, ON IT CAP, NON CAP, I DID ADJUST THAT ON MY FILE.
IT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND 134 WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED TODAY.
WASN'T THAT THE 50,000 THAT WAS ADDED TODAY FOR THE CA IT CAP, NON CAP? UH, WASN'T THAT FIVE 50,000 ADDED 40? IS IT 40? OKAY THEN LET ME PUT 40 THEN THAT WOULD MAKE IT TO 90,134 WITH A TOTAL OF 6 MILLION 6 0 9, $111.
AND THEN THE UPDATE ON THE ROLLOVERS, UM, ON MY FILE I HAVE WHAT WAS APPROVED, WHAT WAS LISTED THIS MORNING, WHICH WAS OUTSTANDING ON WHAT, $1,120,470 AND 52 CENTS, WHICH WAS APPROVED TODAY.
CURRENTLY THE FUND BALANCE IS THE $10,628,370 AND 38 CENTS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE NO, THAT'S THE USE OF THE FUND BALANCE.
THAT'S THE USE OF THE FUND BALANCE.
ONE OF THE UH, THINGS WHEN WE, WHEN WE'RE SITTING HERE LOOKING AT, UH, WHAT THE ACTUAL BUDGET AMOUNT IS FOR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR, UH, THAT INCLUDES, THAT INCLUDES THE ROLLOVERS AS WELL.
AND UH, THAT'S SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO, UH, COMMUNICATE THAT.
I THINK THAT THE AMOUNT OF ROLLOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS BUDGET IS NOT AN INCREASE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
IT'S JUST APPROPRIATED MONEY DIDN'T GET SPENT.
IT'S REAPPROPRIATED, YOU, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? RIGHT.
SO THE BUDGET'S GONNA BE THIS AMOUNT, BUT IT CONTAINS IN IT NOT NEW SPENDING.
IT'S, IT'S ROLLED OVER SPENDING THAT WASN'T, UH, THIS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
UM, SO ONE THING ALSO AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT HAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE PROJECTED FUND BALANCE IS WHEN I DO THAT, IT'S IN JULY.
AND SO THAT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED BASED ON LIKE EVERY SINGLE TIME WE'RE MEETING THERE'S DIFFERENT ROLLOVER AMOUNTS OR YEAH, ALL OF THAT.
SO NONE OF THAT'S FACTORED IN.
SO THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO KIND OF JUGGLE OF WHAT THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS AT THE TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAD THE UNDERSTANDING IT'S GONNA BE ROLLED OVER, SO OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES OUR FUND BALANCE A HIGHER, BUT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO SPEND THAT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA ROLL OVER VERSUS THE OTHER.
SO YEAH, WE, WE, I GUESS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY AT SOME POINT THERE THAT, THAT WE REALLY, UH, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER'S GONNA BE, RIGHT? UNLESS WE GO BACK AND KIND OF UPDATE THE FULL FUND BALLOTS PROJECTION AND LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SHOWN, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WOULD ROLL OVER OR USE OR THAT SORT OF THING WHERE IT'S GONNA BE.
BUT, BUT SAY BY THE END OF OCTOBER OR SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BETTER, BETTER CONCEPT OF WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
SO DECEMBER YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BETTER CONCEPT OF WHAT THAT IS.
I WAS GIVING YOU CREDIT FOR THE END OF OCTOBER TO BE ABLE TO, WELL WE, WE ACTUALLY, UM, WE SPLIT FISCAL YEARS THROUGH THE END OF NOVEMBER.
UM, SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, FOR PURCHASES THAT ARE IN SEPTEMBER, IT GIVES THE DEPARTMENTS TIME TO GET THOSE INVOICES, GET THEM IN.
[01:45:01]
WHICH YOU KNOW, AND I PUT THAT IN HERE THAT'S NOT ON THERE IS ALL OF THE, WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ATTORNEY'S FEES, RIGHT? THOSE ARE NOT ON A PURCHASE ORDER.SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ENCUMBRANCES, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF LOOKING AT, AT THE TIME IN JULY WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ASK, UH, THE COURTS, WE REACH OUT, I THINK IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST, AND BASICALLY SAY, HEY, CAN YOU PLEASE GET WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND HAVE THEM, UM, BILL US INTERIM BILLING FOR WHAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR.
AND SO AGAIN, WE'RE PAYING THOSE, YOU KNOW, 60 DAYS OUT AND WHICH AREN'T, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST KIND OF A ESTIMATE BASED ON HISTORY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, VARIABLES THERE.
AND IT, AND IT CHANGES FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
SO THAT'S WHERE EVERYTH BECOMES DIFFICULT IN, WE'RE NOT GONNA KNOW THE AMOUNT, UH, BALANCE BY THE TIME WE ADOPT THE BUDGET, BUDGET BALANCE.
BUT I MEAN, UH, ULTIMATELY YOU'RE NOT GONNA KNOW THE AMOUNT UNTIL THE AUDIT IS COMPLETE.
YEAH, I MEAN USUALLY I DO, UM, WE HAVE DEBT COMPLIANCE WORK, UM, THAT I START AT THE END OF FEBRUARY AND THAT'S USUALLY WHEN WE'RE DOING ALL OF THOSE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXPENSE SIDE, BUT THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT REVENUE.
SO REVENUE THAT WE RECEIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, 60 DAYS AFTER WE HAVE TO LITERALLY LOOK AT EVERY CASH RECEIPT AND SEE DID IT BELONG? DID WE EARN THAT REVENUE AND FISCAL YEAR, UM, YOU KNOW, 25 OR IS THIS FISCAL YEAR 26 REVENUE? SO WE HAVE THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
AND I BELIEVE THAT FUND BALANCE DOES CONTAIN THAT ROLLOVER NUMBER.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT WAS A QUESTION.
SO IT WOULD BE LESS, THE TRUE NUMBER WOULD BE LESS AND AND OF THAT 10 MILLION, 4 MILLION WAS ALLOCATED OR NOT? NO, UM, WE WE'RE ADDING IT TO CONTINGENCY.
SO IT HAS COME FROM THERE THAT, YEAH.
SO ACTUALLY ON MY COPY I DID, I JUST DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT IT.
SO YES, SO IT DOES INCLUDE THE FOUR.
IT DOES THAT WE, MY NUMBER DOES INCLUDE THAT PROJECTED.
THAT'S EARLIER GUESS DO YOU HAVE A, DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER RIGHT HERE?
'CAUSE YEAH, UM, IT DOES HAVE THE, THE USE OF FUND BALANCE IS 10.6 AND THAT DOES INCLUDE THE 4 MILLION.
[Items II.A. & II.B.]
IS THERE ANYTHING BACK ON, UH, UNDER ITEM TWO, UNDER A OR B THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE BACK PAGE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER? UM, I WOULD SAY WE CAN JUST DO IT OFF OF A, EITHER ON TO A OR B TO DISCUSS, UH, FIRE MARSHAL.I THINK THAT IT REALLY DOES NEED TO BE BASED ON OUR BUDGET HERE AND THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, A POINT OF DISCUSSION OR A POINT OF DECISION.
UH, SO WHICH NUMBER WOULD THAT BE ON THEN? UNDER ITEM BE? UM, WE CAN DO IT UNDER TWO A.
SO WE DO TWO A AS PART OF THE GENERAL FUND ON THE PRESENTATION DISCUSSION, APPROVE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, UH, SPECIFIC TO THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITION, IF THE FLOOR IS OPEN.
WELL, IF WE, UH, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A FIRM NUMBER CHIEF, UH, IF WE CONTINUE TO, UH, CONTRACT OR PSD ONE.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU PREPARED TO GIVE US A, A CONTRACT NUMBER AMOUNT OR, I MEAN, WE'RE SITTING HERE TRYING TO, TRYING TO PUT A BUDGET TOGETHER, OBVIOUSLY.
GOOD MORNING, HOW ARE YOU? GOOD, HOW ARE YOU? GREAT.
SO I, I UH, ACTUALLY WASN'T AWARE THAT WE WERE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS TODAY AND I, I POPPED IN APPARENTLY JUST THROUGHOUT TIME.
SO, UM, I, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN, I GUESS PROMPTED TO PROVIDE THAT.
I WOULD SAY THE, THE AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS THE AMOUNT THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR.
UM, I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT.
CERTAINLY HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
UM, I THINK WE WILL ULTIMATELY SPEND MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE WE INTEND TO STAFF THAT I THINK OUR STAFFING COST IS GONNA EXCEED THE $360,000 A YEAR.
SO, UM, OR I'M CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL.
UM, AS IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DIALOGUE ON, IS THERE ROOM TO BRING THAT DOWN? I, I NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH OUR BOARD ON THAT.
I GUESS REALLY WHAT WE'RE, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS WE'RE SITTING HERE PUTTING A BUDGET TOGETHER, TRYING TO, TRYING TO FINALIZE IT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, HOW TO FILL IN THE BLANK.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS WORKING ON.
I I, I KNOW THAT OUR, OUR BOARD IS AMENABLE TO CONTINUING IT AT THE RATE THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IT AT.
SO, AND WE, WE HAD ORIGINALLY WRITTEN THE
[01:50:01]
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THEM, A RENEWAL OPTION AND THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE AGREEMENT.SO I I, I CAN SPEAK IN CONFIDENCE THAT IF THAT'S HOW WE PROCEED FORWARD, THAT, THAT THEY ARE GOOD WITH THAT.
UM, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THAT, I THINK WE'D JUST HAVE TO GET THAT ON A BOARD MEETING AGENDA AND, AND REVISIT THE TERMS. SO, OKAY.
SO TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST, UH, UM, YOU CAN BASICALLY DO IT AND WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S ROOM FOR DISCUSSION NEGOTIATION, THAT'S FOR A LONGER TERM AGREEMENT SPECIFIC TO THE COST OF THAT AGREEMENT, BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY, YOU CAN BASICALLY BASE IT ON WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY BEING CHARGED, BUT IF WE, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT GOING FURTHER THAN SAY A YEAR IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THEN THAT'S ROOM FOR DISCUSSION.
NEGOTIATE ON WHAT THOSE, WHAT THOSE TERMS WOULD BE AND WHAT THE COST WOULD BE.
I MEAN, BACK TO THE, WHAT HAD BEEN TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WAS IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN AND WORKING WITH THE ESDS IN THE COUNTY TO WORK YOUR WAY OUT OF THE FIRE MARSHAL BUSINESS AND TRANSITION THAT OVER TO THE DISTRICTS, THAT'S A LONGER TERM CONVERSATION.
'CAUSE WE GOT A VISIT WITH THE GOVERNANCE OF THE RESPECTIVE ESDS ON THAT.
BUT, UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING A ONE YEAR TRIAL DEAL AND THEN WORK OUT THE REST IN BETWEEN THAT YEAR AND NEXT BUDGET.
I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH THAT ONE YEAR OF TRIAL.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO ALLOCATE FOR THE BUDGETS.
ALL I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YES, WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO AND THAT'S THE NUMBER YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? WELL, I I THINK WE'RE KIND OF PUTTING HIM ON THE SPOT.
I, THE, THE NUMBER RIGHT NOW WOULD BE 360,000 RIGHT.
AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE, THE CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST ITEMS WAS NOT ANYTHING WE ASKED FOR.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS, WAS IN THERE.
YOU ALREADY HAVE SHOTGUNS, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? NO, WE DON'T NEED SHOTGUNS.
UH, AND AND I WILL CLARIFY ANYONE THAT IS, UM, ISSUED A WEAPON HAS TO BE A, A THOLE CERTIFIED PEACE OFFICER SURE.
WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TRAINING.
THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S CURRENTLY FILLING THAT ROLE'S BEEN A PEACE OFFICER FOR 16 YEARS, HE'S A FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR, HE IS AN, UH, ACTIVE THREAT, UH, MITIGATION INSTRUCTOR.
I DON'T HAVE HIS WHOLE RESUME IN FRONT OF ME, BUT, UM, AND I, THERE'S AN APPROACH HERE ALSO THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT WOULD BE DOING THAT JOB HAS TO BE, UH, PEACE OFFICER.
UM, IF WE HAVE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, YOU CAN HAVE A FIRE INVESTIGATOR THAT CAN, THAT CAN RESPOND TO A FIRE OR GO DO INSPECTIONS AND ALL THAT KIND OF PLAN REVIEWS THAT CAN MAINTAIN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
AND IF IT, AND IF IT APPEARS LIKE, OH, THIS IS A, AN ARSON PROBLEM, THEN THAT GETS KICKED UP THE CHAIN AND THEN WE GOTTA GET ONE OF THOSE GUYS THERE.
SO, UM, AND THAT'S SOME OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED, TALKED ABOUT WITH THE OTHER ESDS IS IN THE LONG TERM, MAYBE THERE BECOMES MORE OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO THIS, WHICH HELPS WITH THE, THE STAFFING PROBLEM.
SO WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU COULD HAVE SOME, SOME KIND OF NUMBER BASED ON A YEAR COMMITMENT FROM THE COUNTY IF WE CHOSE TO BE? HE SAID THAT A COUPLE TIMES I HEARD THAT JUDGE.
HE'S SAYING 3 360 IS WHAT HE CAN DO.
SO THE 360 IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS CORRECT.
I, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, IS WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT, UH, I MEAN WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A DECISION OR ANYTHING, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE, THE FIFTH, THE PLACE FILLER RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS 360 WITH THE CHIEF.
AND SO THE ONLY OTHER CLARIFICATION, UM, THAT I WANTED BECAUSE IT, I LOOKED AT THE CONTRACT, BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
UM, SO I KNOW IT SAID BASICALLY FOR, THERE'S THE, UM, REPORTING, LIKE THE FIRE REPORTING, UM, THAT WE WOULD STILL KEEP THAT CORRECT.
WE HAVE A ACTIVE 9 1 1, UM, DUE AS WELL AS A TEXAS COMMISSION FOR FIRE PROTECTION.
SO I THINK THERE WAS LIKE 45,000 OF CONTRACT SERVICES FOR THAT.
BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FUEL MAINTENANCE, UM, SUPPLIES, ANY OF THAT WOULD BE COVERED IN THE CONTRACT SERVICE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I THINK THAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT 45,000 IS IF YOU ALL HAVE TO DO A TLO, SO LIKE BACKGROUND FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE PAYING FOR THAT.
I, I THINK WE, I MEAN OUR INTENT WAS THAT IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE.
THAT'S YOUR INTENT IS TURNKEY.
THE, THE THING THAT I WAS POINTED TO THAT CONTRACT SERVICES IS THAT SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION, IT WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET, BUT THAT WAS A SUBSCRIPTION.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PURCHASED COUNTYWIDE.
SO I, I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION IS IF WE BUDGETED.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK EVERYTHING, OKAY, SO IF WE ZEROED EVERYTHING OUT ADDED 360,000, THAT WOULD COVER IT.
[01:55:01]
NO OTHER OR WOULD NO OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE BUDGETED? CORRECT.THERE WAS SOME, UH, SOME OUTSOURCE PLAN REVIEWS, THIRD PARTY PLAN REVIEWS BEING DONE.
I THINK THAT WAS MAYBE WITH VERITAS OR THAT I HAVE NOT PART OF THAT SEEN AN EXPENSE COME THROUGH, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT'S AT THAT, BUT THAT WOULD, WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT NOW.
SO BASICALLY NONE OF THE SUBSCRIPTIONS I TALKED ABOUT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ZERO OUT THE WHOLE BUDGET, PUT 360,000 WITH A CONTRACT FOR ESD ONE.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT THAT WORKS THERE? WE WOULD BE MOVING, UM, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 4 0 6, SO THAT WOULD BE MOVED TO 4 0 6.
AND THEN AGAIN, IF THE COURT TAKES ACTIONS, WE WOULD ZERO OUT THAT ENTIRE BUDGET, ADD THE 360 IN CONTRACT SERVICES.
I BROUGHT THAT UP EARLIER ABOUT THAT THAT POSITION WAS INCLUDED IN, IN WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET AND THAT PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A DIFFERENT YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S A ONE YEAR TRIAL BASIS WITH THE ESD ONE.
WHAT WE NEED, WHAT WE NEED TO, UH, JUST REGARDING THAT, WHAT WE NEED.
WE'VE ALREADY GOT A STEP ON YOUR JUDGE.
SO A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLEEN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE.
WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION BASE COMMISSIONER.
SO IF, IF THE COURT, IF THIS PASSES THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL UPDATE THE BUDGET AND THEN ON THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSIONER'S COURT, I WOULD RECOMMEND HAVING AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT SPECIFIC, THAT AMENDS THAT CONTRACT.
IS THAT OKAY? THIS, THIS WOULD JUST BE TO SET THAT BUDGET.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, UM, THE BOARD RIGHT? TO AMEND A CONTRACT.
I WOULD IMAGINE OUR CONTRACTS WRITTEN EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30TH MM-HMM
SO WE CAN EITHER AMEND THAT OR JUST CHANGE THE DATES AND DO IT.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
AND UM, 'CAUSE I MISSED THAT THAT WAS THE NUMBER FOR THE YEAR.
I WAS THINKING MORE OF A LONGER TERM BUT FOR THE YEAR.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY, SO JUST MOTION CARRIES FOUR ONE FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE WILL MOVE, UM, THE SECRETARY POSITION TO 4 0 6 WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUDGETED.
ALL OTHER LINES WILL BE ZEROED OUT.
WE WILL ADD 360,000 TO CONTRACT SERVICES, WHICH WILL REPRESENT THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL UNLESS ADDITIONAL ACTION IS TAKEN.
WAS THAT INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION? YEAH.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL OKAY.
YOU GET ALL THAT? THANK, THANK YOU CHIEF.
OKAY, SO THAT TAKES CARE OF THE A AND B, CORRECT BRIANNA? YES.
[III.A. Present/Discuss/ Approve Precincts Fund 50 and Funds 1-4 for Budget FY2025-2026. (Judge Deen)]
AND THEN UNDER ITEM E, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS AND PROJECTS? NO, I I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING, UM, THAT WE HAD FOR TODAY WAS TO DISCUSS THE TOWERS COME BACK.WE, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT STUFF TO COME BACK TO.
YEAH, WELL WE DON'T, DO WE WANT, THIS WILL BE CONTRARY TO WHAT Y'ALL MENTIONED BEFORE.
YOU WANNA MAKE THAT DECISION WITH HIM HERE.
DO WANT WE READY TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT DECISION NOW WITHOUT HIM? DO WE NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION ON THE TOWERS TODAY? CAN WE, YOU COULD APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS IN A CONTINGENCY IF CAN, CAN WE, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN USE OUT OF UNALLOCATED FUND BALANCE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU COULD IF YOU PUT A BUDGET THERE.
'CAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT.
SO WHAT I THINK WOULD BE GOOD IS, IS BASICALLY, UM, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN APPROVED, HAVING THAT ALL IN THAT SUMMARY OF CHANGES AND THEN BASICALLY THE COURT WOULD MAKE A, UM, DECISION ON AN OVERALL CONTINGENCY.
'CAUSE AGAIN, WE'VE UM, THINK HISTORICALLY OR LIKE IN THIS BUDGET WE HAD $2 MILLION.
THOSE ARE FOR UNEXPECTED THINGS.
A CONTRACT COMES BACK MORE, WHATEVER IT IS.
OR IF AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP DURING THE YEAR WHERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE FOR INSTANCE THIS BUILDING, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS BUDGETED IN CONTINGENCY.
WE MAY HAVE THEM IN FUND BALANCE.
HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT PULL FROM FUND BALANCE UNLESS IT CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC AS TO BASICALLY WHAT GROUNDS OR JUSTIFICATION DOES HAVE.
SO THAT, THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD.
IF THIS BUILDING OPPORTUNITY CAME UP AND WE HAD NOT SET ASIDE THE AMOUNT TO ANTICIPATE THAT TYPE OF A MM-HMM
[02:00:01]
OPPORTUNITY, RIGHT.UNLESS YOU COULD SHOW THAT IT MEETS THE, UM, DEFINITION OF THAT STATUTE OF AN EMERGENCY, WHICH YOU SAID IS VERY LIMITED.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
AGAIN, WE'VE HAD 2 MILLION, I WANNA SAY MAYBE A MILLION'S BEEN USED AND THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN OPERATIONAL THINGS OR YOU KNOW, IF PROJECTS COME FORWARD, YOU KNOW, CHANGE ORDERS THAT ARE MORE THAN WHAT THE PROJECT WAS APPROPRIATED.
WE HAD, UM, SOME OF THE SUBDIVISION WORK THAT CAME UP FOR CONTRACT SERVICES, UM, THE BICKER STAFF, THE LEGAL PIECES ON THAT.
I MEAN, THERE'S STUFF LIKE THAT WHERE IT'S JUST YOU WANT ENOUGH FOR JUST SOME OF YOUR OPERATIONAL, BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT A CONTINGENCY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RESTRICTED FOR CAPITAL.
SO, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, OR I THINK THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION OVER THERE IS, UM, WHEN DO WE HAVE TO SET THAT CONTINGENCY NUMBER AS A FINAL NUMBER? UM, WE, WE COULD DO THAT ON THE 17TH AS A FINAL, YOU KNOW, ONCE BASICALLY EV ALL THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE THEN, BUT IT GIVES, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN AND START ENTERING IT INTO OUR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND DOING ALL THE THINGS.
AND SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE DOING THAT, WE COME ACROSS RIGHT.
SOMETHING WHERE WE NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION FROM THE COURT.
SO IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
OR AGAIN, IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN A ROLLOVER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT GIVES THAT LAST OPPORTUNITY.
THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THERE.
THERE'S GONNA BE OTHER THINGS THAT, UH, I'LL CALL THEM THE LOOSE ENDS THAT ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE TIED UP ON THAT DATE AS WELL.
YEAH, THE PLAN FOR DAY DAY WAS REALLY FOR THE BIG, ALL OF THE ITEMS IS TO MAKE DECISIONS SO, YOU KNOW, CAN PUT IT ALL IN THERE.
AND SO THAT WAY ON THE 17TH, REALLY WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED LOOKS LIKE WHAT'S BEING ADOPTED ON MONDAY.
'CAUSE IT DOESN'T LEAVE RIGHT.
SO THE ONLY DEAL THAT WE WOULD DO IS, IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE WOULD ALLOCATE IN CONTINGENCY FOR THE TOWER PROJECT.
THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING CAN ADD.
THERE'S A SIMILAR CAPITAL, RIGHT? OR IF THERE'S AGAIN, JUST KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WE OVERLOOKED THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WANT COURT TO PUT ACTION AND LIKE I SAID, SPECIAL REVENUE UNTIL THE 17TH TO DO THAT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND.
I THINK WE RUN OUT OF BUSINESS.
I'M FINE WAITING, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR BIANCA REAL QUICK.
AGAIN, DON'T, DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TODAY, BUT BIANCA, WHAT DOES OUR FUND BALANCE USAGE LOOK LIKE AFTER ALL THE STUFF TODAY AND, AND UM, JUST A NUMBER ROUNDED TO THE CLOSEST A HUNDRED THOUSAND'S.
SO WE WERE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS AND I WAS TRYING TO GET A TOTAL, I, THERE'S A VARIANCE BETWEEN OURS.
UH, THE TOTAL COMMISSIONER WALDEN JUST SAID 10.4.
DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? UM, WITH THE CHANGES WE WERE JUST MAKING, IT LOOKS LIKE 12 MIL.
AND THEN WHAT DOES THAT PUT OUR PROJECTED REMAINING FUND BALANCE AT GOING INTO THE YEAR? I'M NOT SURE BRIANNA, THAT'S, I THINK YOUR QUESTION THERE SAYS REMAINING WOULD BE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT PERCENTAGES.
AND THAT 12 PUTS THE TOTAL BUDGET UP RIGHT OUT OF A HUNDRED MILLION.
SO WE'D BE AT A THIR ABOUT 32%.
YEAH, RIGHT NOW IT'S SHOWING 99 MILLION.
AND SO ANYTHING, SO IF WE ADDED FOUR FOR THE TOWERS, THAT WOULD AFFECT THAT PERCENTAGE 'CAUSE THE BUDGET WOULD GO UP TO 1 0 4 MM-HMM
AND THEN THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE JUST KIND OF AN OVERALL CONTINGENCY AND THE PHONE BALANCE WOULD GO DOWN TO 28.
WHAT'S THE OVERALL CONTINGENCY EXPECTED TO BE SET AT TOO? THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY BEEN DOING.
BUT AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T LEAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY SORT OF IF A CAPITAL OPPORTUNITY SURE.
LIKE THAT AGAIN, IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY WITH I KNOW A BUILDING OR SOMETHING WHERE IT, SO WHY DON'T BUDGET FOR TWO TOWERS THIS YEAR AND TWO NEXT YEAR? I UNDERSTOOD ALL FOUR OF 'EM THIS YEAR.
WHY DON'T WE LOOK, I THINK WE, BUT THINGS SETTLE OUT.
WAIT UNTIL THE 17TH TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST THINK THAT WE WILL DO THAT PROBABLY ON THE 17TH.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON UNDER ITEM TWO? UH, I'M SORRY.
ITEM THREE WE NEED TO ADDRESS TODAY.
JUST ON THOSE, I THINK BIANCA'S WORKING WITH EACH OF YOU, UM, TO FINALIZE YOUR BUDGETS BASED OFF OF YEP.
UM, THE CHANGES AND APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN IN COURT AND CAN'T YOU GET THAT OUT? I MOVE TO ADJOURN.
HOW'S THAT? RECORDS SHOW THAT WE'LL ADJOURN AT, UH, WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT.
SECOND, THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE'LL ADJOURN IN 1117.