Aug 17, 2026 Commissioners Court Budget Agenda

[Call to Order]

[00:00:11]

>> I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND START THIS MEETING OF THE PARKER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET AGENDA.

RECORDS SHOW IT IS 10:00 A.M. MONDAY AUGUST 17TH, 2026.

[I. Consider/Take action on a burn ban and take any action the court deems necessary. (Frank Watson / Commissioner Holt)]

TO CONTINUE THAT OR NOT, THAT ITEM OPENED.

YOU DID NOT WAIT AT ALL, DID YOU? MOTIONS MADE BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS.

ANY DISCUSSION -- THE RECORD ON THAT PASSES 5-0 AND WE WILL

CONTINUE WITH THE BURN BAN. >> TO BE CLEAR WE'RE NOT PUTTING A CERTAIN TIME LIMIT ON IT NOW WE WILL JUST REVISIT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. ONCE YOU ALL RATIFY THAT --

[II.A. Present/Discuss/Approve General Fund Budget for FY2026-2027. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

>> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM TWO ON THE PRESENT. DISCUSS APPROVED BUDGET FOR 26, 27 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITEM A DISCUSS BUDGET FOR FY26, 27. BIANCA.

>> GOOD MORNING. I DID PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THUS FAR.

I UPDATED THE SHEET. HAD THE INCORRECT REVENUE PROPOSED NUMBERS SO I DID UPDATE THAT SHEET AND I WILL GET IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW. LAST WEEK FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS, COURT APPROVED THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE COMMISSION OF 1.3 MILLION. WE DID APPROVE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT FULL TIME EMPLOYEE FOR 176,986.

THE ELECTIONS ADMIN RAISED CONSISTED OF AN INCREASE OF 26.9 80. IT DIRECTOR RAISE INCREASED 7:30 THOUSAND $103. THE REMOVAL FOR 2027 WAS APPROVED PER COUNTY PAID SHORT TERM DISABILITY POLICY WHICH WAS PAID FROM FUND 53 WAS APPROVED. CONSTABLE FOR INCREASE FOR THE PART TIME POSITION 13,000 2:30 WITH A TOTAL APPROVED FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS OF 1.5 MILLION. $1,537,299.

THE PUBLIC SERVICES THAT WERE APPROVED TOTALED TO $323,000.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE? >> ANY QUESTIONS -- THOSE ARE

THE CORRECTIONS. >> THOSE ARE WHAT WAS APPROVED LAST WEEK. THOSE ARE THE PUBLIC SERVICES.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE TODAY, BUT THAT'S --

>> COMING ACROSS ON THE AGENDA --

>> YES, SIR,. >> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

DO WE NEED ANY KIND OF RATIFICATION OF THAT OR MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEW NUMBERS? JUST INFORMATION.

>> JUST INFORMATIONAL. I DO HAVE FOR THE RECORD THE VIT BUDGET THE VEHICLE INVENTORY BUDGET THAT WE MUST PUT ON RECORD. PER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 111.095 FOR SPECIAL FUNDS AND TAX CODES 23.122 THE TAX ASSESSOR PROVIDED THE VEHICLE INVENTORY TAX BUDGET AND IT'S BEING SUBMITTED. THE BUDGETS $156,378.36.

>> ONCE YOU COMPLETE UNDER ITEM A THEN WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION TO THE NEXT ONE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THE NEXT SEVERAL UNTIL WE GET TO ITEM B. JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE

READY TO GO TO ITEM B. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY GENERAL

[00:05:01]

>> ARE YOU DONE WITH THAT? >> YES, SIR.

>> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING -- ON ITEM A? COME ON UP. ITEM B PEER COME ON UP.

[II.B. General Budget Updates. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

>> I WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL I GOT HANDED OUT A SHEET THAT SAYS 2027 TAX ESTIMATES AND SUBMITTED THOSE NUMBERS FOR YOU ALL. THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF 17% INCREASE FOR THE LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR A TOTAL OF 553,697 FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. AND THEN FOR PROPERTY COVERAGE, I BROUGHT TO YOU ALL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO ABOUT ADDING HISTORICAL COVERAGE TO THIS BUILDING AND YOU WANTED MORE INFORMATION AND MORE DETAILED NUMBERS ON WHAT IT WOULD COST ADDITIONALLY. SO WITHOUT HISTORICAL COVERAGE OUR INCREASE WOULD GO FROM 283,684 -- AND THAT'S BASED ON CLAIMS THAT WE'VE HAD THE PAST YEAR.

IF WE ADDED THE HISTORICAL COVERAGE FOR THIS BUILDING, IT WOULD INCREASE BY 35% TO 382959.90.

SO YOU ALL NEED TO DECIDE ON THAT IF WE WANT HISTORICAL

COVERAGE. >> CAN YOU TELL US THE

DIFFERENCE. >> IT'S ABOUT 45,000 DIFFERENCE.

>> SO THE COURTHOUSE COVERAGE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT FIRST

CATEGORY. >> THAT FIRST CATEGORY IS ALL OF

OUR LIABILITY POLICY. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN

INCREASE OF 81,000. >> FOR JUST LIABILITY.

>> PLUS. >> PLUS WHATEVER METHODS YOU CHOOSE FOR PROPERTY COVERAGE. THEY'RE SEPARATE CATEGORIES.

SEPARATE POLICIES. >> THAT WOULD BE ON THE HISTORICAL GOVERNANCE THAT WOULD BE THIS FACILITY, NOT THE

DISTRICT. >> JUST THIS BUILDING.

>> DO WE HAVE THE SAME -- WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME LIMITATIONS

ON THE DISTRICT. >> DISTRICT COURTHOUSE IS EXTERIOR. BUT THEY CAN DO THE INTERIOR.

>> ARE THERE OPTIONS ON DEDUCTIBLES OR NUMBERS.

>> I ASKED THE NURSE NOT. >> THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR

HISTORICAL COVERAGE? >> NO IT'S UP TO THE COUNTY.

BUT IF WE HAD SOMETHING HAPPEN TO KEEP THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION THEN THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THE INSURANCE COVERS AND WHAT IT WOULD BE TO BRING IT

BACK TO HISTORICAL. >> FOR EXAMPLE IF WE PUT A SUDDEN POLICY IN PLACE AND HAD A CATASTROPHE GOD FORBID THAT AFFECTED THE BUILDING NEGATIVELY, OUR INSURANCE ONLY COVERED A PERCENTAGE BUT DID NOT COME BACK TO COMPLY WITH THE

STANDARDS THEN WE HAVE TO PAY. >> YES, SIR,.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS IT'S 42,500 ADDITIONAL COVERAGE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE AND WE WANTED THAT INFORMATION. NOW IT'S BEFORE US AND WE HAVE

TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT. >> I'LL JUST PUT THIS OUT THERE AND YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT COMMISSIONER.

WITH THE VOLATILITY OF WEATHER WE'VE SEEN WE COULD GO ALL YEAR.

SPEND THAT MONEY AND NOT HAVE TO, BUT THEN AGAIN THE CATASTROPHE OR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS TO THIS BUILDING OBVIOUSLY THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS AND KEEPING THIS FUNCTIONING IS A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT OBVIOUSLY THE COST OF THAT WOULD EXCEED EVENTUALLY.

I THINK IT'S AN INVESTMENT INTO WHAT'S REALLY THE -- I. THINK THE COUNTY OF THIS FACILITY. THAT'S JUST MY INPUT ON IT.

>> SO TO BE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESTORING IT TO FUNCTIONALITY AND RESTORING IT TO THE HISTORICAL LEVEL THAT IT WAS, ACCURATELY. AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

>> A LITTLE BIT OF AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT.

TO RESTORE IT TO ORIGINALITY IF YOU WILL.

FUNCTIONALITY, ORIGINALITY. >> THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BASICALLY. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WE ASK FOR THAT

INFORMATION AND GOT IT. >> WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

I MEAN 42,000 AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE GO AHEAD AND DO IT.

>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS.

>> I AGREE. >> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I SUPPORT THIS BUT I HAVE A QUICK TECHNICAL QUESTION IF WE TAKE THIS HISTORICAL COVERAGE, DOES THAT LIMIT OUR ABILITY IF

[00:10:03]

YOU MIGHT KNOW THIS BETTER THAN ANY OF US.

IF WE TAKE THIS HISTORICAL COVERAGE, DOES THAT LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO IMPROVE WIRING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN HERE?

>> THAT WAS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD ON THIS HISTORICAL COVERAGE. DOES IT UPGRADE, DOES IT TRIP A TRIGGER WHERE IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP?

>> OF COURSE WE HAVE TO STILL BE WITHIN CODE ANYWAY.

IT WOULD JUST ESTHETICALLY NEED TO LOOK --

>> I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

WHATEVER YEAR IT WAS THE COUNTY WENT THROUGH THE RENOVATION PROCESS HERE, THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE.

IT ALLOWS FOR THE MODERN CODE DIFFERENCES AND ALLOWS FOR THINGS LIKE AIR CONDITIONING BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS BUILT IT DIDN'T HAVE AIR CONDITIONING. IT ALLOWS FOR THOSE THINGS BUT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE I THINK WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION THEN IT CAN BE RESTORED THAT WAY AND THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE WHATEVER YEAR THAT WAS, 30 YEARS AGO, 40

YEARS AGO, WHATEVER YEAR IT WAS. >> 25 YEARS AGO.

>> DO WE HAVE TO USE OR ARE WE THEN REQUIRED IN HISTORICAL DESIGNATION TO USE CONTRACTORS THAT ARE ON THAT APPROVED

HISTORICAL. >> THEY DO.

THEY HAVE TO BE -- >> YES.

>> THOSE WERE SOME ASSUMPTIONS BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO --

>> HAVE WE ACTUALLY VOTED YET? >> JUST A COMMENT.

IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY BUT ACTUALLY IF WE WERE TO HAVE --

IT WOULD BE MET VERY QUICKLY. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS

ITEM? >> YES, SIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE BUDGET COURT DATES.

IF WE WANT ANOTHER BUDGET, THERE'S NO OTHER BUDGET COURT DATES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK. IF WE WANT ONE WE'D HAVE TO

TODAY -- >> WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT.

WE'LL SEE HOW THIS PROGRESSES AND MAKE THAT DECISION.

MAKE THAT DECISION AT THE END. PASSES 5-0.

>> DO WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE REST OF THIS INSURANCE? OR DID WE JUST DO IT -- ALL OF THAT WAS CAPTURED IN ONE MOTION?

>> AS I UNDERSTOOD. >> THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE APPROVED THIS ENTIRE LIST OR N NOT.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.

>> EVERYTHING ELSE. >> EVERYTHING ELSE AS PROPOSED

FOR FY27. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY DISCUSSION.

WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM C. ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM B?

[II.C. Public Services Budget Requests. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

ASSOCIATION. >> WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT ONE.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK --

>> YOU'RE CORRECT. ARE THERE ANY ON HERE WE HAVEN'T

DONE? >> YES.

SPRING TOWN LIBRARY REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.

I SEE PORTER COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION IS HERE.

>> I WAS JUST TESTING YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE. >> DID WE DO THE -- YES, WE DID.

OKAY. >> I DID SPEAK WITH THE CITY ON FRIDAY. UNFORTUNATELY THE DIRECTOR IS OUT SICK BUT THEY'RE GOING TO REQUEST AT MINIMUM THE SAME THAT

THEY DID LAST YEAR OF 5072. >> WHICH ONE IS THAT?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE HAZEL LIBRARY $5072.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIES 5-0.

>> I'M ALSO GOING TO -- WE HAVE THE SPRING TOWN SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER HERE FOR $5000 AND I MOVE TO APPROVE THAT.

AS WELL. >> MOTION -- MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COLIN. SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?

CARRIES 5-0. >> WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE.

>> SPRINGTIME LIBRARY. >> CHRISTINA.

[00:15:01]

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA DURHAM THE ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND DIRECTOR AND I OVERSEE THE SPRING TOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY. I DID SUBMIT A LETTER FOR A FUNDING REQUEST THIS MORNING. I'M SORRY THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE LATE. I GOT NOTIFICATION FRIDAY -- I. DID GET IT IN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER WERE NOT ASKING FOR ANY MORE CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COUNTY THAN WHAT YOU FUNDED FOR US LAST YEAR. AND ALSO IN THE LETTER IS A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER OUR ESSENTIAL EXPENSES, WHICH IS OUR STAFF, OUR BUILDING MAINTENANCE, OUR PURCHASES AND UTILITIES AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMPARISON OF THE FUNDING AMOUNT VERSUS OUR TOTAL BUDGET FOR THOSE ITEMS, IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT 11% WHILE COUNTY RESIDENTS MAKE UP ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF OUR PATRONS OVERALL. SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPLEMENT SERVING THOSE COUNTY RESIDENTS WITH MUNICIPAL DOLLARS AS WE HAVE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE ARE REQUESTING IT AS WE RECEIVED LAST YEAR BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU GUYS HAVE. >> YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF REMODELING AND IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD ON THE OUTSIDE.

I HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDE. >> THE WORK INSIDE HAS BEEN REALLY RESTRICTED TO QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE FROM A SEWER LINE THAT IS AGING AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL BACKUPS FROM -- FLOODS ACTUALLY FUNDED IN THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD BE TO REPAIR THAT SEWER LINE SO WE DON'T CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE FLOODS.

THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE INSIDE HAVE BEEN MINIMAL AND A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN DONE BY VOLUNTEERS FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE A MURAL PAINTED IN OUR CHILDREN'S STORY TIME ROOM DONE BY A

VOLUNTEER. >> IT'S A PRETTY OLD BUILDING.

IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. I MADE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND

APPROVE THE 18,320 AS PRESENTED. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> THAT'S A STATEMENT

PREVIOUSLY. >> ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE'VE GOT PARK COUNTY

HISTORICAL COMMISSION. >> YOU WANT TO COME UP?

>> GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US LAST WEEK.

WE'RE SHORT STAFFED IN MY OFFICE AND I HAD TO DO MY JOB.

TERRY WITH PARKER COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION.

WE'RE REQUESTING A BUDGET OF $72,500 AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING FOR THE RIDE HOUSE AT THIS TIME.

WE'RE HOPING THAT EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT ALREADY WILL CARRY OVER. AND THERE WILL BE SOME FUNDING THROUGH THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE.

I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. >> ARE YOU READY FOR SOME QUESTIONS ON? TELL US WHAT THE MONEY WILL BE SPENT FOR AND HOW IT COMPLIES LAST YEAR'S.

>> IT'S AN INCREASE. A LARGE PART -- IT'S REQUIRED WE ATTEND AT LEAST TWO TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION WORKSHOPS OR CONFERENCES PER YEAR. ALL OF OUR MEMBERS PICK WE HAVE AN INCREASED MEMBERSHIP OF 31 MEMBERS NOW AND WE ARE KIND OF HOPING TO KEEP THAT CAPPED. WE HAD 13 MEMBERS I BELIEVE ATTEND THE REAL PLACES CONFERENCE IN AUSTIN.

THAT IS A THREE DAY -- TWO AND A HALF DAY CONFERENCE.

COST $500 A PERSON TO ATTEND PLUS THE HOTEL AND TRAVEL FEES.

IT'S A LARGE CHUNK OF IT. WE DO OFFER GRANTS, MATCHING

GRANTS. >> YOU SAID EVERYBODY HAS TO GO.

>> WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ATTEND TWO WORKSHOPS.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT CONFERENCE.

WE HAVE A FEW THAT HAVE ATTENDED A COUPLE OF OTHER WORKSHOPS ELSEWHERE. THIS ONE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION ON HISTORIC HOMES AND RENOVATIONS AND UPDATING AS WELL AS LEADERSHIP. I TOOK SEVERAL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOPS IN THAT. ONE THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS YEAR PRESERVATION TEXAS HAS A WORKSHOP IN -- IT'S NOT TO

[00:20:03]

WE JUST HAVE A LOT OF NETWORKING WE'RE ABLE TO DO.

WE HAD A MEMBER THAT WAS RECOGNIZED THIS PAST YEAR AT THE REAL PLACES CONFERENCE AS A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD OR WITH A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.

>> I GUESS THE CONFUSION WE HAVE IS THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE LOOKING AT THIS PAPER THAT SAID LAST YEAR'S REQUEST WAS $157,800. SOMEBODY GIVE ME SOME HELP BACK

HERE THAT CAN HELP CLARIFY THAT? >> THAT WAS FOR THE RENOVATION

-- >> THE ENTIRETY OF THAT?

>> 100,000. SO THE 57,000 WAS --

>> WHAT WE HAVE IS AN INCREASE FROM 57,800 TO 72,500.

>> THE BEST PERSON TO SPEAK ON THIS IS IN MEXICO RIGHT NOW SO

THEY SENT THEIR BACKUP. >> THE ADDITIONAL 20,000 WE ARE INTERESTED TO KNOW THAT MAY BE INCREASED --

>> WORKSHOP EXPENSES AND TO ORDER MORE FURNITURE.

CHAIRS AND TABLES FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 20 CHAIRS AT THE RIGHT HOUSE AND 20 CHAIRS AT THE DOWNTOWN OFFICE. WHEN WE HAVE A MEETING THERE'S IF 30 PEOPLE COME AND VISITORS, WE'RE MOVING CHAIRS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING MORE FURNITURE. WE NEED SOME SHELVING, EASELS THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY EASELS FOR OUR STORYBOARDS.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS -- AND I WAS AT YOUR LAST MEETING. I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE IS A TIMELINE ON MOVING THE LOCATION ON THE SQUARE TO THE GYM HOUSE BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS NOT JUST YOU BUT IT AFFECTS SPACE ALLOCATION IN THE COUNTY. AND I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK THAT QUESTION WITH 31 PEOPLE THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO THROW ME OUT BUT NOW'S THE TIME TO ASK YOU.

CAN WE LOOK AT PROVIDING A TIMELINE WHEN THAT MOVE MIGHT OCCUR? JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, WE'RE IN NEED OF SPACE AND MORE SPACE AND WE RECOGNIZE WE PLACED YOU THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS -- THE CONCESSION WE ASK WHEN WE MADE THE HOUSE IS THERE'D BE A MOVE THERE. THAT'S BEEN ABOUT THREE YEARS.

WE RECOGNIZE THE TIME FRAME. THE TIME FRAME OF GETTING THE WORK DONE AND ALL OF THAT. HOWEVER I THINK MOVING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW WHEN.

>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE'D LIKE TO MOVE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER TO PUT IT NICELY. BUT YOU SAW HOW CROWDED WE WERE EVEN IN THE FRONT ROOM AND WE DON'T HAVE A ROOM THAT LARGE.

IT'LL BE COZY WHEN WE DO MOVE AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING TO MOVE FURNITURE FROM ONE ROOM TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER OUT IN THE END WHILE WE'RE DOING THE INTERIOR RENOVATION THAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. WE'RE NOT ABLE TO USE THE UPSTAIRS FOR OUR MEETINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE MEMBERS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO CLIMB THE STAIRS AND SO WE ARE LIMITED TO THE BOTTOM

FLOOR. >> UP INTO MEETINGS AS WELL.

TO GET EVERYBODY IN REQUIRES TWO ROOMS, MAYBE MORE.

HOWEVER THE QUESTION WAS WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH A TIME FRAME. WE'RE SITTING HERE NEEDING ADDITIONAL SPACE OF COURSE A NEEDING TO EXPAND WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WE'RE SITTING HERE -- GOING TO COME AND LOOK IN SEPTEMBER MAYBE. IT'S A SLOW PROCESS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO SPEED THAT PROCESS UP, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HELP YOU DO THAT.

>> WE'RE WAITING TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM KOMATSU AND WAITING TO HEAR ON OUR GRANT FOR THE WINDOWS.

[00:25:03]

I'VE GOT TWO MEMBERS LIKE I SAID MY TWO BACKUPS ARE IN SCOTLAND AND MEXICO RIGHT NOW. SO IT WILL BE THE BEGINNING TO MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER BEFORE A BILL -- BEFORE BILL WILL BE BACK. CAN I GET BACK TO YOU IN

OCTOBER? >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S BUILDING, IS

ALL GOING TO GO IN? >> YES, WE HOPE.

WE ARE WANTING TO -- WE'LL BE ABLE TO USE THE UPSTAIRS FOR STORAGE. THAT WILL HELP A LOT.

>> SO ALL THAT'S IN THERE WILL GO IN THERE?

MAYBE. >> IT WILL.

I HAVE FAITH THAT IT WILL. >> WOULD IT BE OKAY IF WE WENT AHEAD AND PICKED A DATE FOR Y'ALL TO COME BACK SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE? I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR AND I SHOWED WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS COURT ON SEPTEMBER 28TH.

THAT'S ABOUT SIX WEEKS FROM NOW. WOULD THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME?

>> YES. BILL AND BRENDA SHOULD BOTH BE BACK BY THEN. I CAN CALL A LEADERSHIP MEETING AS SOON AS THEY COME BACK AND WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU AT THAT TIME. IF IT'S NOT ME THAT CAN'T GET AWAY FROM WORK, IT WILL BE ONE OF THEM.

>> DO YOU MIND PUTTING THAT DOWN?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD -- 35,750 AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF 64,250 PUT INTO GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY PICK OUT THE TIME THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION CAME TO COURT TO REQUEST APPLYING FOR THE GRANT THE 64,250 WAS MOVED

INTO THE BUDGET. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOVED THE REQUEST FROM PARK COUNTY COMMISSION.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIES 5-0.

>> I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE ON THIS LIST.

THE VERY BOTTOM ONE BURIAL EXPENSES -- WE ALWAYS VOTED ON.

>> IT'S ON THE SAME DEPARTMENT CODE, THAT'S WHY I HAVE IT

THERE. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THAT.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COLLIN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIES 5-0.

THAT COMPLETES THAT LIST. MOVE TO ITEM D ON BUDGET REQ

[II.D. Capital & Non-Capital Budget Requests. (Kim Rivas / Judge Deen)]

REQUEST. >> TO GIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE FEW ITEMS APPROVED IN THE 13TH THE NONCAP APPROVALS AT THIS POINT -- AND IT CAP FOR A TOTAL OF 871865.

AT THIS TIME I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO PRESENT UNTIL WE DO THE AUTO AUDIT DISCUSSIONS AND NEW EMPLOYEE --

>> JUST BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THAT AUDIT PROCESS.

>> WE'VE REQUESTED DEPARTMENTS PROVIDE THE MILEAGE AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS FOR ALL OF THE VEHICLES LISTED UNDER THE DEPARTMENT'S INVENTORY. WE'VE GIVEN THEM A DEADLINE OF THE END OF THIS WEEK TO GET THOSE ITEMS TURNED IN AND TURN OVER TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND RANKING.

>> WE'D LIKE THEM TO PUT DOWN IF IT'S A VEHICLE THAT'S DRIVEN -- I. THINK THAT'S PERMANENT. VEHICLES DRIVEN EVERY DAY BY SOMEONE VERSUS IF THERE'S A POOL HERE.

>> THE EFFORT THERE IS TO COME UP WITH A POLICY, A COUNTY WIDE POLICY SO THERE'S CONSISTENCY AMONG THE DEPARTMENTS.

[00:30:04]

>> MR. LONG YOU HAVE TWO VEHICLES ON THAT LIST?

>> FOR. >> FOR?

>> I'VE GOT TWO ON THERE. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THEM BEFORE.

I TOLD YOU THAT WE HAVE -- WE KEEP RECORDS OF ALL THE STUFF WE WORK ON BUT YOU HADN'T BROUGHT THOSE VEHICLES TO US SO -- YOU'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION. OKAY.

[INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU.

LOOKING AT CAPITAL PROJECTS HERE FROM BUILDING GROUNDS WE'D ASK THAT THOSE BE LISTED AS FAR AS THE PRIORITY AND THE ORDER THEY WOULD BE COMPLETED IN. THOSE ARE COMPLETED AS WE DESCRIBED AND THE REASONING BEHIND THAT WAS TO FIND OUT ESSENTIALLY WHICH ORDER YOU'D BE DOING THAT WORK IN.

IF YOU LIST ALL OF THEM AS EQUAL PRIORITY ITEMS, THEN EVERYBODY WANTS A DONE AT THE SAME TIME BUT THEY'RE LISTED HERE IN OR ORDER. THAT HE WOULD COMPLETE THOSE IN.

SO YOU'RE NEXT ON THE LIST OR SECOND DOWN ON THE LIST.

THAT SATISFIES WHAT WE'D ASK F FOR.

>> REMEMBER THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO -- [INAUDIBLE] AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED FROM OUR ROAD SITUATION IN THE COUNTY WE UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES THINGS

HAPPEN. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM D?

[II.E. Discuss/Take action on salary grievance process in accordance with local government code section 152.014. (Judge Deen)]

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 15214. >> WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON THAT UNLESS WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME.

>> ARE WE REQUIRED TO LAY OUT THE PROCESS FOR EVERYBODY? IT'D BE GOOD IF SOMEBODY IN CHARGE OF THAT WOULD COME UP AND TELL US WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE.

>> THE SAME AS LAST YEAR. >> WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT

MOTION. >> THE PROCESS OF A CODE FOR

THAT. >> IT WAS WITH THE COUNTY SHERIFF AND COUNTY CLERK. DO YOU KNOW WHO'S ON THAT LIST?

>> I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE LAID OUT SO EVERYBODY THAT MIGHT BE LISTENING OR UNDERSTANDS THERE'S TWO OPTIONS AND IF -- WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT ONE OR THE OTHER.

RATHER THAN JUST SAYING ONE LAST YEAR'S.

>> AND THE COUNTY JUDGE -- >> WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS.

[II.F. Discuss/Vote on Proposed Elected Officials Salaries. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. MOVING TO ITEM NOW DISCUSSING AN

OFFICIAL SUMMARIES. >> IF YOU WANT TO KICK THIS OFF.

>> IN YOUR PACKETS THAT I GAVE YOU WHEN WE STARTED THIS I GAVE YOU A LIST OF THE CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES AND THE ONLY THING TO UPDATE IS COUNTY JUDGE STATE SUPPLEMENT

-- THAT'S A STATE SUPPLEMENT. >> THAT'S BASED ON YOU HIT THAT EIGHTH YEAR. JUST ARBITRARILY GIVE IT TO ME

-- >> A QUARTER OF ADMINISTRATION

FOR THAT. >> THE EMPLOYEES SALARIES BEFORE

WE DO THIS ONE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THAT.

I KNOW JOHN HAS A SIMILAR SUPPLEMENT.

I'M SURE IT'S A DIFFERENT AMOUNT.

I THINK I MENTIONED THIS TO YOU BEFORE.

IS THERE ANY WAY -- IS THERE A DISBURSEMENT PROCESS TO DISPERSE THAT AND DISPERSE IT INTO THE DEPARTMENT.

>> ON YOUR? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> HOW CAN JOHN DO IT -- >> WHAT MAKES...

[00:35:12]

>> STATUTORILY WHERE I CAN DO THAT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING ONLY COUNTY ATTORNEYS IN THAT SENSE ARE SET

UP THAT WAY. >> I'D LIKE TO ANSWER THE COMMISSIONERS QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

SKIPPING DOWN TO THAT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS 2I.

>> PROCEED PLEASE. >> WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT IF

POSSIBLE. >> THAT'S TRUE, JOHN BROUGHT UP

A GOOD POINT. >> BECKY, --

>> THERE'S A STATUTE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE YOU CAN'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY LOWER. BUT YOU COULD DONATE IT BACK.

NOT THE DISBURSEMENT JUST THE DONATION.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT AND GET THIS BACK -- THANK YOU.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT OBVIOUSLY THAT JPS PUT IN A REQUEST. THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT AS WELL AS BASED ON WHAT THE COURT DID LAST YEAR WITH RECOGNIZING THE TEN YEARS IN OFFICE. WE HAVE THE TAX ASSESSOR THAT WOULD ROLL INTO THAT. AS WELL AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THAT CATEGORY AS WELL. HE CAN SPEAK ON THAT AGAIN, HAS

A SUPPLEMENT -- >> COMMISSIONER, YOU'D LIKE TO

[II.I. Salaries and Benefits for Non-Elected Employees. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

MOVE TO ITEM -- >> IT'S ON PAGE 2.

>> I LOOKED AT EVERYTHING BUT UNDER THAT.

SALARIES AND BENEFITS NOT ELECTED EMPLOYEES.

THAT'S THE ITEM WE'RE ON. >> I WANTED TO DO THE EMPLOYEE SALARIES BEFORE WE DO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY.

>> I AGREE. >> I THINK WE'VE PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION REGARDING A COST OF LIVING INCREASE AND CERTAIN PERCENTAGES ON WHAT THOSE COSTS WOULD BE.

THIS DOESN'T PRECLUDE CHANGING IT ANY OTHER TIME OR INDIVIDUAL THINGS, BUT IT DOES GIVE US A BASIS THEN IF THAT DECISION WAS MADE TO MAKE OTHER DECISIONS DURING THIS COURT AND THAT'S WHY RATHER THAN HAVING FOLKS HERE TO BE MANAGED RIGHT NOW.

I AGREE WITH THAT. >> THE PRICES OF EVERYTHING.

>> YOU'VE GOT IT LAID OUT FOR US WHILE THEY'RE.

>> THE 3% AND DON'T INCLUDE -- DON'T INCLUDE ANYONE FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. A 3% WOULD BE 566,715.

SALARY A TOTAL COST -- 620... TOTAL COST OF 92144.

AT 5% OF 944524. TOTAL COST OF $1.15 MILLION AND A 6% SALARY WOULD BE 1.133 WITH A TOTAL COST OF 1380.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO 6% FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMI COMMISSIONER.

TO RECEIVE A 6% -- CAN YOU REPEAT THAT NUMBER.

>> TOTAL COST WOULD BE $1,380,217.

>> WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF THIS.

YOU REPRESENT A COST OF LIVING INDEX THAT WAS JUST BELOW THAT NUMBER AND THE REASON I SUPPORT THE NUMBERS THE ITEM UNDER 6% FOR THE OFFICIALS IS BECAUSE WE DO A GREAT DEAL MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT AND MAKING SURE WE DO EVERYTHING TO SUPPORT OUR EMPLOYEES LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO GROUNDS ON AND ON. BUT THE ONE THING I THINK WE TEND TO OVERLOOK A LITTLE BIT IS WHAT WE GET SO TIED UP IN WHAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS MAKE WE TEND TO FORGET WHO GOT US HERE

[00:40:05]

>> WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

THERE'S BEEN TALK OF THE CONSTABLE DEPUTIES BEING PUT ON

THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTY. >> THE CONSTABLE'S INCREASES ARE INCLUDED IN THESE NUMBERS. IF WE ALL DECIDED TO DO THAT, IT WOULD LOWER THIS NUMBER AND INCREASE IT.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT -- >> ANY DECISION THAT GETS MADE ON THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE US COMING BACK TO THOSE INDIVIDUAL OFFICES OR POSITIONS ADDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS THERE.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-ELECTED EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. HAVING THAT NUMBER SET NOW WHETHER IT'S THIS OR ANOTHER MOTION SETS A BASIS FOR MAKING OTHER DECISIONS. THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING -- PRIORITIZING THIS AND OTHERS MIGHT COME ALONG LATER.

>> THAT'S WHY I WANT TO DO THIS BEFORE.

>> THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DONE TODAY THOUGH.

THE ONLY THING THAT HAS TO BE DONE IS THE ELECTED OFFICIAL

SALARIES. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> I WANTED SOME CLARITY FOR THAT ITEM THAT THE CONSTABLE'S DEPUTIES. THEY'RE NOT ELECTED.

AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THIS --

>> IF Y'ALL APPROVED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND PUT THE DEPUTY CONSTABLE'S -- IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGHER NUMBER ON THAT SIDE. OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE OFFSET WOULD COME -- THIS WOULD BE A LOWER NUMBER.

>> ONCE THIS MOTION IS MANAGED THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND GIVE US WHAT THE EFFECT IS ON EVERYTHING ON EVERY SALARY AND GIVE US A NEW SHEET THAT SAYS THIS IS THE SALARY IN THAT POSITION NOW AND WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS.

BASED ON WHAT'S LEFT. I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS THE NON-ELECTED EMPLOYEES. MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 5%.

HOWEVER I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION, YOU DID.

>> I THINK OUR FOLKS ON THE GROUND ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MOST DIRECTLY SERVE THE PEOPLE OF PARKER COUNTY.

I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF 6%. >> ANOTHER NOTE AGAIN -- BASED ON INFORMATION I'VE RECEIVED MY RECOMMENDATION WILL MORE LIKELY BE PLAN B THAT I PRESENTED WITH YOU EARLIER.

WOULD HELP OFFSET PREMIUM INCREASES SOME EMPLOYEES WOULD

SEE. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT INFLATION NUMBERS AND IN ADDITION TO THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT MOST LIKELY INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASES FOR EVERYBODY.

THERE'S OTHER FACTORS AS WELL -- >> BECKY, WHEN YOU GET THOSE NUMBERS IT WOULD BE PRETTY EASY MATH TO SEE HOW MUCH THIS --

>> WE COULD DO KIND OF A SPOT CHECK OF WE HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES WITH CLERK SALARY. A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT THOSE PLANS THAT ARE LOWER COST OUT OF EVERY PAYCHECK.

THAT'S SOMETHING I HOPE TO SEE AS WELL.

THE PREMIUM INCREASE WILL MAINLY AFFECT FAMILY COVERAGES.

THAT WILL BE THE HIGHEST INCREASE.

>> HERE'S WHERE I'M GETTING AT PERCENTAGE INCREASE -- THE LOWEST SALARIES ARE GOING TO HAVE THE LEAST TOTAL DOLLAR INCREASE. THE PREMIUM INCREASES WILL BE BIGGER. CAN WE REVISIT THIS AGAIN? I'D LIKE TO APPROVE THIS 6% TODAY BUT REVISIT THIS TO SEE IF WE NEED TO TRANCHE SOME OF THE LOWER ONES?

>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PREMIUM INCREASE IS GOING TO BE.

HOWEVER WE DO KNOW THAT PROBABLY IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THOSE ON

[00:45:06]

>> IT'S POSSIBLE. IT WOULDN'T BE MY

RECOMMENDATION. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SEE

THOUGH. >> IT WOULDN'T BE MY RECOMMENDATION. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO AFFECT

EVERY SINGLE PLAN. >> WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT.

>> I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY'RE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PLAN, WITH THE CHANGES THAT I SUPPORTED BUT THAT STILL WAS GOING TO PUT ME IN THAT CATEGORY FOR PREMIUM. BECAUSE THE SAVINGS TO PAR PARKER COUNTY FOR THE CHANGES IS PROBABLY $75,000.

WHEREAS WE'RE ALREADY RUNNING AT A MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT INSURANCE PREMIUM -- I. TOTALLY UNDERSTAND NO ONE WANTS TO SEE IT GO UP.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN INCREASE SINCE 2024 AND THERE'S BEEN FROM THIS COURT EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN AS WELL.

SO SOME PEOPLE WILL FORGET THAT. THEY WANT TO SEE THE INCREASE

THIS ONE YEAR. >> IS PRETTY EASY TO CRITICIZE THE DECISION WE MAKE HERE BUT I WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE JUST FLAT OUT GIVING THIS NUMBER OUT.

WE'RE SAYING THAT THE RESULT OF AN INCREASE PLUS WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASE AS WELL.

AND SOME CHANGES AS WELL TO. >> ALL IN FAVOR? 5-0. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR SKIPPING DOWN TO THAT.

>> DO WE WANT TO START TARGETING THINGS BACK HERE INTO SERVING

RESIDENTS. >> I WAS PLANNING ON DOING THAT NEXT -- TRYING TO FIND WHAT ITEM THAT WOULD BE ON.

WHICH IS GOING TO BE ELECTED. >> THE JPS HERE ELECTED.

I'D ASSUME THEY'RE HERE FOR -- ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES.

DISTRICT JUDGES WOULD BE HERE FOR THEIR COORDINATORS AND

RECEIVE THE MEMO. >> CAN WE SKIP TO THE

COORDINATOR ONE. >> IT WOULD BE THIS ITEM.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO SET THAT COMPENSATION AT 91150.

WHICH I BELIEVE IS MORE THAN 6%, IS IT NOT?

>> IT WOULD BE FOR PART OF IT. SOME IN THE MEMO I BELIEVE IS A 4% RAISE SO THE 6% WOULD BE BETTER THAN THOSE BUT THERE'S OTHERS THAT ARE LOWER THAN THAT, SO IT WOULD BE THE 6% IS

ACTUALLY LESS THAN THAT. >> WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THESE GUYS TO SPEAK SINCE THEY MADE THEIR TIME TO BE HERE

TODAY. >> FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME, WE HAVE A MOTION. WE NEED A SECOND.

>> I'M AMENDING MY MOTION TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION HERE WHICH IS 91.150 -- WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

>> WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF THIS, CORRECT?

>> NOW WE'RE READY. [INAUDIBLE]

>> JUDGE JOHNSON WAS DOWN -- IS HERE NOW.

I THINK LAST YEAR THERE WAS THE AMOUNTS ALLOCATED FOR THE COORDINATOR ASSISTANT POSITIONS. MR. MCCULLOUGH YOU TELL ME IF CTL2 RECEIVES MORE THAN THE OTHER.

>> BASICALLY IN THE BUCKET OF THE COORDINATOR LINE, EACH JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION HOW THEY PAY EACH POSITION.

FOR ONE THEY PAY EQUALLY, FOR ANOTHER THE JUDGE MAY DECIDE TO DIFFERENTIATE A LITTLE BIT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHEN THE TOTAL BUDGET IS HIGHER THAN THE OTHER THREE.

[00:50:05]

>> WHATEVER COORDINATOR ASSISTANCE -- THAT'S A LINE I ITEM. NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S GOING TO DO THIS BUT IF THEY WANTED TO PAY THAT MONEY TO ONE PERSON -- AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT DIVIDED 50 -- 50/50 OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE. THEIR TENURE, THEIR -- THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED IN THE OFFICE.

[INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S THE MOTION.

>> THAT IS THE MOTION. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

MY DEPARTMENT JUST BECAUSE WE HAD A BUDGETED AMOUNT DOESN'T MEAN WE PAID THE FULL AMOUNT. WE OLD FOLKS BACK AND THE FULL BUDGETED AMOUNT -- I'M TRYING TO PROMPT YOU TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES BECAUSE THAT MONEY IS THERE DOESN'T MEAN YOU SPENT IT AND THAT WAY WE'RE ABLE TO BUDGET ONE AMOUNT BUT THE EXPENDITURES A DIFFERENT AMOUNT. WE CAN GET PERFORMANCE RAISES --

>> NEVER PAID OUT ALL THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN ALLOCATED.

>> -- HOW OLD IS HE? >> I KNEW I LIKED YOU.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT HERE COULD WE GIVE MONEY TO A COURT DO WE LEAVE IT TO YOUR DISCRETION, WHAT YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO BE -- THEY GIVE YOU -- DISTRIBUTED HOW YOU SEE FIT.

>> DOING WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS DO WITH THEIR PRECINCT BUDGETS

WHERE. >> THAT WOULD BE FOR ALL THE

COURTS. >> HCL DISTRICT.

>> THAT WOULD BE FOR EVERY COURT.

BECAUSE I CAN'T SAY ONE COURT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER COURT. WE ALL DO THE SAME.

WE ALL PERFORM THE SAME FUN FUNCTION.

ALLOCATED MORE THAN ANY OTHER COURT.

THE CHALLENGE THAT WE GET AND WE TRY TO FIGHT IS EMPLOYEE A IN THIS DEPARTMENT MAKES THIS AMOUNT THEREFORE I WANT MINE TO MAKE THE SAME. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE GET ALL THE TIME. SO TO BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE THAT SAME AMOUNT TO EVERYONE AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS TAKES ONE MORE DECISION OFF OUR PLATE. I SUPPORT THE MOTION.

>> THERE'S JP COORDINATOR'S, COORDINATOR'S -- SPEAKING OF THE DISTRICT. CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION -- >> CAN I SPEAK TO.

[INAUDIBLE] >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

JUDGE JOHNSON. >> I HAVE COURT RIGHT NOT PENDING. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS GROUNDHOG DAY. YOU MADE DECISIONS DIFFERENTLY AS LAST YEAR IN 2024. BACK IN 2018 I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE ALMOST TEN YEARS. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE EARLIER TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION BY JUDGE TAUZIN.

I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR OTHER JUDGES -- AT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECIDED. I ASKED TO BE PAID THE SAME BECAUSE THEY DO THE SAME JOB HERE THEY AGREE AND I STARTED PAYING THE SAME BECAUSE I HAVE TWO...

AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING. THROUGH TODAY'S DATE.

[00:55:05]

THAT IS THEIR DECISION. IN THE COURTROOM DO THE SAME JOB AS MY COURT COORDINATORS. WE HAVE A STEP AND GRADE SYSTEM.

WE PAY PEOPLE BASED ON THE WORK THAT THEY DO.

NOT WHETHER WE LIKE THEM, NOT WHETHER THEY HAVE A CERTIFICATE OR COLLEGE DEGREE. WE PAY THEM BASED ON THE JOB THAT THEY DO. MY STAFF DOES THE SAME JOB AS THEIR STAFF. AND THEY'VE BEEN PAID THE SAME UP UNTIL 2024 WHEN THE JUDGES CAME BEFORE YOU AND ASKED THEY BE PAID DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S WHEN THEY GOT PAID AN ELEVATED SALARY. IN 2025 YOU GAVE SALARY PARITY AND EQUITY TO MY STAFF AS YOU DID WITH THEIRS.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT, PARITY FOR MY STAFF THAT DOES THE SAME JOB. I ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE PROBLEM WITH GIVING ELECTED OFFICIALS OR HEADS OF DEPARTMENT A LUMP SUM TO PAY SALARIES BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE INTRODUCING SUBJECTIVITY TO THE PROCESS.

SAY FOR EXAMPLE THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.

THERE YOU ARE. YOU'RE IN FRONT.

SO YOU GET A LINE ITEM FOR YOUR PEOPLE.

THAT GIVES LEILA -- SUCCESSORS MIGHT.

ONE CLERK DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY PAY A DIFFERENT CLERK EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE YOU'RE INTRODUCING SUBJECTIVITY AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION.

THAT'S YOUR JOB YOUR JOB IS TO SET BUDGETS AND TO SET SALARIES AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE -- YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE DISCRETION TO CLERKS TO SAY HERE'S $500,000 FOR SALARY FOR CLERK.

YOU DISTRIBUTE IT THE WAY YOU WANT BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE INVITING DISCRETION. YOU NEED YOUR LAWYERS HERE FOR YOUR HR STUFF AND NOW YOU'RE INVITING -- THERE YOU ARE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE YOU DOING THE JOB OF BUDGET WHICH IS WHAT YOUR JOB IS AS COMMISSIONERS. MIGHT GET MORE MONEY -- I. PAY YOU MORE. BECAUSE YOU'RE WEARING PINK.

MY POINT IS YOU END UP WITH DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AND MORE OUR GRIEVANCES. I THINK IT'S A BAD PUBLIC POLICY IDEA BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I THINK SHOULD BE THE SAME -- WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THEY WILL BE GIVEN A LUMP SUM... IN THAT OFFICE. NOT THE SECOND ONE.

THEY DIDN'T COME TO YOU ASKING FOR MORE MONEY FOR THE LADIES

THAT AREN'T SITTING HERE. >> THE GENERAL QUESTION, WOULD ANY OF THOSE SALARIES EXCEED WHAT WE HAVE? I WILL GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE, JUDGE.

AT A PRECINCT LEVEL WE HAVE IN MY PRECINCT OPERATOR ONE AND OPERATOR TWO. THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT CLASSIFICATIONS THAT FALL INTO THE SCHEDULE.

HOWEVER BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE BY AN EVALUATION THAT I PERFORMED, I PAID THOSE EMPLOYEES MORE OR LESS BASED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE. ON THAT EVALUATION THEY DETERMINED WHETHER THEY STAY AT THE SAME LEVEL OR IF THEY'RE DOING A BETTER JOB AND BETTER WORK THAN THEY GET PAID MORE.

THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT GOES. THAT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

>> I DON'T KNOW IT'S THAT WAY IN MANY OFFICES.

MAYBE IN YOUR OWN. IS THAT IN YOUR OFFICE? I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR REGISTRATION.

>> NONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES MAKE THE MAXIMUM BUDGETED SALARY.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BUDGET IS.

I THINK MY CONCERN IS YOUR JOB BEFORE YOU COMBINE THAT LINE

[01:00:09]

WHEN WE FIRST MADE THE DECISION IN JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEN WERE PAID THE SAME. THEY HAD THE OPTION TO PAY THE SAME. SO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2024 IS THEY ENDED UP USING THAT DIFFERENCE IN PAY TO PUT TOWARDS A SALARIED INDIVIDUAL. AND THAT WOULD BE THE THREE SITTING HERE. THAT'S WHAT I CAME BACK LAST YEAR AND ASKED FOR SALARY PARITY SO MY STAFF WOULD BE PAID THE SAME AT CC L. ONE DISTRICT FROM THE 43RD.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR TODAY.

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY TO PAY THEIR SENIOR COORDINATOR, THAT'S FINE BUT I WANT THE SAME AMOUNT FOR MY TWO STAFF MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY DO THE SAME THING.

MINOR CROSS TRAINED. I'VE GOT ONE THAT DOES CIVIL FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEN SHE FLIPS AND DOES CRIMINAL AND VICE VERSA.

THEY'RE DOING THE SAME JOB. IT SHOULDN'T BE PAID LESS BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THE SAME JOB.

THREEMAC YOUR COHORT TO GET THE SAME THAT THEY WANTED.

>> I THINK WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THE LINE ITEM.

THE LINE ITEM ON YOUR BUDGET COORDINATORS -- I'M GOING TO THROW A NUMBER OUT THERE. 200,000.

MY NUMBER IS HIGHER BECAUSE I'M PAYING MY COURT COORDINATORS THE SAME. SAY FOR EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW -- I THINK THE BUDGET NUMBER IS PROBABLY ABOUT 180.

SO ON MINE IT SAYS 180 AND ON THEIRS IT SAYS ABOUT 160.

MINE RIGHT NOW SAYS 180. THEIRS IS ABOUT 165.

THAT'S THE DISPARITY AND THEY WANT TO BRING UP 165 TO 180 BUT THEY WANT TO USE THE DIFFERENCE WHICH IS 13,000 TO PAY --

>> A QUESTION... JUDGE, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO ALLOCATE A FUND, AN AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THOSE COORDINATOR POSITIONS WITH A SALARY NOT TO EXCEED FOR ANY ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS.

I'M JUST ASKING. I DON'T KNOW.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- [INAUDIBLE] THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK IS BEING DONE -- I. CAN TELL YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] THE MAX WOULD BE 97,000 FOR THE COORDINATOR. 93000 --

>> TO ANSWER -- I. WOULD ENCOURAGE THE STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND PAY THEIR ASSISTANTS MORE BUT I DON'T WANT THEIR LEAD COORDINATORS AS THEY CALL THEM LEADS TO BE PAID MORE THAN MY TWO COURT COORDINATORS. THAT'S MY ISSUE.

THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE IF YOU KEPT THEM FOR EXAMPLE AT $200,000 IN THAT LINE ITEM THEN THAT EXTRA AMOUNT OF MONEY IS GOING TO GO TO ONE PERSON NOT TO BOTH. THE ONE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO GET THE AMOUNT OF MONEY'S GOING TO BE PAID MORE THAN MY STAFF.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THERE WOULD

BE A CAP ON INDIVIDUAL SALARY. >> THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED BACK IN 2018.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE AS A GROUP DECIDED. [INAUDIBLE]

[01:05:15]

>> WE WOULD DO 4% OR -- I. DON'T HAVE ANOTHER ♪ ♪ . THIS IS WHAT I GOT, THIS WAS DELIVERED TO ME FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

IF THERE'S ANOTHER MEMO, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

>> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT --

>> ALL I WANT IS MY COURT COORDINATORS TO BE PAID THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DIFFERENT MOTION AND MAYBE WE'RE NOT -- I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T LISTEN TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE BECAUSE I WAS IN COURT UPSTAIRS.

>> THE MOTION IS THAT THE COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT -- COORDINATORS BE... OR WHATEVER THEY WERE LAST YEAR PLUS OUR CURRENT YEAR WHICH IS SET AS OF RIGHT NOW 6%.

WHICHEVER IS GREATER. >> THAT'S ALL I WANTED.

BOTH MY COURT COORDINATORS TO BE PAID THE SAME AS WHAT THEY'RE COURT COORDINATORS ARE BEING PAID.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE IS YOU HAVE TWO AND THEY EACH HAVE ONE.

>> THEY EACH HAVE TWO. >> Y'ALL HAVE TWO.

>> WE ALL HAVE TWO. >> I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE THEN.

>> I'VE UNDERSTOOD AND THAT'S WHY -- I. UNDERSTOOD THEY WANTED

A LUMP SUM. >> THE 9150 TIMES TWO --

>> TO NOT EXCEED WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

>> THE 91150. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE PUT THAT IN THE LINE ITEM THAT NO ONE PERSON EXCEEDS THAT.

>> CANNOT EXCEED 91150 OR LAST YEAR PLUS 6%.

>> THAT'S ALL I WANT. I JUST WANT EQUITY.

I WANT PARITY. THAT'S ALL I WANT.

>> A LUMP SUM TO ALLOCATE BETWEEN THE TWO -- THAT'S ALL I

WANT TO BE SURE OF. >> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO A

ADD? >> THE HIGHER IS THE CURRENT SALARY THE 87644 PLUS 6% IS HIGHER.

[INAUDIBLE] >> POINTING OUT THERE'S A MAXIMUM WITHIN -- THEY'RE NOT PAID HIGHER THAN HIGHER STEP AND GRADE. THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION OUT THERE. AN EMPLOYEE'S MAXIMUM SALARY IS 50,000 THEN WE HAVE $50,000 THERE TO SPEND BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ALL OF IT. MORE WHAT THE GRADE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS PLUS 6%.

>> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE -- >> THE 91250 PLUS WHATEVER...

>> IT'S 91150. 6% MORE THAN LAST YEAR.

THAT'S THE MAXIMUM FOR THAT. >> FOR COORDINATOR.

>> THAT'S THE MAXIMUM FOR COORDINATOR POSITION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE.

>> THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? >> SO CURRENT SALARY PLUS 6% WILL BE GOING INTO SALARY -- THEY'RE ASKING FOR JUDGE'S DISCRETION BECAUSE THEY DON'T TREAT EMPLOYEES EQUALLY.

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COORDINATOR'S THE SAME AS THEIR TOP COORDINATOR. THE CURRENT SALARY 97,004 A DISTRICT COUNTY COURT COORDINATOR.

THEY'RE SAYING THEY WON'T GO ABOVE THAT $97,000 MAX -- NOT

[01:10:02]

[INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE TALKING -- ONCE THE LINE ITEM TO BE THAT TOTAL SO THEY COULD ALLOCATE IT BETWEEN THE TWO COORDINATORS HERE IN THE LINE ITEM REFLECT -- SO NO ONE CAN ADD MORE TO THAT AMOUNT.

>> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THE MAXIMUM PAY.

>> THE 91. >> THE 91150 OR WHAT THEY WERE

PAID LAST YEAR PLUS 6%. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO

MAKE SURE. >> I WOULD ASK THAT BE CALLED UPON TO COME UP AND SPEAK. I WILL GET IT IN JUST A MOMENT LET ME ASK A QUESTION HERE. THEN IF YOU DON'T MIND STAYING THERE. THE MOTION WE HAVE ON THE TABLE MEETS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT CAPS THAT AMOUNT.

>> NONE ARE GOING TO BE PAID MORE THAN WHAT'S IN THE MEMO

THEY DRAFTED. >> THEY WILL HAVE A BUDGETED AMOUNT OF THAT TIMES TWO BUT THEY CAN'T GO OVER THAT AMOUNT.

>> THEY CAN CHOOSE TO PAY THEIR ASSISTANTS OR NOT TO PAY THE ASSISTANT. THE MONEY IN THAT LINE ITEM -- THEY CAN'T REALLOCATE TO SOMEBODY ELSE PAY A CORRECT?

>> THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

BECKY CAN YOU -- >> PUTTING THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET IS GIVING THAT JUDGE DISCRETION OVER HOW HE WANTS TO DISTRIBUTE OR SHE DISTRIBUTE THE DECISIONS.

THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY MAX IT OUT AS YOU TAKE THAT MAX OF 97,000 TIMES TWO. GUARANTEES HER TWO COORDINATORS ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT SALARY AND GUARANTEES -- THEY HAVE

DISCRETION FOR THEIR SECOND. >> THAT'S IN CONTRADICTION TO

WHAT THIS MOTION IS. >> THAT IS.

>> WE APPROVED THIS MOTION THAT GOES IN CONTRADICTION --

[INAUDIBLE] >> IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK AND COME

UP... >> SHE CAME LAST YEAR AND YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- [INAUDIBLE] TO GET PARITY. AND DISREGARDED OUR EDUCATION -- AND THE TIME WE SPENT AS A COURT COORDINATOR.

THE TENURE WE HAVE AS A COURT COORDINATOR.

SO SHE WANTS HER GIRLS -- HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN WITH YOU? I'M GOING ON 20. LOTS OF SCHOOL AND, LOTS OF EDUCATION. SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HER GIRLS ARE HERE -- [INAUDIBLE] SHE CAN DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS WITH HER BUDGET.

MONEY THAT THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH IT...

>> LET'S VOTE ON WHAT WE MAKE THE MOTION FOR AND LET THEM WORK

THAT OUT. >> I THINK THE MOTIONS ON THE

TABLE SOLVES THIS. >> LET THEM WORK THAT STUFF OUT

LATER. >> WE HAVE A POSITION WHO HAS A

SCALE UP TO A MAXIMUM AMOUNT. >> THEY DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO RAISE -- BASED ON THIS MOTION.

>> GOING TO RAISE THE CEILING IN THE LINE WHICH GIVES THEM

DISCRETION. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE MOTION

SAYS. >> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE --

WHAT'S THE HIGHEST AMOUNT AGAIN? >> 97.

THAT'S THEIR HIGHEST LAST YEAR PLUS 6%.

>> THAT'S THE MAX WE HAVE IN SCALE RIGHT NOW FOR THAT POSITION IS 97,000. [INAUDIBLE]

92903 IS CURRENT PAY. >> WE HAVE A STEP IN GRADE THAT GOES ABOVE RIGHT NOW -- IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THE MOTION ON THE TABLE SOLVES THIS. WE HAVE AS COMMISSIONER WALDEN

[01:15:01]

AMOUNT -- THAT'S THE MOTION. >> IT MAKES SENSE BY PUTTING THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THERE THEN -- BUDGETING BOTH OF THE POSITIONS IN THEIR COURTS FOR THAT NUMBER.

THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR DISCRETION AND NOT GOING TO GO ABOVE 97 WHICH IS THE MAX. THIS IS JUST ME GUESSING.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT.

IF THEY TAKE THEIR PRIMARY COORDINATOR TO 97 AND CHOOSE TO PAY THEIR SECOND COORDINATOR A LITTLE BIT LESS, THEN HER COORDINATORS ARE GOING TO BE AT THE 92 NUMBER BECAUSE SHE PAID THEM EQUAL. HER BUCKET WOULD BE COMPLETELY

FULL. >> I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE MOTION IS -- [INAUDIBLE] WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS IT'S 91 PLUS CHANGE AND I'D SAY THEY HAVE TO DECLARE WHETHER THEY WILL PAY THEIR ASSISTANT THE 87

PLUS OR NOT. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO

BE OUR EASY ONES TODAY. >> APPARENTLY WE'RE NOT.

>> OKAY NOW I'M CONFUSED ON THAT MOTION.

DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO -- >> IF THEY HAVE THE BUDGETARY

FUNDS TO DO SO. >> THAT'S NOT THE MOTION I

UNDERSTOOD. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR.

>> THIS MOTION CAPS THAT. >> IT'S GOING TO CAP IT AT 92.

THAT'S THE MONEY WE WILL PUT ON THAT BUDGET LINE.

HOW THEY PAY IT IS THEIR DISCRETION.

>> THAT'S THE DISCRETION. >> THAT CAN'T GO ABOVE THE STEP

IN GRADE. >> 97.

>> WHAT IF WE BUDGETED ALL FOUR COURTS AT 97.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE FIX IT.

THERE'S OTHER COORDINATORS HERE THERE'S A SNOWBALL GOING DOWN THAT HILL AGAIN. THAT WOULD SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM.

>> THAT'S NOT THE ANSWER. AND THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> BUT I THINK PUTTING THE CAP ON THIS, GIVING THEM THAT DISCRETION AND THAT -- THAT'S NOT PARODY. THIS MOTION IS KEPT AT 91.

>> I WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONCUR WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO -- PAY ANY ONE MORE... [INAUDIBLE] IF SOMEBODY IN MY OFFICE IS DOING MORE -- HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITIES I THINK THAT WOULD BE IN MY DISCRETION -- I'VE NEVER PUT ALL MY MONEY IN THIS.

[INAUDIBLE] >> CAN I ASK YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION? YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS?

>> YES. >> THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. I'D SUGGEST -- MY MOTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE STEP IN GRADE. MY MOTION SAYS THE LIST OF

[01:20:01]

IF WE HAD TO CHANGE THAT, THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT BUT I HAVE THE MEMO RIGHT HERE THAT HAS FOUR SIGNATURES ON IT AND I THINK WE

SHOULD VOTE ON THIS. >> OF THAT ♪ ♪ -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> DOES NOT AFFECT THE STEPPING GRADE AT ALL.

IT SETS THE BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR COURT COORDINATORS AT THAT 9293.

>> AND JUST AN IDEA, YOU COULD SPLIT IT.

YOU COULD DO THE BUDGET USED TO BE COURT COORDINATOR ONE, COURT COORDINATOR TWO AND YOU COULD SPLIT IT.

SO THAT WAY YOU CAN MAX OUT THE 91 FOR EACH OF THOSE LINE ITEMS BUY LET'S VOTE ON IT AND YOU ALL WORK THAT OUT.

>> BEFORE WE DO THAT, IN A DISCUSSION I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WHAT OUR ACTION DOES PROTECTS ALL FOUR EQUALLY THAT GIVES THE ABILITY. THE SAME AS THE OTHER THREE COURTS. IF THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THAT MOTION, COULD THAT BE ADDED TO THE MOTION.

I'M NOT SUPPORTING ANYTHING BUT PARITY FOR ALL COURTS -- IF THEY'RE DOING THE JOB EQUALLY I DON'T CARE HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN HERE. IF THEY'RE DOING THE JOB, THAT'S

WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING. >> THE ISSUE IS HERE YOU CAN LOOK AT PARITY IN MULTIPLE WAYS AND ONE OF THE WAYS IS HOW MUCH A COURT'S BUDGETED TO THEM. AND THIS MOTION ACCOMPLISHES

THAT. >> THEY ALL AGREED TO THAT.

>> IS THIS MOTION -- >> IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE STEPPING GRADE AT ALL. THAT THEY'VE SET OR THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS SET. AGAIN THE MOTION SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE REASONABLE COMPENSATION THE DISTRICT OF COUNTY COURT WILL BE 91150 OR WHATEVER THEY WERE PAID LAST YEAR PLUS 6% --

>> LAST TIME IF WE PASS THIS MOTION DOES IT GIVE YOU PARITY.

>> IT DOES -- I. THINK THE ISSUE I'M HEARING FROM THE AUDITOR AND HR IS THEY'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A LINE ITEM THAT SAYS THERE'S 184,000 THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THAT LINE ITEM.

THAT WILL GIVE THE OPTION TO ALLOCATE HOWEVER BETWEEN THE TWO. THEY DON'T SEEM TO THINK THAT FIXES THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY SUGGESTING YOU SPLIT THE POSITIONS AND HAVE THE MAXIMUM AT 91.

THAT WAY IT'S ACTUALLY -- THEN THEY CAN SELECT THAT SECOND PERSON TO BE. AND JUST AN ASIDE, I'M SORRY IN TROUBLE IN MY COURT SINCE THEN... I DID NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> HOLD ON. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

>> WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LINE ITEMS WHAT WE DID IS WHEN WE MOVED INTO THE COUNTY SYSTEM EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT HAS DEPARTMENT HEAD, ELECTED OFFICIAL AND ALL THE REST OF THE SALARY ON ONE LINE AND THERE WERE SEVERAL REASONS WHY THEY DECIDED TO DO THAT. ADMINISTRATIVELY WHEN WE'RE FILLING OUT PERSONNEL CHANGE FORM IN THE PAYROLL SYSTEM THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME GL ACCOUNT.

IT MAKES IT EASIER WHEN LOOKING UP THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THEM IS TO PUT IT IN THAT BUDGET VERSUS HAVING TO SEPARATE THE LINES THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME IS SAY YOU HAVE A CHIEF OR MECHANIC OR OPERATOR AND SOMEONE RETIRES AND YOU'RE WANTING TO THEN PAY SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN YOUR BUDGET TO DO IT BUT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT DISCRETION TO CHANGE ANYONE'S SALARY BECAUSE IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT LINE. WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS YOU'D HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COURT TO ASK TO DO BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SO THAT IT'S THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED TO DO IT THAT WAY.

IT MAKES -- FOR THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND TREASURER'S OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS TO HAVE THAT.

>> SO THIS MOTION PASSES. DOES THAT CREATE A QUALITY FOR

ALL FOUR. >> THE SAME AMOUNT IN EACH LINE FOR EACH COURT AND THEN THEY WOULD USE THEIR DISCRETION.

BETWEEN THE TWO -- >> IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM.

[01:25:01]

>> THESE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS. HOW THEY PAY THEIR PEOPLE SUBJECT TO A STEP AND GRADE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> IT WOULD BE BUDGETED -- FOR EACH.

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE MOTION.

>> 185805. >> WHEN IT'S ALL ON ONE LINE THE DISCRETION COMES IN AND THAT'S HER CONCERN.

>> I TOTALLY GET THAT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> MY MOTION WE BUDGET 18505. >> MY QUESTION IS THEY COME IN WITH 97 FOR THEIR COORDINATORS BEFORE CAN I COME IN AND ASK YOU

FOR 97 FOR MY TWO? >> YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

>> THAT'S MY QUESTION. THAT'S THE PARITY.

>> DO YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO?

>> I THINK TODAY WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH VOTING ON THIS BUY THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN 24. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY DID TWO YEARS AGO. THE SAME THING.

SO ABSOLUTELY. >> IF THEY DO THIS THEY GO TO 97 -- WOULD THAT BE A GRIEVANCE? TO EQUALIZE FOR COURTS.

>> IF WE SEE THAT IN THE PERSONNEL CHANGE FORM THAT'S WHAT THEY DID THEN WE WOULD ALERT AND THAT WOULD BE A

CLEANUP ITEM IN SEPTEMBER. >> UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION?

ALL IN FAVOR. >> MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WORKED ON THE ITEM WE ARE ON.

ACTUALLY WE TOOK CARE OF THAT. WE STILL HAVE THE MOTION.

DID WE PASS -- WE STILL HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON THAT YET. >> WE ALREADY VOTED.

>> I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

GOT TOO DEEP INTO THAT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE HERE? I'D ASK WHICH ITEMS DO YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS HERE BEFORE -- IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE COVERED MOST OF THIS.

>> WE'VE GOT FOLKS BACK HERE THAT MIGHT WANT TO --

>> I WANT TO BE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ITEM.

THE EMPLOYEE SALARY -- >> CAN WE TAKE A TEN MINUTE

RECESS? >> THAT WOULD BE A GOOD.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS -- WHAT AGENDA ITEM ARE WE ON? THIS WOULD BE ELECTED.

>> I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY HERE FOR A COUPLE OF -- JUDGE I THINK THAT EACH OF THEM ARE HERE FOR ELECTED AND/OR NOT ELECTED.

IF YOU WANT TO CALL THE NON- ELECTED REQUEST --

>> SCOTT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- WE'RE STILL ON THE NON- ELECTED

UNDER ITEM I. >> II WANT TO COME FORWARD AND ASK WHAT I GENERALLY ASK FOR EVERY YEAR.

WHEN THERE'S PAY INCREASES I DON'T WANT MY TWO DEPUTIES TO BE LEFT BEHIND. THEY DO A TERRIFIC JOB AND THERIAULT STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT ANY OTHER PEACE OFFICER HAS, WITH THE ADDITION OF HAVING THE REQUIREMENT TO BE CERTIFIED IN CIVIL PROCESS AND COURT SECURITY.

SOANOTHER THING THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT CONSTABLES, THEY HAVE CONTIGUOUS CIVIL AUTHORITY IN CON JOINING COUNTIES.

IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST UNDERAPPRECIATED AND NOT BY PARKER COUNTY, MIND YOU, BUT ACROSS THE STATE IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD AND UNDERAPPRECIATED JOBS, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY VITAL. AND I BELIEVE MY TWO GUYS' BADGES ARE JUST AS WORTHY AS ANYBODY ELSE'S, AND I THINK THAT THEY OUGHT TO GET PAID THE SAME AS THE DEPUTY SHERIFF.

>> WE AGREE AND THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALE.

CAN I CLAIRE WHATMPH MOTION CHA, SIR?

>> THAT WE ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE WAGE BETWEEN PARKER COUNTY'S DEPUTY CONSTABLES AND THE PARKER COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS. SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ON THE

[01:30:03]

SAME -- >>

THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YEAH, WHAT'S THE COST OF THAT THAT?

>> I HAVE NOT WORKED THAT INTO THE SCALE.

THE DEPUTY CONSTABLES WERE IN THE 6% SCALE, SO AS I SAID EARLIER, IT WILL LOWER THAT 6% ESTIMATE AND IT WILL INCREASE A LITTLE BIT OVER THERE BUT IT WOULD JUST BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO RUN THE NUMBERS AND COME

BACK. >> BUT IT WOULD GO FROM 6% TO

15% OR 6% TO -- >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN AND BREAK DOWN YEARS OF SERVICE FOR EACH DEPUTY CONSTABLE, FIT THEM INTO THE NEW SCALE. IT WILL JUST --

>> SO HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> 20, 25. >> AROUND 20.

>> IF THAT'S SOMETHING OR A NUMBER THAT WE FEEL WE CAN GET BACK EASILY, WE CAN PAUSE THIS AND COME BACK TO IT.

I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> YEAH, I'M NOT -- I'M JUST ASKING WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO -- AS WE

LOOK AT THINGS HERE. >> SCOTT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE SUPPORT THAT. WE JUST NEED TO GET A NUMBER THAT WE -- WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. BUT TO COMMISSIONER HALE'S MOTION, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE COURT BUT THERE'S A GOOD CONSENSUS HERE THAT I THINK WE AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY

[INDISCERNIBLE] THANK YOU, SIR. >>

>> I AGREE AND I -- >> THIS WILL BE BACK ON THE

AGENDA AGAIN. >> I'LL MOVE --

>> YEAH TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION, DON'T WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED.

>> YES, AND THIS WILL BE BACK AGAIN.

>>

OKAY. >> I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION THAT JUST IS A GENERAL QUESTION HERE. WE GOT TWO THINGS.

ONE IS DO WE HAVE AN END TIME FOR TODAY, OR IS IT WHENEVER WE FINISH? DOES ANYBODY --

>> I THINK LOOKING AT WHO IS HERE, CAN WE CAP THIS AT TEN

AFTER 12:00? >> I'M JUST SAYING ARE WE GOING TO BE FINISHED FOR THE DAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE

COURTS SCHEDULED FOR -- >> I'M GOOD TO WORK AS LONG AS

WE NEED TO. >> UNTIL NEXT TUESDAY.

I AM TOO. I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION SO WE KNOW MOVING FORWARD.

THE SECOND THING IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS TO BE DONE TODAY IS ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT HAS TO FIT INTO THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS TIME FRAME.

CORRECT? >> COMMISSIONER, TO YOUR QUESTION, WE HAVE JUST -- BIANCA, WHAT DO WE HAVE?

WE HAVEN'T DONE H, HAVE WE? >>

>> WE COULD DO A RECESS AND COME BACK AFTER LUNCH OR RECESS UNTIL

TOMORROW MORNING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GET TO --

>> I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO DO TOMORROW.

CAN'T BE -- >> WE'RE GOING TO CAP THIS AT 1 O'CLOCK AND WORK THROUGH. SO THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO JUMP AROUND. BEAR WITH ME.

I KNOW THAT G AND H, J AND K HAS NOT BEEN DONE, AND C ON NUMBER II BUT I DO WANT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THAT WANT TO SPEAK, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? AND I WANT TO PLACE EMPHASIS ON THIS, IF YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN UP

[II.F. Discuss/Vote on Proposed Elected Officials Salaries. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen) ]

>> UNDER ELECTED OFFICIALS, JUDGE GREEN?

>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. >> ELECTED OFFICIALS.

>> IT CAN BE. >> GOOD MORNING STILL.

FOR A VERY BRIEF PERIOD. >> AND WE'RE ON ITEM F, JUST SO

YOU KNOW. >> WE'RE GOING TO ALIGN THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE WITH THE SALARY SCHEDULE THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED FOR OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEN FOR SOME REASON SAID EXCEPT FOR THE JPS.

I DON'T THINK -- AS WE ALL KNOW WE'VE ALREADY HAD A VERY GOOD

[01:35:10]

AGAIN, WHAT WE'VE PUT IN OUR REQUEST WAS FOR THE 146,000 FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IN PARKER COUNTY TEN YEARS, THEN THE 162 FOR THOSE THAT HAVE.

AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY HAD A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION TODAY ON EQUALITY AND PARITY AND I AM KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THINGS TO -- HONESTLY I WOULD BE WILLING TO WEIGH THAT EXTRA IF Y'ALL HAD SET THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AT THE SAME 16,000 THAT YOU SET THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL AT THAT HAVE LESS THAN TEN YEARS IN OFFICE IN PARKER COUNTY.

I BELIEVE YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OTHER OFFICIALS THAT HAVE PASSED THAT MILESTONE THIS YEAR AND INCREASING THEIR SALARIES ACCORDING THAT THAT SAME RULE. SO ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT LET'S APPLY THE RULE THAT YOU MADE, EQUALLY TO EVERYBODY.

I MEAN, LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A LAST-MINUTE CHANGE MADE TO THE CONSTABLE'S SALARY WHICH WAS NOT A BAD THING.

THE GOAL WAS TO MAKE IT EQUAL TO THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND THE RESULT WAS TO PUT THEM 20,800 AHEAD.

SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

I THINK THE PROPER AND FAIR THING TO DO WOULD BE TO SET EACH JP IN PARKER COUNTY AT THE 146 AND THEN PLUS WHATEVER YOU END UP DOING FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS IF ANYTHING ELSE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ADDITIONAL -- Y'ALL HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT YET. AND IT MAY BE ZERO.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING LET'S KEEP

EVERYBODY ON SAME. >> THE 146 PLUS --

>> UNLESS YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS 10%, WHICH YOU'RE NOT BUT 2%, YOU KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO STAY IN PARITY WITH THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH LESS THAN 10 YEARS AND THAT'S GOING TO KNOCK THAT REQUEST DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY WE CAN ADDRESS THE NEXT TEN YEARS AND GO FROM THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> JUDGE I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE

[II.G. Salaries and Benefits for Precincts. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

PRECINCT. >> OKAY.

>> I LIKE THAT. >> WE'RE ON ITEM G.

>> I'M NOT SURE WE WERE DONE YET YET.

>> YOU'VE SPOKEN ON THIS, WHAT, TWICE NOW?

>> YES, SIR. >> I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. IS THERE NEW INFORMATION THAT

YOU NEED TO PROVIDE? >> YES, YES.

>> OKAY, YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES, PLEASE.

>> THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAS GOT AN HOUR.

VERY SIMPLY WHEN I GOT HERE LAST WEEK, I WAS SAYING TO -- THE RANKING SYSTEM WHERE WE HAD TO -- WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR BUDGET -- WE WERE RANKED AT A 1 OUT OF 5 SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO GO BACK TO LAST YEAR AND SEE WHERE THESE RAISES THAT WERE GIVEN, WHERE THEY WERE RANKED IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. THEY WEREN'T RANKED AT ALL BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ASKED FOR AND THEY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND SUBMIT IT IN THEIR BUDGET.

IT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP ACTUALLY BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP IN THIS VERY SAME MEETING ON AUGUST 25TH OF LAST YEAR AT THE 1:40 MARK.

AND ACTUALLY IT STARTED OUT WITH MR. HOLT WANTING A MORATORIUM ON ANY RAISES ON ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT ABOUT THE DISPARITIES BETWEEN APPOINTED POSITIONS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND THAT WAS HEADED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE DISPARITIES.

[01:40:02]

SO ULTIMATELY -- AND IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP THAT, HEY, IF WE DON'T DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GRIEVANCES AND WE DON'T WANT THAT. WELL, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU, BE

PREPARED. >> WE HAVE GRIEVANCES THE LAST TWO YEARS IN A ROW. WE'RE NOT SCARED OF GRIEVANCES.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> SO JUMP ON IT IF YOU WANT TO

JUMP ON IT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

MAY I CONTINUE? >> YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT.

>> IS HIS 2 MINUTES THE UP? >> ALMOST.

>> SO IT WAS PASSED -- OR IT WAS BROUGHT BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN THAT COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT CLERK, COUNTY CLERK, TREASURER, SHERIFFS, TAX ASSESSORS WERE ALL GOING GET A SUBSTANTIAL RAISE, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING JPS. MY QUESTION IS WHY WERE JPS

EXCLUDED? >> I THINK WE COVERED THIS THE

LAST TIME THAT YOU -- >> IT'S NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED.

WHY WERE JPS EXCLUDED? >> ARE YOU ASKING ME A QUESTION

AND YOU WANT A RESPONSE? >> YES, SIR.

YES, SIR. >> I WAS ASKING GOING TO ASK IFU WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT A TIME CLOCK IN YOUR OFFICE AND PUNCH

THAT TIME CLOCK. >> DO YOU?

>> NO. BUT I FAR EXCEED -- FAR EXCEED -- THE TIME FRAME OF 40 HOURS PER WEEK IN MY JOB.

DO YOU? >> YES.

>> HOW DO YOU DO THAT? >> I'M ON CALL 24/7 FIVE MONTHS

OUT OF THE YEAR. >> SO YOU DON'T THROW ROCKS AT

ME -- >> I'M NOT THROWING ROCKS.

>> I WOULD ASK IF YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE A PRIVATE

PRACTICE, AS AN ATTORNEY. >> I DO.

>> IN PARKER COUNTY TEXAS. >> I DO.

>> AND DO YOU APPEAR BEFORE COURTS IN THIS COUNTY DURING THE

TIME FRAME OF THE DAY? >> YES, I DO.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY

QUESTION? >> TIME IS UP I BELIEVE.

I'VE HAD QUITE ENOUGH. >> YOUR 2 MINUTES ARE UP.

THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO

WOULD LIKE TO -- >> IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE DO, YOU NEED TO RUN FOR COMMISSIONER.

>> MOVING ON -- >> JUDGE, COULD WE MOVE TO ITEM F FOR -- SORRY G, SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR PRECINCTS.

>> WE'RE ON ITEM G. >> WE'LL MOVE THAT WE MATCH THE 6% THAT THE OTHER UNELECTED FOLKS GOT.

SO -- GO AHEAD, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY?

>> I'LL REMOVE MY MOTION. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING A

DIFFERENT WAY. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER

WALDEN -- >> I THINK THE SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF THE PRECINCT EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE THE SAME AS IT IS FOR OTHER UNELECTED FOLKS IN THE COUNTY.

>> HE THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE ALL FOUR

BUDGETS THE SAME. >> NO.

>> YEAH. >> THAT'S NOT THE ITEM WE'RE ON.

THAT'S A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM. >> KEEP DREAMING, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR?

>> IT'S A GOOD MOTION. >> I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY OF YOUR WORK [INDISCERNIBLE] ASKING ADDITIONAL STAFFING EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION IN YOUR PART-TIME LINE THAT YOU JUST WANT TO

CONTINUE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY, THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANOTHER ITEM BEFORE -- THERE ARE SOME OUT

THERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> I THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE TO -- WELL, IF WE HAD INFORMATION -- DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US, RIHANNA, REGARDING THE ROAD AND BRIDGE ALLOCATION, IS THERE INFORMATION OTHER THAN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US HERE? I ASK THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO --

[III.C. Road & Bridge Allocation. (Bianca Lord/ Judge Deen)]

WELL, GO AHEAD. >> WE'RE ON ITEM C, NUMBER III.

>> I THINK WE CAN KNOCK THAT OUT VERY EASILY.

[III.A. Present/Discuss/Approve Precinct Fund 50 and Funds 1-4 for Budget FY2026-2027. (Judge Deen)]

>> ROAD AND BRIDGE. >> ITEM II.

A. >> COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU ASK --

OH, YOU TOOK IT OH, NEVER MIND. >> SO WHAT I'VE PROVIDED YOU ALL, YOU CAN SEE THE TOP PORTION OF IT JUST DETAILS THE REVENUE AND SO WE USUALLY GO OVER THAT. AND SO AGAIN, WHERE WE HAVE IT FOR FY27 IS AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WITH THE 98.75 COLLECTION, SO WE DISCUSSED THAT IN DETAIL LAST WEEK.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER PIECES, THE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAX, OVERSIGHTS, OVERWEIGHT REVENUE.

WE RECEIVE A SMALL COUNTY LATERAL ROAD GRANT, ABOUT 87,500. THE COUNTY CLERK ON CERTAIN COURT CASES, THERE'S FINES THAT GO STRAIGHT TO ROAD AND BRIDGE SO THAT'S WHAT THAT IS THERE. AND THEN I THINK JUST THIS -- IS IT THIS -- NO, LAST WEEK JENNY GENTRY, WHEN YOU GUYS APPROVED THE FEE TO CONTINUE FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE, THAT 10-DOLLAR FEE, THAT

[01:45:02]

SO IT'S NOT USING THAT FULL FUND BALANCE.

HISTORICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE ON THE ROAD AND BRIDGE ALLOCATION IS IT'S BROKEN UP INTO TWO PIECES.

50% IS BASED ON ROAD MILES AND SO EACH YEAR, I ASK EACH OF YOU TO PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED ROAD MILEAGE, CERTIFIED TO TECK DOT SO I RECEIVED THAT UPDATE AND THEN THE TAXABLE VALUE THAT I RECEIVE FROM PCAD SO I'VE INCLUDED THOSE SHEETS SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TAXABLE VALUE IS.

AND THEN WHAT YOU CAN SEE BELOW THAT IS WE HAVE THE FY26 ALLOCATION, WHICH SHOWS THOSE ROAD MILES AND TAXABLE VALUES AND THEN THAT BOTTOM SECTION SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE METRICS. AND HOW THAT CHANGES THE

PERCENTAGES. >> REGARDING THE 750,000-DOLLAR UNEXPENDED FUND BALANCE, THAT IS MONEY THAT WAS ALLOCATED LAST YEAR, AM I CORRECT? THAT WAS NOT SPENT?

THAT WOULD BE -- >> RIGHT, AND JUST DIFFERENCES OF WHAT WE PROJECT FOR REVENUE, YOU KNOW, EITHER PLUS OR MINUS AND HAVING THAT AMOUNT IN THERE, INTO THE ROAD AND BRIDGE.

SO THAT'S IN FUND 50. THAT IS NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL

PRECINCT. >> CORRECT.

>> FUND BALANCES. SO I BELIEVE BIANCA HAS PROVIDED

THAT TO YOU AS WORKING ON -- >> JUST FOR CLARITY, EACH OF THE PRINCHTS HAS PRE-ASSISTANTS HAS THEIR -- PRECINCTS HAS THEIR OWN FUND BALANCE. THOSE FUNDS THAT YOU HAD AND YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM SPENDING FOR WEATHER PURPOSES OR WHATEVER PURPOSES WERE ABLE TO ROLL BACK OVER AND BE INCLUDED IN A FUND BALANCE FOR EACH OF THE PRECINCTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND

JUST SETS UP AN ACCOUNT? >> WE'RE ALL WANTING TO BE EQUAL

EQUAL. >> SO THAT $750,000 IS KIND OF A CARRYOVER FROM A PREVIOUS YEAR THAT WAS NOT ALLOCATED IN THE

BUDGET THE PREVIOUS YEAR? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND IN PRIOR YEARS, WE HAVE ALLOCATED AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE FROM GENERAL FUND TO THE PRECINCTS.

DID WE DO THAT LAST YEAR? >> NO.

BUT WE CAN GO OVER OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AS WELL --

>> LAST YEAR DIDN'T WE PULL A HIGHER AMOUNT FROM THE ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND BALANCE INSTEAD OF FROM THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE?

>> IT WAS A MILLION BUT THERE'S ALSO FUND 408 WHICH WE RECEIVE FUNDS FROM TXDOT. IT WAS ON THE FIRST PORTION OF THE LOOP SO THEY PAID THAT OFF EARLY.

SO THAT WAS ALLOCATED AMONGST THE PRECINCTS, AND SO I BELIEVE PRECINCTS 1 AND 4 GOT AN ADDITIONAL 150,000 TO HELP MAKE SOME OF IT MORE EQUITABLE SO EACH PRECINCT HAS, SOME OF ALL HAVE STARTED USING IT BUT THERE'S FUNDS REMAINING IN THERE. I MEAN, SOME HAVING 2 MILLION, A COUPLE HAVE ABOUT 2 MILLION. THE REST HAVE ABOUT A MILLION.

ORIGINALLY, THAT FUND WAS WHERE ALL THE 2008 TRANSPORT BOND WAS ACCOUNTED FOR SO IT RECEIVED AN INTEREST ALLOCATION AND WE HAD TO DO ARBITRAGE SO WHAT'S REMAINING IS THE PASSTHROUGH FUNDING BUT WE STILL ALLOCATE THE INTEREST TO THAT FUND.

AND SO WE CAN GET TO THAT. BUT I THINK WE CAN ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL 300,000 TO BE SPLIT HOW YOU ALL WOULD LIKE IN THOSE

FUNDS. >> THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE

750,000 -- >> RIGHT.

SO WE WILL DO THAT SEPARATELY. BUT WE CAN GET TO THOSE FUNDS

AFTER WE GO THROUGH THIS. >> JURSZ ONEJUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. AFTER WE TRANSFER THE 750,000,

[01:50:01]

WE STILL HAVE 1.3 MILLION -- >> NO, THAT WAS PRIOR TO.

THAT'S PRIOR TO, YES. >> SO WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES? YOU SAID YOU HAD A COUPLE.

>> WELL, WE HAVE AGAIN 408, SO THAT WOULD BRING SOME OF YOU ALL OVER 2 MILLION STILL REMAINING IN THERE.

I WILL GET WITH EACH OF YOU, BUT YOU STILL HAVE INVESTIGATIONRY FUNDING FROM THE 2023 TRANSPORTATION BOND.

SOME OF YOU ALLOCATED IT TO PROJECTS AND SOME OF YOU STILL HAVE THE FULL $3 MILLION THAT CAN BE ALLOCATED TO PROJECTS.

>> WELL, I'M LIKE THE J.P.S, I WANT WHAT THEY HAVE.

>> I WILL EMAIL YOU JUST WHERE YOU'RE AT ON YOUR DISCRETIONARY -- A COUPLE OF YOU STILL HAVE SOME DISCRETIONARY FUNDING LEFT OVER FROM THE 2016 TRANSPORTATION BOND.

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ABOUT 42,000. BOTH OF YOU HAVE EXPENDED THOSE FUNDS AND THEN AGAIN THE 2023 DISCRETIONARY FUNDING AND OF

COURSE 408. >> IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT THOSE FUNDS ARE, THE AMOUNTS THAT WE HAVE.

>> I HAVE THEM. >> OH, YOU'VE GOT THEM RIGHT

NOW? >> ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT -- BRIANNA, I HAVE MARKED MY DISCRETIONARY TO SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED THERE AS WELL.

>> YES, SO THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN -- YES -- ALLOCATED.

SO THAT'S ONE THING JUST MAKING SURE -- AND NORMALLY ASKING -- CONFIRMING WITH FRASER NICHOLS WHEN CERTAIN PROJECTS -- BECAUSE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED EITHER FOR COUNTY-LED PROJECTS OR SOMETIMES FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, THAT THOSE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED SAY TO FRASER NICHOLS FOR THOSE SO JUST MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY'RE DOING THOSE AUTHORIZATIONS, WHERE THE FUNDING IS COMING FROM.

WHETHER THAT WOULD JUST BE BIG BOND FUNDS AS WE CALL IT OR THE

DISCRETIONARY FUNDING. >> THOSE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

WERE ALLOCATED ON EQUAL BASIS? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOT BASED ON THE FORMULA THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY --

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT FLAWED FORMULA?

YEAH. >> SO JUST GOING THROUGH ALL OF IT YOU CAN SEE THE ALLOCATION BETWEEN -- WHAT'S ALLOCATED BASED ON ROAD MILES, WHAT'S ALLOCATED BASED ON THE TAX REVENUE, RIGHT, BASED ON THAT TAXABLE VALUE.

WE GET A TOTAL ROAD AND BRIDGE ALLOCATION AND THEN THE PORTION THAT'S BEEN ALLOCATED ON ROAD AND BRIDGE FROM THE FUND BALANCE THAT'S BEEN SPLIT EQUALLY, WHICH YOU KNOW, A PORTION OF THE FUNDS ARE NOT BASED ON TAX REVENUE. SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE AND OKAY WITH THAT PORTION -- YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD BE SPLIT EQUALLY. THEN WE GET A TOTAL ALLOCATION WHICH YOU CAN SEE WHAT EACH PRECINCT'S TOTAL ALLOCATION IS OF ALL THE REVENUE. AND THEN JUST COMPARING THAT TO FY26, WHAT THAT TOTAL WAS AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR

EACH OF YOU. >> OKAY JUDGE, I HAVE GOT TO

MAKE -- >> APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE A

SECOND SO -- >> WELL, NO, I'M GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE FINISHED WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE.

WE DO HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONLY.

>> MY MOTION IS THAT WE SPLIT THE ROAD AND BRIDGE BUDGET EQUALLY FOUR WAYS. SO -- WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT?

>> ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. >> BEING THE SAME OR SOMETHING, SOME FANCY WORD THAT EVERYBODY CALLS --

>> PARITY. >> THERE IT IS, THE PARITY WORD.

OKAY, WE'VE GOT A SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND -- SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. I UNDERSTAND TO DO IT ON AN EVEN BASIS, IS THERE A PROCESS FOR THAT? LIKE GOING THROUGH AND EVALUATE EVALUATING WHAT THE -- ECONOMIC VERY MANY, ALL THE CRITERIA THAT GOES INTO THAT FORMULA, IS THERE AN EVALUATION OF THAT THAT'S BEEN DONE OR --

>> THERE WAS A COURT CASE. >> YEAH, THAT WAS SOMETHING TO

THAT. >> THE OTHER PIECE I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP WHEN WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE 256.005, IT SAYS "MONEY IN THE FUND, WHICH WE'RE SPEAKING OF LATERAL ROAD FUND, SHALL BE SPENT TO EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXPENDITURES TO THE COMMISSIONERS' PRECINCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN EACH PRECINCT". SO AGAIN, I DON'T THINK BASED ON THE TRANSPORTATION CODE, THAT YOU CAN HAVE A FORMULA THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TAXABLE VALUE PER PRECINCT.

>>

[01:55:04]

>> DO YOU GET CALLS FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS?

>> I DO. >> ABOUT -- COMPLAINING ABOUT INTERSTATE 1'S ROADS AND PRECINCT'S 4 ROADS --

>> I GET IT FROM ALL AND I PASS THEM ON TO YOU.

IT'S NOT MY ROLE. I KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THIS, WHERE AGAIN, Y'ALL DON'T VOTE ON

MY JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES -- >> I MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

PREVIOUS QUESTION ENDS DISCUSSION AND SECURES AN

IMMEDIATE VOTE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> WELL, HANG ON. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO

THROW OUT THERE? >> I JUST WISH THE JUDGE WOULD VOTE ON OUR SIDE BUT I --

>> WE'LL TAKE YOU TO LUNCH, JUDGE.

SAY -- OKAY, IN 2018 I WAS ELECTED.

AND I DID VOTE ON THIS. >> I REMEMBER THAT.

>> AND I HAD A MENTOR THAT IS -- A TARIN COUNTY JUDGE BUT HE TOLD ME AND I FOUND THAT GOOD ADVICE THAT I DID NOT TAKE, AND HE SAID, WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT VOTE ON ROAD AND BRIDGE.

AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. THAT'S I DON'T HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT POSITION. YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB AND THE MONEY YOU GET IN FIXING YOUR ROADS BUT IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE YOU COMING INTO MY PROBATE COURT AND TRYING TO SET POLICY AND TRYING TO DO THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT SO --

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE'VE GOT TO VOTE ON THIS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO REMOVE YOUR

MOTION. >> HELL NO.

>> ALL IN FAVOUR? >> WHO IS THE ONE THAT

ABSTAINED? >> SOME GUY -- BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORMULA THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN.

>> IF I CAN MAKE A COMMENT QUICKLY... THE WAY THAT WE SPLIT OUR MONIES ON THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SIDE IS NOT PERFECT BUT I DON'T THINK WE WOULD EVER COME UP WITH A PERFECT SOLUTION.

RIGHT NOW WE SPLIT IT HALF BY ROAD MILES AND THEN WE SPLIT IT HALF BY TAXABLE VALUE. IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING THIS YEAR BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT NUMBER OF HOUSES ON COUNTY ROADS BY THE PRECINCTS, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT CAN GET US THAT INFORMATION.

THAT COULD BE ONE WAY THAT WE LOOK AT IT.

AND WHAT WE WOULD BE TARGETING WITH THAT IS -- I THINK OF COMMISSIONER HALE OVER THERE, HE ONLY HAS 178 ROAD MILES.

I HAVE 438 ROAD MILES. BUT IF YOU'VE BEEN OVER TO EAST PARKER COUNTY, I'M PRETTY SURE HIS HOLDS RHODES ARE MORE ROADSY TRAVELED THAN MINE ARE. THERE COULD BE SOME FUNDING -- THIS MIGHT BITE MY FUNDING IN THE BUTT BUT THERE COULD BE SOME VALUE IN FINDING OUT HOW BUSY THE ROADS ARE RESPECTIVELY BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT AS WELL.

>> I THINK TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DIFFERENCES, THERE'S NO FORMULA THAT'S FAIR. BUT YOU IN AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMME THOSE DIFFERENCES, THE OTHER FUNDS THAT COME ALONG THAT ARE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO MAKE THAT CLOSER TO WHAT THEY MIGHT CONSIDER FAIR.

BUT THERE'S NOT A FAIR WAY OF DOING IT.

WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD EVERY YEAR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE AND --

>> WELL, YOU'VE GOT TWO MORE YEARS OF PUTTING UP WITH ME

BEING THIS WAY SO -- >> I HOPE WE MAKE IT.

NOT A WAY H FAIR WAY OF DOING I. WE TRY TO DID I HAVE YOU I DIVVS DERBY OPENLY ADMIT IT'S NOT FAIR.

HOWEVER NOT FINDING ONE THAT IS FAIRY MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PRECINCT FUNDS ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY -- LAST YEAR --

>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? MOTION PASSES 3-1.

[02:00:12]

>> OKAY, FOR THE -- 408 FUNDS THAT I DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, I BELIEVE WE CAN ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL INTEREST THAT'S BEEN EARNED ON THOSE FUNDS. SO FOR THIS YEAR, 300,000 IF WE SPLIT THAT EVENLY, THEN IT WOULD BE 75,000 ADDITIONAL TO EACH PRECINCT. AND OF COURSE THE ADDITIONAL -- OR THE FUNDS THAT YOU HAVE REMAINING RIGHT NOW.

>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THAT ALLOCATION AS DESCRIBED.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION?

ALL IN FAVOUR? >> JUST IN ADDITION TO TO THAT,

I THINK THE -- >> I MEANT TO SAY -- NEVER MIND.

>> THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS THAT COME ALONG WITH THE ROAD BONDS ARE ALSO DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY AMONG THE FOUR PRECINCTS.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH FUNDING TO TAKE CARE OF THE NEEDS IN EVERY PRECINCT.

>> AND I WILL PROVIDE YOU ALL RIGHT NOW WITH WHAT I SHOW THAT YOU HAVE ALLOCATED TO PROJECTS IF YOU HAVE ALLOCATED ANY OF YOUR 2023 AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY OF YOUR 2016 LEFT, WHAT

THOSE FUNDS ARE, AS WELL AS 408. >> THAT 75 EACH CAME FROM WHERE

AGAIN? >> SO THERE WAS -- WITH THE FIRST PORTION OF THE BOND, THERE WAS A PASSTHROUGH AGREEMENT WITH TXDOT. SO THAT WAS SETTLED EARLY SO WE RECEIVED THOSE FUNDS AND THEN THEY WERE --

>> IT WAS FUNDS THAT WERE PAID BACK FROM TXDOT FOR -- THAT THE BOND HAD DONE FOR WHICH BENEFITED TXDOT AND THERE WAS SOMETHING IN PLACE THERE TO PAY THAT BACK, AND SO THAT TXDOT PAID US BACK EARLY, THEN RATHER THAN PAYING US BACK OVER THE WHOLE LIFE OF THE BOND, SO WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE THAT FUNDING

AND DISTRIBUTE IT EQUALLY. >> SO WITH THOSE FUNDS PLUS INTEREST EARNED ON THOSE FUNDS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.

[II.E. Discuss/Take action on salary grievance process in accordance with local government code section 152.014. (Judge Deen)]

DIFFERENT OPTIONS. >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

WHICH WOULD BE AGENDA ITEM IIE. >> CORRECT.

SO CHAPTER 152 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CREATES THE SALARY GRIEVANCE PROCESS. AND THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE COMMITTEE CAN BE MADE UP OF.

BOTH -- WHICHEVER OPTION IS A 9-MEMBER SALARY GRIEVANCE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE CHAIRED BY THE COUNTY JUDGE AS A NON- VOTING MEMBER. SO THE COMMITTEE CAN BE, DID AGAIN THE COUNTY JUDGE, THE CHAIR, THE NON- VOTING MEMBER, THE SHERIFF, TAX ASSESSOR, TREASURER, COUNTY CLERK, DISTRICT CLERK, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OR THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC NECESSARY TO PROVIDE 9 VOTING MEMBERS.

>> THAT'S OPTION 1? >> CORRECT.

>> AND THEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY VOTE TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE CONSIST OF 9 PUBLIC MEMBERS AND THEN OF COURSE THE COUNTY JUDGE AS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AS A NON- VOTING

MEMBER. >> I VOTE WE APPROVE OPTION 1

FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONNELLY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER WALDEN, YOU MADE THE SECOND.

OKAY I SEE THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? CARRIES 5-0.

>> AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A SALARY GRIEVANCE IS FILED, I BELIEVE IT COMES FROM THE -- IS IT MEMBERS, LILA OF THE GRANT JURY THAT HAD SERVED PREVIOUSLY? YES.

THEN THOSE WOULD BE PUT INTO A HAT, SO TO SPEAK AND THEN PULLED OUT AND THEN YOU WOULD PICK THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC MEMBERS TO MAKE THAT 9-MEMBER COMMITTEE AND THEN OF COURSE ALTERNATIVE MEMBERS FOR THAT. AND A SALARY GRIEVANCE IS A PUBLIC MEETING AND SO THAT IS ALL ON THE SCHEDULE IN THE EVENT THAT THAT OCCURS, THERE'S SUFFICIENT TIME TO CALL THAT PUBLIC MEETING, HAVE THAT AND THEN DO THE ADVERTISING IN THE NEWSPAPER OF THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT GOE- >> SO AFTER ELECTED -- YOU ALL WILL VOTE TODAY ON ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES, EACH ELECTED OFFICIAL WILL RECEIVE A LETTER STATING THE SALARY ALLOWANCES AND ANY SORT OF AMOUNTS SET BY COMMISSIONERS

[02:05:03]

AND THEN THAT'S WHY NEXT WEEK IN THE EVENT THAT OCCURS, TO DRAW THOSE MEMBERS AND THEN SET THE MEETING, WHICH WE HAVE ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THOSE DAYS. AND SO THEY SET BASICALLY WHAT SALARY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND AGAIN THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED IN WRITING TO THE COUNTY JUDGE.

>> AND WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WHEN THEY GO TO THIS GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND THOSE 9 PEOPLE VOTE, HOW MANY HAVE TO --

>> SO NOT ALL -- NOT ALL HAVE TO BE THERE, IN THE EVENT THAT HAPPENS, IT DOES -- TAC HAS THI, IT'S SHORT ANSWERS TO SALARY GRIEVANCE AND IT'S YOUR FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHICH IS A VERY USEFUL GUIDE. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS IF IT'S UNANIMOUS, SO ALL 9 MEMBERS VOTE FOR THAT, THEN IT IS AUTOMATICALLY PLACED IN THE BUDGET.

I BELIEVE IF IT IS 7 TO -- >>

>> IT COMES BEFORE THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION TO BE PLACED IN THE BUDGET BUT THE COURT STILL HAS DISCRETION --

>> IT COMES BACK TO THE COURT -- >> CORRECT.

AND YOU HAVE -- THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS DISCRETION IN THAT. AND THERE'S NOT AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT. THAT SETS IT FOR THE YEAR.

AND EVEN IF SAY THE SALARY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE COMES AND THEY SAY -- SAY IT'S UNANIMOUS AND YOU CHOOSE THAT, YOU CANNOT CHANGE ANY OTHER ELECTED I SHALL TO' SALARIES AS A RESULT OF THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE SALARY GRIEVANCE

PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN. >> YEAH, YEAH, THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> I WAS TRYING TO LOOK HERE,

[II.J. Additional Employee Salary Requests and/or New Positions. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

>> ITEM J. ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON

THAT? >> THERE'S ONE.

>> THERE IS SHAWNA LEE. SHE'S THE COURT COORDINATOR FOR JP1. WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANCE OF ADDITIONAL SPACE. THEY WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, BUT WE WOULD DEAL WITH THAT AT A LATER DATE ONCE SPACE WAS AVAILABLE. BUT I THINK SHE WOULD REALLY

LIKE TO HAVE THAT NOW. >> THE ADDITIONAL CLERK WOULD JUST HELP A BETTER DISTRIBUTION OF OUR WORKLOAD.

WE GET -- >> YOU'RE DOING FINE.

NO, YOU'RE DOING FINE. >> WITH THE NEW POSITION, IT WOULD HELP ME DISTRIBUTE THE WORKLOAD.

IT WOULD HELP ME AS A COURT COORDINATOR TO BE ABLE TO DO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PAPER -- JOBS THAT I HAVE.

I DO GET THOSE COMPLETED. IT'S JUST -- THERE'S TIMES THAT I DO WORK THROUGH MY LUNCH TO BE ABLE TO GET ME TO A POSITION THAT I CAN GET THINGS TAKEN CARE OF, AS WELL AS MY OTHER CLERKS.

THEY HAVE THEIR JOB DUTIES THAT THEY HAVE BUT IT'S JUST -- IT'S CONSTANT. THE GROWTH IN OUR AREA, I MEAN IT'S EVERYWHERE, Y'ALL KNOW THAT.

BUT OUR CIVIL CASES HAVE CLIMBED.

OUR NUMBERS ARE -- HAVE GOTTEN LARGER.

NO, IT DOES NOT -- CIVIL CASES DO NOT BRING MONEY INTO THE COURT. THAT'S WHERE OUR CRIMINAL IS LESS. CIVIL CASES, IT DOES TAKE TIME.

WE DO HAVE COURT -- WE DO HAVE -- WE HAVE HEARINGS ON THOSE CASES SO THAT TAKES AWAY MY TIME EVER WORKING ON JUST THE CIVIL CASES OR MY ADMINISTRATIVE, BECAUSE I AM IN

THE COURTROOM WITH THE JUDGE. >> AS I RECALL, ONE OF THE BIG PROJECTS Y'ALL ARE TAKING ON IS TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING SCANNED IN AND GOING TO A PAPERLESS SYSTEM.

>> YES, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS OF GETTING EVERYTHING SCANNED IN. IT'S GETTING THOSE FINE DETAILS OF TRYING TO GO PAPERLESS. GOING PAPERLESS TAKES TIME.

IT WILL ALLOW MORE ROOM WITHIN THE OFFICE SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK THAT GETTING THE NEW CLERK, HAVING THEM -- DESIGNATING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO START DOING THE PROCESS OF GOING PAPERLESS, IT WOULD ALLOW THAT TO GO WITH -- CONTINUING

[02:10:03]

>> BUT YOU'RE GETTING ALL YOUR WORK DONE, BECAUSE YOU'RE

WORKING AT LUNCH. >> YES.

>> BECKY, DOES SHE NEED TO COME BACK TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND TELL THEM HER GRIEVANCE AND MAYBE THEY WILL READ --

>> I THINK ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE SPACE AND THAT IF THERE WAS THE APPROVAL OF SOME REMODELING AND/OR ADDITIONAL BUILDING SPACE THERE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE -- THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD HINGE UPON AND THEN THE DISCUSSION THEN WENT TO, WELL, IF THAT TAKES PLACE IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ON OCTOBER THE 1ST, IT'S MOST LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN CLOSER TO AUGUST 31ST, A YEAR FROM NOW, SO IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE A YEAR FROM NOW IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL SPACE TO GRANT THIS, WAS THE DISCUSSION THAT I UNDERSTAND.

COMMISSIONER, DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING REGARDING THAT GLOOG

YEAH, I? >> YEAH, I RECALL US THINKING THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROBABLY NEEDING.

WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PUT THEM RIGHT NOW. IS THAT NOT THE CASE?

>> IF I PUT -- IF I REALLY WORK ON IT, YES, I COULD MAKE ROOM FOR A PERSON. OUR DESK SPACE WOULD BE -- WE WOULD HAVE TO MINIMIZE A LITTLE BIT, WHICH THERE'S ROOM TO DO

THAT. >> GOT 'YA.

SO YOU COULD KIND OF RE-ARRANGE WHERE YOU COULD FIND SPACE --

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] THEY'VE HAD FIVE CLERKS IN THEIR SPACE THAT THEY HAVE NOW AND I MEAN, WE HAVE FOUR.

>> GOT YOU. >> AND WE HAVE A CONSIDERABLE MORE AMOUNT OF ROOM THAN THEY DO.

>> YEAH, FROM WHAT I RECALL, IT WASN'T THAT WE LOOKED POORLY UPON THIS REQUEST, THIS WAS MORE OF A TIME ISSUE, WHICH IS WHY WE RANKED IT A 1. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NEXT'S BUDGET AND IT WOULD BE A HIGH NEED THEN BUT NOT -- WE DIDN'T PUT 1 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NEEDED, WE JUST FIGURED IT WOULD BE NEXT YEAR. BUT IF YOU HAVE --

>> IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S NOT NEEDED BUT --

>> BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN CREATE ROOM THIS YEAR, I THINK THAT CHANGES THE FACTORS QUITE A BIT.

>> BUT Y'ALL DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE.

>> NO, MAYBE NOT. >> I THINK IT WAS PRESENTED AS WE NEED THIS AND WE NEED THIS, THE REMODEL AND THE NEW EMPLOYEE. SO WE JUST SCORED THEM TOGETHER

IN THAT SENSE. >> SHE COULD FIND SPACE FOR THEM, WHICH THEY DESPERATELY NEED THAT PERSON.

SPRINGTOWN IS GROWING. IT'S ALREADY THE SECOND FASTEST

GROWING PRECINCT. >> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE -- ONE OF THE TRAPS THAT WE FALL INTO IS A IS EQUAL TO B, THEREFORE C NEEDS MORE. I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES VERSUS CASES VERSUS NEED THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT NOW BECOMING THE -- WELL THEY'VE GOT THIS, NOW I NEED THIS, THE THIRD ONE. SO I AM NOT QUESTIONING AT ALL WHAT YOU BRING ME. WHAT I'M QUESTIONING IS WHAT THAT'S GOING TO MEAN AS THE TOTAL COMES ALONG BECAUSE THE LAST THING THAT WE WANT TO HEAR IS WELL THEY GOT ANOTHER CLERK SO NOW I NEED ONE SO I THINK WE NEED TO BACK UP AND VISIT THAT, LOOK AT WHERE OUR NUMBERS IS, COMMISSIONER, AND BRING IT BACK.

I'M NOT OPPOSED AT ALL IF THERE'S A NEED THERE FOR IT;

HOWEVER -- >> EVERYBODY NEEDS MORE

EMPLOYEES. >> I UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S MY POINT. I DON'T AT ALL QUESTION WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING. I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK BACK AT THE NUMBERS COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING SO WE HAVE A BASIS FOR MAKING A DECISION COMPARED WITH OTHER OFFICES THAT HAVE SIMILAR

NUMBERS. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND I RECOGNIZE THE WORK THAT YOU DO SO WE'LL BRING IT BACK, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYBODY.

>> THIS WAS NOT A NO, THIS WAS - >> LET US LOOK AT IT AND SEE.

>> OKAY. ANYBODY NEXT?

>> MARK GARNET, SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I HAVE A REQUEST IN TO GET A [INDISCERNIBLE] POSITION DOWNGRADED TO TASKFORCE INVESTIGATOR THAT I NEED TO GET APPROVED. IT IS A REDUCTION.

>> AND SO I GUESS WE NEED PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE

INFORMATION THERE AS WELL. >> SO WE HAVE -- WE HAD AT ONE TIME A TASKFORCE SERGEANT ASSIGNED TO THE DEA TASKFORCE.

WE PULLED -- SHE RETIRED, WE PULLED THAT POSITION BACK IN, IT'S STILL OPEN. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT

[02:15:03]

DIVISION. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR?

CARRIES 5-0. >> I HAVE ANOTHER REQUEST.

WE HAVE AN EXTRA CORPORAL'S POSITION THAT'S OPEN AND VACANT NOW. MY REQUEST IS TO DOWNGRADE THAT FROM CORPORAL TO PATROL DEPUTY, SO WE CAN FILL THAT POSITION AND PUT IT IN ONE OF OUR PATROL SHIFTS.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR?

CARRIES 5-0. >> MY LAST REQUEST IS WE HAVE A CORPORAL'S POSITION IN EXTRADITION.

HE'S GOING TO RETIRE NEXT MONTH. WE WANT TO UPGRADE THAT POSITION TO A SERGEANT. IT WILL BE ABOUT A 10,000-DOLLAR

INCREASE. >> WHAT WAS THE POSITION BEFORE

YOU SAID? >> IT WAS A CORPORAL.

>> MOVE FROM CORPORAL TO SERGEANT.

>> TO SERGEANT. THAT WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL SUPERVISION. AND IT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD AND EXPAND THAT DIVISION AT SOME POINT.

>> IS IT PATROL? >> NO, SIR, IT'S IN EXTRADITION.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR?

CARRIES 5-0. >> AND THE ONLY OTHER REQUEST I HAD WAS THAT IS RELEVANT TO TODAY IS WE HAD REQUESTED TWO ADDITIONAL DISPATCH POSITIONS FOR DISPATCH.

AS I'VE SAID IN THE PAST, WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO FILL ALL THE SLOTS. WE'RE USING A LOT OF PAID OVER TIME TO COVER SHORTAGES IN DISPATCH.

I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT IF WE'RE GRANTED THESE POSITIONS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MINIMIZE THAT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY [INDISCERNIBLE] RIGHT NOW. WE FILLED ALL OUR VACANCIES -- WELL, A COUPLE ARE PENDING BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF -- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VOTED ON LATERAL

PAY, FOR DISPATCH WESTERN. >> WE DID.

>> I'M SORRY, I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT.

THAT WOULD ALLOW -- >>

>> I WOULD THINK YOU COULD PASS THE POLICY BUT NOT NECESSARILY GIVE IT ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING DUE TO HOW IT KIND OF COMES AND GOES -- SOMEONE HEY NOT GET A RAISE UNTIL JANUARY OR FEBRUARY SO I THINK YOU COULD TAKE CARE OF A LATERAL PAY POLICY WITHIN THEIR MEANS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.

>> SO MOVED. >> SO I THINK -- I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. I THINK THE -- WITH THIS IF IT WILL ALLOW YOU TO ELIMINATE THAT OVERTIME PAY, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY, GO AHEAD.

OKAY, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ALL IN FAVOUR?

>> POLICY FOR DISPATCH. THE PRIOR LATERAL PAY WAS FOR --

>> ALL IN FAVOUR? CARRIES 5-0.

>> THAT WOULD ALMOST I HOPE GUARANTEE THE REDUCTION TO ZERO

IN THE OVERTIME. >> WELL, THE LATERAL PAY WILL HELP US GET QUALIFIED DISPATCHERS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE AND HOPEFULLY STOP THE, I WANT TO WORK HERE, AND THEN THEY WORK TWO WEEKS AND THEY LEAVE, WHICH HAPPENS A LOT.

I HAVE TWO AND SOMETIMES THREE PEOPLE WORK THE MIDNIGHT SHIFT IN DISPATCH. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT'S WHAT WORKED WITH ME IN DISPATCH 33 YEARS AGO ON A NIGHT SHIFT OR ON A DAY SHIFT. SO I JUST DON'T HAVE THE PERSONNEL, DON'T HAVE THE STAFFING TO MAINTAIN AND MANAGE THE CALL LOAD IN THERE AND ENSURE THAT WE DON'T USE PAID OVERTIME TO COVERAGE THOSE SHORTAGES, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DO NOW. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR TWO ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES IN DISPATCH.

>> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WADDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? CARRIES 5-0.

[02:20:03]

>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> OKAY, STILL ON J, ON ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE SALARY, NEW POSITIONS, IS THERE ANY OTHER --

GO AHEAD. >> I'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES, I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT.

I WAS JUST LOOKING AT 157, I WANT TO LET THE COURT KNOW THAT'S OUR TECHNOLOGY FUND THAT YOU'RE WEST USED LAST YEAR TO FUND A FURTHER POSITION. I STILL HAVE SOME MONEY IN THAT, SO MOVING FORWARD TOO IF I CAN GET THE NEW CLERK POSITION, I CAN FUND A PORTION OF THAT SALARY.

I BELIEVE UNDER THE CODE IT ALLOWS FOR BENEFITS TO BE COVERED, BUT IT DOES ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE SALARY TO BE COVERED IN THAT, SO I DO HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO HELP FUND THAT

POSITION. >> AS WE CONSIDER, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW THAT, THAT YOU HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY FUND AND YOU HAVE THE FUNDING THERE FOR THAT, SO I

APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. >> IT'S JUST GOING TO KEEP GROWING. RIGHT NOW -- I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT FOUR YEARS I WOULD BE ABLE TO FUND THAT, AT LEAST.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING SLOWING DOWN OR STOPPING SO -- THAT

WOULD HELP FUND THAT. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

>> APPRECIATE THAT SUGGESTION, JUDGE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? >> UNDER THIS HEADING, WE HAD ASKED FOR AN ADDITIONAL CLERK AND THEN I GUESS DURING THE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS THAT GOT REDUCED TO A PART-TIME CLERK, I DON'T THINK IT GOT A VERY GOOD RATING.

HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THE PART-TIME CLERK. WE WENT BACK TO 2024 TO 2025.

WE'VE HAD A 30% INCREASE IN OUR DEBT CLAIM E-FILES, WHICH IS FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN A COMPANY FILED A DEBT CLAIM CASE, THEY WOULD SEND US A BIG PACKET, WE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN A PACKET, SCAN EVERYTHING IN, DO EVERYTHING.

NOW IT'S ALL COMING IN THROUGH ODYSSEY VIA E-FILE.

BUT THE CLERK STILL HAS TO ACCEPT IT, REVIEW IT, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS THERE AND THEN THAT'S WHAT ASSIGNS IT A NUMBER.

WE'VE ALSO HAD A -- ALMOST A 30% INCREASE IN OUR OCCUPATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUEST. MOST OF THOSE CASES ARE LOCAL ATTORNEYS WHO ARE REACHING OUT FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR THEIR CLIENTS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR LICENSE ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THOSE BACK TO THEM AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. THE WAY WITH THE UTILIZE A PART-TIME CLERK TO ASSIST WITH THIS IS WE COULD SET OFF OUR E-FILE -- WHAT WE DON'T GET TO THAT MORNING WE COULD HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND JUST DO FOUR HOURS IN THE AFTERNOON AND THAT WOULD GET THAT E-FILE QUEUE CLEARED EVERY DAY SO THAT WE CAN START THE NEXT DAY FRESH. IT'S ALMOST ALL CIVIL AND THERE'S DERBY CANNOT IMAGINE THAT THE DEBT CLAIM CASES ARE GOING TO SEE ANY LESS NEXT YEAR, WITH THE ECONOMY THE WAY IT IS, DEBT CLAIM CASES ARE MOSTLY CREDIT CARD CHARGE, ALSO THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES FILING A CASE TO RECOUP THEIR NUMBERS AND THEY'RE FILED ENMASSE FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS AND EVERY COURT IN THE STATE DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM RIGHT NOW.

>> THE MAJORITY OF THOSE COME TO YOU OR ARE THOSE DISTRIBUTED

EQUALLY AMONG THE OTHER -- >> IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY WANT TO FILE THEM. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY FILE THEM IN THE PRECINCT IN WHICH THE PERSON LIVES.

BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE VENUE MOVED TO THEIR HOME PRECINCT.

SO RATHER THAN HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT -- THE HOOPS WITH THAT, COMPANIES WILL GENERALLY TRY TO FILE IT IN THEIR HOME COUNTY, IN THEIR HOME PRECINCT.

>> AND THE OCCUPATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENCES, ARE THEY EQUAL AMONG

THE FOUR -- >> I THINK WE GET -- HOW MANY DO YOU GET? I KNOW I GET A LOT OF THEM BECAUSE OF OUR LOCATION. WE'RE RIGHT THERE ON THE SQUARE, WE'RE NEXT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS BUILDING.

MOST OF THE ATTORNEYS ARE DOWNTOWN.

WHEN THEY HAVE TO SEND OVER SOMEBODY TO PICK UP THE PAPERWORK, WE'RE RIGHT THERE. SO THEY FILE THEM AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN. AND I JUST DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE'S NUMBERS, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT --

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SHAWN.

CAN YOU COME BACK UP. >> HE'S BROUGHT UP A GOOD QUESTION ABOUT PART-TIME PEOPLE. CAN YOU GET BY WITH A PART-TIME

[02:25:06]

PERSON? >> PROBABLY COULD, YES.

I MEAN, IT WOULD HELP. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY. >> I THINK THE CONSTABLE FOR

PRECINCT 2 HAS SOMETHING THAT -- >> YEAH, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK -- COME ON UP HERE. YOU'VE BEEN BACK THERE A LONG

TIME. >> I'M JUST HERE, SIR, FOR YOU GUYS. I KNOW THAT I'VE PUT IN FOR THE -- A FEMALE DEPUTY POSITION THIS YEAR.

THAT WAS PER THAT CODE. AND I THINK SOMEBODY HAD SON-IN-LAW ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. WAS IT YOU, COMMISSIONER, HALE,

YOU COMMISSIONER HALE -- >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE

COMMITTEE WAS AWARE OF IT. >> I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ANYTHING FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WHAT IT RANKED -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- DID YOU GUYS HEAR ANYTHING FROM THE COMMITTEE?

>> WELL, I CAN ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE PART.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT -- AT LEAST I DON'T RECALL US DISCUSSING IT AND I KNOW IT WASN'T PRESENT OR TOP OF MIND FOR ME, THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE THAT YOU'VE SINCE OUTLINED. APOLOGIES IF YOU SAID THAT BEFORE -- I BELIEVE WE WERE LOOKING AT A LOT OF INFORMATION

FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE. >> THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M

HERE TO SPEAK -- >> SO THIS IS ANOTHER -- CALL IT AN UNFUNDED MANDATE FROM THE STATE KIND OF DEAL?

>> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. >> IS THERE IN OTHER WAY OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT? I THOUGHT I REMEMBER A CONVERSATION THAT YOU COULD BRING SOMEBODY ELSE IN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T RECALL.

>> IT STATES IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEING BECAUSE WE DO THE TRANSPORTS ON WRIT OF ATTACHMENTS, JUDGE THAT YOU SIGN ALL THE TIME, THAT YOU -- YES AND IT STATES IN THE CODE THAT IF IT IS A FEMALE, THEY MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEMALE.

CURRENTLY WE ARE SENDING TWO MALES, WHICH HELPS WITH LIABILITY REASONS. BUT THE CODE SAYS THEY MUST BE

ACCOMPANIED BY A FEMALE -- >> YOU'RE STILL UNDER CODE ON

THAT. >> HOW MANY FEMALE TELLERS ARE

THERE AT THE JAIL? >> THAT I COULDN'T ANSWER YOU.

THAT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY. I THINK THAT THE -- I THINK I RECALL A CONVERSATION THAT THERE WAS -- IF THEY NEEDED A FEMALE

OFFICER THEY COULD GO -- >> THERE ARE SEVERAL AND I HAVE TALKED TO THE WARDEN, YEAH AND GUARD HIRED FOR THAT, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT IT CAN BE USED --

>> THERE'S QUITE A FEW ACTUALLY. >> SO MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT WE'RE PUTTING EGGS IN THE BASKET OF THOSE LADIES BEING ON DUTY THAT DAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE BUT IF THERE AREN'T VERY MANY OR THEY'RE IN A POSITION WHERE THEIR SERVICES ARE ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED AT THE JAIL INSTEAD -- BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THE JAIL HAS REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE FEMALES

PRESENT FOR CERTAIN THINGS. >> YES, SIR.

>> I WOULD BE NERVOUS ABOUT THAT PART.

>> I WOULDN'T BE PROSED TO THAT OPTION; HOWEVER, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE JAIL IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

I AM KNOW IT'S STILL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SHERIFF SO IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME TO GO INTO A PRIVATE COMPANY AND DEMAND THAT THEY GIVE ME A PERSON -- AND I'M SURE THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE. IT'S JUST WHEN THOSE THINGS COME IN, THEY COME IN AT ALL DIFFERENT TIMES.

MOST OF THE TIME IT'S IN THE AFTERNOONS AROUND 4 O'CLOCK AND YOU KNOW, I COULD BE -- I COULD GO TO DENTON, TO WICHITA FALLS, ANYWHERE ACROSS THE STATE THAT THEY HAVE A BED AVAILABLE SO -- AND LIKE I SAID, THIS IS JUST AN OPTION -- I HAVE TO PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE I DON'T COMPLY WITH IT AT THE MOMENT SO -- SO

THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO -- >> EVERY YEAR IS DIFFERENT.

LAST YEAR HOW MANY WOMEN DID YOU HAVE TO TRANSFER?

>> I UPDATED THE LIST. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT MUCH OF

ME -- >> ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE --

>> NO, I THINK IT WAS AROUND 30. >> OKAY THAT'S DIFFERENT.

I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THAT HIGH --

>> YEAH, IT'S -- >> THEM WOMEN ARE PRETTY VICIOUS, AREN'T THEY?

>> YOU CAN COME RIDE WITH US SOMETIME, SIR --

>> THE ONES IN PRECINCT 1 MIGHT BE.

>> SEE HOW IT GOES. >> WE'VE GOT A BUNCH OF REDNECKS

OVER IN PRECINCT 1 BUT -- >> IS THIS SOMETHING NEW IN THE

CODE. >> THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

THIS IS WHAT CAME ABOUT FROM THAT AUDIT THAT CAME THROUGH AND DURING REWRITING POLICY THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE, THIS IS WHERE THIS HAS CAME UP AND I FOUND IT SO -- LIKE I SAID, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE OUT OF THE CODE.

>> BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. >> I WOULD ASSUME IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. I DIDN'T GO BACK AND ACTUALLY

SEE HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE BU- >> APOLOGIES, I LOOKED BACK AT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, 49 FEMALES.

>> 49, OKAY. >>

[02:30:19]

>> IT'S BY FAR THE FASTEST GROWING AREA OF MY COURT.

>> I THINK THE SHERIFF MIGHT HAVE SOME INPUT.

>> A COUPLE OTHER THINGS. WARDEN, HE HAS OVER TWO DOZEN FEMALE JAILERS SO -- THAT'S ONE ASPECT AND I KNOW THE LEGISLATURE THEY TRIED TO ADDRESS THIS VERY THING LAST YEAR. IT PASSED THE HOUSE 147-0 BUT IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE SENATE AND THAT WAS IF YOU HAD ONE OFFICER AND THEY HAD A BODY CAMERA AND IT STAYED ON THE ENTIRE TIME, THEY WOULD WEAR THAT. SO I THINK THIS YEAR THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO READDRESS THAT AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN BUT IN THE INTERIM WE HAVE A LOT OF FEMALE JAILERS --

>> IS THAT HOW YOU MANAGED IT WHEN TRANSPORT WAS UNDER YOUR

DEPARTMENT? >> IT WASN'T -- IT WASN'T A PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THE CODE -- IT WAS IGNORED. IT WAS STILL THERE

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> THANK YOU.

>> JUST ONE THING. SO THE REASON THAT WE DO THESE, WE MADE AN AGREEMENT FOR ALL THE OTHER COUNCILS THAT WE WOULD HANDLE THE ATTACHMENTS. YOU GUYS VOTED ON THAT I GUESS A COUPLE YEARS AGO, SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THIS SPECIFIC TIME OF POSITION.

AND LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A REQUEST, BECAUSE I'M OUT OF CODE. IF YOU GUYS DON'T FUND IT, YOU

DON'T FUND IT. >> AND THAT'S ABOUT ONE A WEEK

THIS PAST YEAR. >> I MEAN, I WILL TELL YOU WITH THE EXTRA PERSON, IT WILL HELP WITH, YOU KNOW, THE SCHEDULING OF IT, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THE TIME THOSE COME IN AT 4 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON AND SO MY GUYS HAVE ALREADY WORKED THE FULL SHIFT AND THEN THEY'RE OUT AFTER THAT AND SO THAT'S TIME THAT WE EITHER HAVE TO FLEX OFF OR PUT ON COMP TIME SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO --

>> BUT YOU DON'T KNOW AHEAD OF TIME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE

ONE TO HAUL. >> WE HAVE NO IDEA.

>> SAY WE'VE HAD I THINK -- THE MOST WE'VE HAD SO FAR IS THREE

IN ONE DAY. >> SO IF WE HAD ONE PERSON, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY'RE ON VACATION? IS THAT WHEN WE COORDINATE STILL WITH THE JAIL?

>> WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO SEE WHAT WE DO, I GUESS.

I MEAN LIKE I SAID, THIS IS -- >> WELL YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR

YEARS WITH NOBODY BUT -- >> WE'VE BEEN SENDING TWO FEMALES WITH ONE FEMALE, YES, SIR.

>> I THINK HIS CHALLENGE IS WE'VE BEEN DOING IT OUT OF

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. >> RIGHT.

>> IT'S JUST -- FOR ME, FOR MY OFFICE AND THE LIABILITY PURPOSES, IT'S IN THE CODE SO I HAVE TO ASK FOR IT.

>> SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS

POSITION. >> MOTION IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLY? ANY DISCUSSION?

ALL IN FAVOUR? >> CAN WE DO THIS POSITION CONTINGENT ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT? IF IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN TO AUSTIN AGAIN, WE ALREADY HAD A BILL AND WE'RE CREATING ANOTHER FUNDED POSITION, THAT IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED AFTER NEXT YEAR'S SESSION, THEN WE PULL IT? CAN WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? BECAUSE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH NOW TO SEE ADDING POSITIONS, ESPECIALLY AD UNFUNDED MANDATES [INDISCERNIBLE] BUT YOU KNOW IF THEY CHANGE IT, Y'ALL HAVE CAMERAS. THEY HAVE BODY CAMERAS.

WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL -- IT'S NOT JUST WHAT THAT SALARY IS, WHAT THE ACTUAL COST IS WHEN YOU'RE CREATING THE POSITION. SO I WANT TO TRY TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THE MOTION THAT WE RE-EVALUATE WHEN THAT CHANGES.

>> SO MOVED. >> WELL, I GUESS THE OTHER DEAL IS IS THAT WE'RE ADDING A POSITION FOR THIS SPECIFIC PUMP BUT PURPOSE.

IF SOMEBODY LEFT, WOULD YOU REPLACE THEM? BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING A WHOLE NEW POSITION HERE, SEE, SO IF ONE OF THOSE FOLKS THAT HAVE OCCUPIED THE POSITION CURRENTLY AS A MALE LEAVES, WOULD YOU CONTINUE -- WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT POSITION OR -- I'M JUST -- I CAN SEE I COULD BE MANIPULATED ANOTHER WAY UNTIL A POSITION CAME OPEN AND THEN THAT POSITION CAME OPEN, THEN YOU WOULD HIRE A FEMALE.

I'M JUST -- I'M JUST THROWING OUT THE POSSIBILITY.

>> IT DOESN'T -- WHEN THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT, THEY WOULD BE DOING OTHER FUNCTIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE.

>> I GET THAT. >> I WOULD ASSUME AS WE GROW THE

[02:35:02]

>> WELL, I THINK THE WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE, IS TO ENSURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRANSPORTING A FEMALE, THAT YOU HAVE A FEMALE -- THAT LOGIC IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN IN PLACE ALREADY THAT WE'VE BEEN VIOLATING THAT -- VIOLATION IS A STRONG WORD HERE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I DON'T THINK IT'S --

>> IT'S NOT A VIOLATION, IT'S MORE OF TRYING TO HAVE TWO MALES BUT TWO ENSURE THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU'RE TRAVELING -- OR TRANSPORTING IS A FEMALE, TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE'S PROTECTED,

HER RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO -- AND IT COULD, WHO KNOWS WITH THE LEGISLATURE BUT I MEAN THE LOGIC OF THIS IS -- I DON'T SEE THEM CHANGING SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES SOMEBODY'S RIGHTS IN PROTECTION OF THAT PERSON.

>> I MEAN, I DON'T BUT -- >> IF YOU HAVE A MALE GO WITH

THAT FEMALE OFFICER? >> TWO.

>> SO YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TWO?

>> YES, SIR, WE SEND TWO ON ALL OF THEM.

>> THAT DON'T SEEM RIGHT. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE EITHER TWO MALES OR A FEMALE AND A MALE --

>> WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL POSITION, AT THE COST OF HOW

MUCH? >>

>> $125,000?

>> AND THAT PERSON -- IF YOU DID HIRE THAT PERSON THEY COULD ALSO BE IN THE INTERIM OF NOT FULFILLING THAT RESPONSIBILITY WOULD BE REDEPLOYED IN OTHER AREAS.

>> YES, SIR. >> OBVIOUSLY.

>> SERVING PAPERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE DO.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF LOGIC TO ADDING THIS POSITION.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID THAT WE ADD A POSITION OVER HERE, NOW THEY HAVE OTHER POSITIONS, ALL THEY DO IS ACCOMPANY FEMALE TRANSPORT, THEREFORE IN MY DEPARTMENT, I NEED ANOTHER POSITION TOO BUT LIKE THEY HAVE. I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID THAT

SITUATION. >> AND I THINK THAT'S AN EXTREMELY FAIR POINT. CONSTABLE YOU DID SAY THIS IS FOR ALL PRECINCTS, CORRECT? THIS TRANSPORT?

>> IT IS. >> YES, SIR, WE DO THE

DETACHMENT. >> SO THE OTHER CONSTABLES --

>> A POSITION LIKE THIS WOULD NOT COME UP.

>> THEY DON'T NEED THE SPECIFIC FEMALE TO MEET CODE BECAUSE

THEY'RE NOT DOING THIS DUTY? >> NO, SIR.

NOW THEY NEED SOMEBODY BECAUSE OF OTHER DUTIES IN THEIR OFFICE I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM AND I WOULD NEVER SPEAK FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S DEPARTMENT ON HOW THEY RUN IT, HOW THEY DO THEIR JOB,

OR WHAT THEY NEED. >> IF THERE WERE ONE FOR EACH PRECINCT I WOULD LEAN REALLY HARD ON LET'S UTILIZE THE JAIL BUT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE 49, THAT'S ABOUT ONE A WEEK LAST

YEAR, WE HAVE THE INCREASE OF -- >>

>> 30% TO 150% OR WHATEVER THAT CHANGE WAS.

I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD GET OUT IN FRONT OF

INAUDIBLE ] >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? MOTION CARRIES 4-1.

>> THANK Y'ALL. >> THANK YOU.

STILL UNDER J ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE --

>> LET'S ROLL THEM OVER TO ANOTHER --

>> COME ON UP. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WE ASKED FOR FULL-TIME OR A PART-TIME. THE FULL-TIME WOULD REALLY HELP, BECAUSE WE ARE SO BEHIND ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND WE GET CALLED OUT ON DRONE CALLS ALL THE TIME, TRYING TO GET THE CROMP TIME -- YOU COMP TIME -- PEOPLE GETTING CALLED OUT FOR GETTING 1 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS WALKED AWAY FROM HIS HOUSE -- WE DON'T LIKE CLOSING OUR OFFICE -- WHEN EVERYBODY IS BUSY WE HAVE TO CLOSE OUR OFFICE TO GO DO OUR JOB AND THAT OFFICE BEING CLOSED IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HAVE IN PARKER COUNTY. PEOPLE COME TO THAT OFFICE EVERY DAY. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FULL-TIME INSTEAD OF A PART-TIME DEPUTY AND A PART-TIME CLERK.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> SAY IT AGAIN?

>> WE WOULD RATHER HAVE A FULL-TIME DEPUTY THAN A PART-TIME DEPUTY AND PART-TIME CLERK TO TRY TO KEEP THE OFFICE OPEN BECAUSE WE HELP ALL THE OTHER CONSTABLE DEPARTMENTS.

I WAS UP AT PRECINCT 1 THIS MORNING HELPING PRECINCT 2 COVER A WRIT OF POSSESSION AND THAT MEANS WE'RE MOVING BODIES AT THE LAST MINUTE TO TRY TO COVER THE JOB.

WE HELP EVERYBODY, ANYBODY, ANYTIME THEY CALL.

>> WELL WHEN YOU GOT UP THERE YOU SAID YOU HAD TO HAVE ANOTHEU

WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER

[02:40:01]

>> ARE YOU TRYING TO TRICK US O- >> NO, SIR.

I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.

NO, YOU ARE THE MASTERS OF -- Y'ALL SEE THROUGH ALL THE SMOKE,

I GUARANTEE YOU. >> YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ONE --

>> Y'ALL SEE THROUGH ALL THE SMOKE AND I'M GLAD YOU DO.

YOU'RE WATCHING MY DOLLARS TOO SO -- WE ARE JUST COVERED UP, ENVIRONMENTALLY WE -- WE HAVE TWO OF THE BEST OFFICERS DOING ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN V AND WE'RE MAKING CHANGES.

HORSESHOE BAY, WESTERN LAKE, PONDEROSA HILLS, WE ARE SEEING CHANGES, POSITIVE CHANGES, SAVING THE COUNTY MONEY, IMPROVING THE VALUE OF PROPERTY FOR PEOPLE IN PARKER COUNTY.

AND WE NEED TO JUST KEEP GOING FORWARD.

>> YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO ANY OF THOSE 1970 SUBDIVISIONS, YOU NEED TO TAKE A TRIP TO PRECINCT 3.

>> WE'VE GOT A CASE WORKING DOWN THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FULL-TIME IN PLACE OF PART-TIME DEPUTY AND PART-TIME CLERK.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? CARRIES 5-OBJECT.

>> -0. >> THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.

>> ANYTHING ELSE UNDER -- >> WELL I CAN TELL YOU IN PRECINCT 1, CONSTABLE, THEY WANT ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TOO, JUST ROLLS

ON DOWN THE ROAD. >> AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> YEAH, CONSTABLE 1, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST WAS REALLY TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE BUILDING.

KIND OF WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING ANOTHER LOCATION.

>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT -- >> THAT'S THE WAY WE UNDERSTOOD

THAT, I BELIEVE. >> I AGREE, LET'S WAIT AND GET

THAT OTHER BUILDING AND -- >> THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO BRING UP IS -- I KNOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS HERE EARLIER AND HE LEFT AND THEY HAD TO BREAK THE BREAKDOWN, IT'S A RESTRUCTURE OF HIS OFFICE AND IT AFFECTS 8 EMPLOYEES. FOR A TOTAL COST OF 88,525.

>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER

HOLT. >> AND THE TOTAL COST IS --

BENEFITS ALREADY OR SALARY? >> ALL IN FAVOUR? CARRIES 5-0.

>> THIS IS THAT RESTRUCTURE, RIGHT?

>> YES, THIS IS THE RESTRUCTURE. THE OTHER THING BACK TO THE JPS, I BELIEVE IT WAS JP3 SCORED VERY HIGH TO GET A PART-TIME EMPLOYEE AND NOW WITH THE NEW INFORMATION FROM JUDGE GRISHAM THAT THEY COULD OFFSET A LOT -- SOME OF THAT SALARY AT LEAST FROM THEIR TECH FUND. COMMITTEE ALREADY SCORED HOW TO GIVE THEM PART-TIME. IF THE DIFFERENCE COULD COME FROM TECH FUND TO MAKE IT A FULL-TIME.

JUST A SUGGESTION. >> Y'ALL MOVE IT, WE APPROVE

THAT IT COME FROM THE TECH FUND? >> MOTIONER MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR?

>> AND I'LL GET WITH THAT OFFICE TO LET THEM KNOW EXACTLY --

>> AND THAT IS FOR A FULL-TIME --

>> THAT'S A FULL-TIME. >> THE DIFFERENCE BEING --

>> PART-TIME TO FULL-TIME WILL COME FROM THE TECH FUND.

JP3. >> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT

ITEM? >> CONSTABLE 3 TO THE EMPLOYEE THEY HAD $82,615 WORTH OF NON- CAPS ITEMS CONTINGENT UPON THAT POSITION. IT WOULD BE FOR TAHOE, THE OUTFITTING OF THE [INDISCERNIBLE] AND PROTECTIVE

CLOTHING. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER

HOLT. >> THIS IS CONSTABLE 3, NEW

POSITION. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING INTO ON THE VEHICLES AS WELL?

>> YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A VEHICLE BUT IT WON'T NECESSARILY BE THAT AMOUNT. BECAUSE WE WILL -- WHEN WE HAVE THAT MEETING WITH THE VEHICLES HERE, THERE WILL BE SOME

DISCUSSION REGARDING THAT -- >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> MAY BE ADJUSTED. >> YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THESE EXTRADITIONS. DO YOU NEED ANOTHER VEHICLE FOR

THAT PERSON? >>

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THERE IS ALREADY A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >>

[02:45:04]

>> WE'RE GOING TO WAIT ON ALL VEHICLES.

WE NEED THAT AMOUNT AS A PLACEHOLDER BUT IT MAY NOT BE THAT EXACT AMOUNT AFTER OUR MEETING FOR THE VEHICLES.

>> BECAUSE WE APPROVE SOMETHING TODAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GOING TO WIND UP THAT WAY AT THE END.

IT CAN ALL BE ADJUSTED, EVERYTHING CAN BE.

>> ALL IN FAVOUR? >>

MOTION CARRIES 5-0. >>

>> I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION FOR CONSTABLE HARRIS.

IF WE APPROVE YOUR VEHICLE FOR THAT LADY --

>> WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO

DO. >> YES, SIR.

>> SHE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAUL OTHER LADIES AROUND FROM OTHER PRECINCTS IN THAT SAME VEHICLE OR IS EACH PRECINCT

GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VEHICLE? >> NO, NO, NO, IT'S JUST THE ONE PERSON WITH THAT VEHICLE. IT WOULD DO IT ALL.

I DON'T NEED MORE THAN ONE. >> WE CAN SEND THE MAINTENANCE BILL TO PRECINCT 1, THOUGH, IF YOU WANT.

>> YEAH. JUST ONE --

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE WANTING MORE VEHICLES --

>> ONLY CONSTABLE 2 DOES THAT. WE DO ALL OF THOSE PAPERS.

>> I'M MOVING THAT WE APPROVE THE NECESSARY PLACEHOLDER AMOUNTS SUCH TO THE VEHICLE AUDIT AND THE OTHER EQUIPMENT AS NEEDED FOR CONSTABLE 2'S POSITION.

>> MOTIONER MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOUR? WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.

I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OF THIS, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE HARD DATE BEING SET AT 1 O'CLOCK.

WE'RE APPROACHING THAT NOW. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON HERE

[II.K. Special Revenue Funds and Projects. (Brianna Fowler / Judge Deen)]

THAT WE NEED TO -- >> I WAS GOING TO ASK ANY SPECIAL REVENUE THAT YOU NEED TO GET IN TODAY?

NO? >> WE GOT TO DO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. I THOUGHT WE HAVE TO DO ELECTED

OFFICIALS TODAY. >> WE'LL HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT WILL COME UP REGARDING SALARIES AT OUR NEXT -- NEXT TIME WE MEET THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING COVERED TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME STUFF HANGING OUT THERE I'M SURE. AM I RIGHT?

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO COVER --

>> YEAH, THERE IS. THERE'S THE -- KIND OF REVIEWING THE HIGHER RANKING THINGS FROM COMMITTEE.

THERE WAS THE NEW POSITION FOR I-T FOR THAT MAPPING.

THERE WERE SOME MORE REQUESTS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR INVESTIGATORS. AND THEN OF COURSE THE J.P.

REQUESTS. COUNTY ENGINEER.

>> AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST WHAT WE'VE DONE IS PASSED THIS MEETING WHERE WE DO QUITE A BIT OF WORK.

WE KIND OF GET AN ACCOUNTING OF WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE OUR STANDINGS ARE FINANCIALLY BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT ON A DAY LIKE TODAY.

THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS SAY BECAUSE SOME PASSED TODAY IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT MIGHT GET CHANGED LATER BASED ON WHAT THE COUNTY TEMPERATURES US IS WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> AGAIN ON THE HARD DATE BEING SET WE NEED TO -- ON THE SALARIES OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE. ITEM F.

[II.F. Discuss/Vote on Proposed Elected Officials Salaries. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen) ]

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE SET THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY AT 5%. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? IT WILL BE LESS THAN WHAT THE NON- ELECTED -- I'M GOING TO BE REAL POPULAR FOR THIS. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT --

>> WE COULD BE HERE ALL DAY. >> I KNOW THIS BUT THIS MAY CHANGE THAT. I HAVE A LIST ON MY DESK OF WHAT THE SALARIES IN COMPARISON TO OTHERS AND IT'S CERTAINLY JUSTIFIABLE IN MANY, MANY WAYS WITH THE GROWTH THAT PARKER COUNTY HAS. I DO THINK THAT ONE COULD ARGUE

[02:50:02]

CLOSE TO JOHNSON COUNTY WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANTLY FAST GROWING COUNTY LIKE US. JUDGE BODECKER IS A FANTASTIC JUDGE THERE. I THINK THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. AND I THINK THOUGH IN COMPARISON COMPARISON, I WOULD ASK THIS COURT LOOK AT MORE OF A FOCUS AND INVESTMENT ON WHAT THE NON- ELECTED OFFICIALS AND FOCUS ON OTHER THINGS, GIVEN, ONE, THINKING ABOUT WE HAVEN'T SOLVED THE GENERAL ISSUE YET. THE JUSTICE CENTER IS STILL AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE -- WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT, IT'S ON EVERY AGENDA ITEM. WE STILL HAVE THAT TO FEEL WITH AND WE ABSOLUTELY ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRANSPORTATION BOND WHICH WE ESTABLISHED A FANTASTIC COMMITTEE THAT IS LOOKING AT IDENTIFYING WHAT THAT BOND AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE AND WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE. IT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE IN 2027.

I JUST ASK THAT AGAIN THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO THE VOTER WITH, WITH SERIOUS NEEDS.

I KNOW SOMETIMES IT TAKES TIGHTENING THE BELT A LITTLE BIT TOE LOOK AT THOSE THINGS. I WOULD ASK FOR THAT TO BE RECONSIDERED. AND I'M JUST THROWING --

>> DO YOU WANT TO AMEND THE MOTION BY EXCLUDING COUNTY JUDGE

FROM THE EQUATION? >> YES.

>> SO MOVED. >> SINCE WE HAVE A -- YOU'RE GETTING AN AMOUNT IN THERE. AN INCREASING SUPPLEMENT.

>> AND AGAIN I JUST WANT TO -- AND YES, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

BUT ALSO TO -- JUST AGAIN JUST TO THROW THIS OUT TO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT WE HAVE AHEAD OF US IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE, DEALING WITH THIS GROWTH, I WOULD ASK THAT

THAT BE CONSIDERED. >> WELL, IT'S CONSIDERED BUT -- WE'LL JUST CONCERN

>> IT'S A GOOD POINT. THE POINT THAT I MAKE IS THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE IN SALARIES AND THAT THE -- THERE ARE -- EITHER APPOINTED OR HIRED EMPLOYEES SALARIES ARE GOING TO EXCEED SEVERAL -- SEVERAL OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

>> AND THIS DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE CALIBER AND THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN, I THINK YOU GET FROM YOU

PAY FOR. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMISSIONERS. I'M TALKING ABOUT OTHER OFFICES

HERE. >> BUT I TAKE THAT ACROSS THE BOARD. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS PROBABLY SOME OF THE BEST ELECTED OFFICIALS WE'VE EVER HAD.

I DON'T MEAN TO TAKE AWAY FROM THAT.

BUT I'M JUST ASKING TO CONSIDER THAT.

YOU'VE DONE THAT. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND? >> JUDGE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE NOT DO ANY COLA OR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS --

>> NONE. >> I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT YOU

WERE GETTING AT. >> AND IF I IF I COULD TAKE AWAY ON WHAT THE SUMMER GIVES ME AND WERE GRATEFUL THAT WITH ME DOING THE TRADITIONAL SIDE IT DOESN'T COST THE COUNTY ANYTHING THAT'S PAID THROUGH THE STATE WHICH THIS PERSON -- DID PAY ME ON A TRADITIONAL SIDE BECAUSE IF I CHOSE NOT TO DO THE TRADITIONAL THEN YOU HAD SATURATED JUDGE MADE ANY ERRORS SO I THINK WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE MY .5I A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR?

>> THIS IS FOR THE 5%. >> YES.

>> PASSES 3-2. I APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO ARTICULATE.

>> FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, AS I SAID EARLIER YOU HAVE THE TAX ASSESSOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT WOULD FALL TO THE

HIGHER TIER. >> YES.

THAT WAS THE MOTION PREVIOUSLY. >> ALSO, THE OTHER PIECE IS THE CCL JUDGES. THEY ARE -- WE HAVE THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATION, THERE IS ROOM IN THEIR SALARIES FOR A COLA.

DO AREN'T IN MAX OR NOT? TYPICALLY WE DO IF THERE'S ROOM

THEY GET THE COLA. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES 4-1.

>> I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS HAS INCREASED TOTAL FOR THE SUPPLEMENT. WE WELL FROM THAT BECAUSE THERE'S THE D SUPPLEMENT THAT IS TIED TO THAT.

SO WE WOULD ADJUST THE D A SALARY OR SUPPLEMENT.

[02:55:02]

>> DISCUSSED WITH HIM WHEN HE WAS HERE EARLIER AND THAT WAS

THE INTENT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> ON MORPHINE 1-YEAR-OLD APPROVED DISPOSITIONS FOR DISPATCH BECAUSE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BEING ABLE TO USE A LOT OF THEIR MONEY TO BUY CERTAIN THINGS, IT FREEZES UP SB 22 MONEY. SO WE DID VERIFY SB 22 FUNDS COULD FUND THOSE NEW DISPATCH POSITIONS.

>> SPEAKING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AS WELL, THE MONEYS WAS GOING TO OFFSET SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'RE.

YOU ALL MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT THAN I DO.

IF YOU'RE ABLE TO COLLECT SOME OF THE MONEY FOR THINGS HIS FOLKS DO, INVESTIGATORS -- SO IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO PUT THAT MONEY BACK INTO SOMETHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE MIGHT BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES BACK AT -- [SINGING] PRECINCT THREE CONSTABLE BACK THERE.

I THINK WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WHILE WE DO HAVE IMMIGRATION MONEY, THAT WE UTILISE IT AS FAR AS WE CAN TO OFFSET TAXPAYER MONEY HERE. SO I'M THINKING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH CONSTABLE OFFICES AS WELL.

>> A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I. >> I ONE LIKE ONE THING BEFORE ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT SETTING THIS AT THE 146 OR ALL FOUR JP'S JUSTIFYING THIS, THE IMPACT ON EVERY IN THIS COUNTY.

>> JUDGE, YOU'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS.

>> BUT I DO JUVENILES FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> YOU DO, YES. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS RIGHT NOW AND SORRY I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP EARLIER, IS GOING THROUGH THE OTHER NUMBERS. BEFORE YOU ADJOURN AND FINALISE IT I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT LIKE MAYBE THROW IT OUT THERE LIKE SEE WHAT THE COURT THINKS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. RECORD SHOW WE WILL ADJOURN AT 1:10. THANK YOU ALL AGAIN.

THANK YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.