on. Is this on? What my lights on. Bobby my lights on. There comes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a dent in commissioners court for Tuesday, August 7th is now in session this morning invocation will be given by a county auditor James Wells and our pledges will be led by Easton Sadler who is a new eels scout with troop 164 will you please stand Now, you're having a thought that we asked your blessings from this meeting today and on all those presents. I ask you to give wisdom to our elected leaders and have been to do your will in their actions today. We ask you to please bless all that are here. Keep us all from sin. Bring us back next week in the Christ name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I'm going to Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas state under God, gentlemen. Members and consideration of people's time, we're going to first go to item 3a on the agenda. 3a is approval of Proclamation honoring East and Sadler for Eagle Scout Project and will call commissioner and the EEDS to read the resolution. Good morning. This morning I want the court is going to be passing a proclamation of appreciation for Eastern because he did a great job helping our historic preservation. Also our maintenance here in Bitten County on one of our county bridges. So this is a proclamation whereas Eastern Sadler is a member of Boy Scout Troop 164, and where as Eastern began his scouting career as a CUP Scout in 2006, and has earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 2012, and whereas Eastern completed his Eagle Scout project on May 12, 2012, in which he painted over graffiti on the underside of the Old Alton Bridge, as well he painted over graffiti on the underside of the old Alton Bridge as well as painting over graffiti on the benches in the old Alton Park area. Whereas Easton is 14 years old and is starting his freshman year at Gower High School this year where he participates in the debate team and the football team. Now therefore be it resolved that the commissioners court of Ditton County does hear about send our sincerest Appreciations to Easton Sadler for his exemplary service to our county and to hear about extend our very best wishes and continued blessings and Encouragement to continue his scout like behavior throughout his life proclaim the seventh day of August 2012 and I'll move for approval Thank you. We have a motion for approval by commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Mitchell all in favor Please say aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye That's pretty cool. Man, I've been there. Did you go to Tiger Club? Yeah. All the way to the back. Oh man, I've been there. Did you go to Tiger Club? Yeah, all the way through. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm sorry. So thank you for having me, you guys were very kind. Couldn't have done it without you guys. All the red tape is just huge nowadays. All the guys done it. Denton County West Road and Bridge, they were very helpful. Keeping me informed when everything was going on. I'm gonna introduce everybody. We have Alissa, done the left. And my father, Sam, he's also one of the community leaders, so he cancels the leader. And there's Natasha, and then my mother, Jerry, and then Brother Chadwick. He's one of the younger boys leaders. And then we have Brother McGovern, he's the front of the family. And they all gave me some big support on the way here, and I'm very thankful to all of you for all the help and support you give me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Eastern. So much. It's, we really appreciate as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, thank you, Eastern so much. It's, we really appreciate as a member of the museum committee and our marker committee, it's very important that we preserve our historic bridges and that park area down there. And we appreciate your, your, your, your rallying and making that a priority to cover up that graffiti and hopefully we won't need to call on your services again. So thank you so much. Great. Okay. Item one is the Republican put for items not listed on the agenda. If there's a member of the public that would like to address commissioners court, we ask that you please complete a public comment form available on the side table over here. I want to remind everyone to please turn off their cell phones and pages. We have one public comment from this morning. Peggy Rittle. Yeah. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. Morning Peggy. Morning. Thank you, judge being here. We appreciate it. Morning, Peggy. Morning. Thank you, Judge and commissioners. I'm here to invite you to a special opening exhibit ceremony that will be on August 21st at 9 a.m. We have planned to do this right before y''ll get started on your county business. This is a special project of one of our Denton County residents, Bison Goppa. At the beginning of the Iraq War, Bison made a goal for herself to honor every Texas soldier that who has fallen in the rock war since the conflict began in March of 2003. We see this as a very progressive type of interpretation of something that was very close to her, although she had no sons to serve in the war. What Bison did was she documented each and every face of the fallen soldiers on small wooden panels, and then she attached these to her oak trees in the front of her home. This is a project that's very close to her and to the families that represent the fallen. We are going to interpret this exhibit here in the courthouse. We have items that have been donated by employees of Denton County who have lost their sons. We have families that have come from Colin County to donate items for use in this exhibit. And we have one Denton County family that who lost a son in Afghanistan. So that will be that's the second phase of this project, my bias in GAAPA, and we will hopefully be doing something on that when that war is over. We hope that you will come and visit this exhibit. We are going to have an interactive part of the exhibit that will allow you to explore more about each of these fallen soldiers in particular our Denton County soldiers. We feel that this is an important contemporary event that none of us ever forget the incredible sacrifice that our neighbors are making for their families, our community, and our country. So thank you very much and thank you, Bison. We appreciate everything you've done. Thank you. Thank you, Pagan. I don't have any other public comments. Members, item two is the consent agenda. The item is on the consent agenda that you need to vote for discussion. Or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sainine? Motion is carried. Consent agenda today consists of two a, which is approval of ordermaking appointments. We have a new hire in the district clerk's office, new hire and it's also the district clerk, but this is a jury grand jury. Promotion in one, two, three, four promotions in the criminal district attorney's office, promotion in the tax office, and a rehire in the sheriff's department. 2B is approval of the Intro Departmental Transfers, 2C is approval of specifications and authority to advertise the Identity Administrative Complex Phase 2 the move. And 2D is approval of Budget Amendment Quest 101 590 for various land items for human resources in the amount of $4,775. 5A is approval of the bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, T-A-I-P, Sheriff's Training, Sheriff's, Forfeiture, VIT, Interest, DA, Check V, NDA, Forfeiture Funds are all presented for recording purposes only. Good morning, James Wells. Yes, sir. Yes, approval bills. As presented with the one deletion from the general fund and want addition from our own bridge fund as the tell us every page. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the court? Do we have a motion? No. Motion by Commissioner Marchin. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the knee. Motion does carry. 6A is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for bid number 06022147 fire alarm, automatic spring for radio tower inspections. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Marchen. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion does carry. Six B is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for sale of real property located at 306 North Loop 288, Denton, Texas. Establishment of minimum bid amount of $2,100,000. Vote for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by commissioner marchin Questions or discussion hearing none all in favor please say aye aye opposed in aim motion does carried 7 a is approval budget amendment quest one oh one six zero zero for contract labor for contract I'm sorry for courthouse on the square museum any amount of 11,000 thirty three dollars I'm sorry for courthouse on the square museum in the amount of $11,033. Motion by Commissioner Eads. Chair will second the motion. I'll in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion does carry. 7B is approval. Budget member request 101 610 for various lionitis for sure. Forfeiture funds in the amount of $5,737. This is for recording purposes only. I move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say name. Motion carries. 7C is approval, budget amendment request 101 620. Doing case revenues, now allocated expenditures for educational supplies, events for quarter-sounds on the Square Museum in the amount of $6,000. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Here are no questions. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 7D is approval. Budget request 101-630. For salary assistance benefits or public health, CPS bio terrorism grant in the amount of 37,686 dollars. Prove. Motion by Commissioner Marchand. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aine? Motion does carry. Are we ready down it to go into the proposing that? Yeah, we'll do that at the end after our budget process. So come back to 7e and 7f. NA is approval of a Carlisle Edition Phase C, final plant lots 21 through 24, 27 through 34, and 37 through 42, block 2B and lots 39 through 50, block 2A. This isn't Commissioner Prusing for. The motion by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Hearing no questions on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion carries. Commissioner Eads I don't have anything on 13. There will be no action on 13 a to the 13 b is a approval of and filing of the Denton County Emergency Service District number one annual audit report, this is for recording purposes only, this is in Commissioner Prusing for. Motion by Commissioner Ease, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. Motion does carry. 13C is approval of the appointment of Doug Voison to fill the unexpired term of then kind of a possible pressing five members. I've got to eat. I've spoken to Doug. Did he get a holdy? Well I didn't get a hold of me but I believe the DA's office I don't know if John in particular but somebody over there communicated with I'm got this email said he's going to be out of town this week. On vacation, yeah, so he can attend commissioners court, but the meantime he is applying for the bond and the anti-bribery statement which is required. We can take formal action today to fill the Constable vacancy and approve the bond which has has to be filed before he takes the oath of office and then he can take his oath of office at a later time. So if you want to go ahead and... I'm moving for approval. When I spoke to Doug, he was kind of concerned that he still hadn't wrapped up his business with the... Sure. ...but I told him I thought we could approve the item and then when he got his bond and all that stuff we could have him sworn in at the time He thought appropriate when he Think he still needs to file paperwork with the city and he was taking a well deserve vacation So I'm gonna approve. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Coleman seconded by Commissioner Eads Are there questions or any further discussion and judge all of his paperwork is going to be in order. So after today, he'll be able to take his whenever he would like to do so. He may choose to do that here in Commissioner's Court. We'll let you know. If he was thinking more kind of think at the end of the month. End of the month. OK. Sure. There's retirement stuff and all that worked out. Yes, sir. You be sure or I'll be sure to give the like the Treasurer's office proper notification when he takes his own action. And they actually start right. That's when he goes on the payroll right. Right. And we also communicated with them that he needed to get with HR department fell out all that paperwork too. Okay we have a motion to second all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed, say aye. Motion does carry. Well, it's actually when I spoke to Mr. Boyce and I told him I thought it would be a good idea to speak to you and Donna and Amy. But I think he called me right before he left from. He's not in town. I expect him to call you all when he gets back. Oh, did he talk to you? Okay. Good. Okay, we're going to take 14 A B and C all in one motion because they're all approval of the property tax collection agreements. 14 A is interlocal cooperation agreements for property tax collection between Dent County, Texas and Dent County fresh water supply district District number 1D. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District 1E. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District 1F. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District number 6. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District number 7. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District number 8A. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District number 11B. Dent County Fresh Water Supply District number 11b, and Denton County Fresh Water Supply District number 11c. 14b is in the local cooperation agreement for property tax collection between Denton County and the Sanger Independent School District. 14c is the same type of agreement between Denton County and the city of Corinth, the city of Pollock Point, and all of them are as recommended by the Denton County Taxicessor Collector. Cheryl Samu, seconded by Commissioner Eans, are there questions? None all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Am I going too fast for you, Ashley? Okay. 14D is approval of the least purchase agreement between Denton County, Texas and the Hewlett Packard Financial Services Company for the least purchase of the Hewlett Packard Design Jet T2300EPS. That's multifunction color printer for use in the Denton County Public Works Department and authorized Bennett Hull Director of the Denton County Public Works Department to sign the Hewlett Packard Finances delivery and acceptance certificate Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Coleman seconded by Commissioner March and other questions Here none all in favor. Please say aye aye opposed sitting motion does carry Item 15 is for executive session 15 a is under Texas government code 551.0711 a consultation with attorney In a closed meeting with the governmental body sick said vice of its attorney regarding pending litigation and the US district court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman division and the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and the cause numbers there. This is the Nadia Williams-Volvera versus Denton County, Texas at all. 15B is under Texas government code 551.072, deliberation regarding real property close meeting to deliberate the value of real property. We're deliberation in open meeting and have a detrimental effect on the position of the government of the body and negotiations with the third person regarding the value of real property located in Dehn County Commissioner precinct 4 and with that we're in executive session. A and B I believe it is. Let me make sure. Yes. There'll be no action on item 15 A and B. We're going to take about a five minute break and then come back and get started on budget. Okay? So we're recessed. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going going to offer you two. New, new and improved. Huh? If you want to, if you trust our notes. Yeah, October 1, start and just go ahead and pass. Okay. Okay. Where are we? Are we ready? We're going to be. But I gave you all a fairly small packet today. So most of the information you already have, but we do have a few new things that we'll cover first on our agenda. Of course, I gave you a new spreadsheet that includes all the motions that have been made. The items that are not shaded or the items that we need to address today in some fashion. So we'll just start with item number one on the agenda, which is a request from the Taxicessor Collector. They have recently gone out for bid for tax and tax statement preparation and mailings. And those bids came in significantly over what was budgeted this year. So there's a letter in your packet from Steve Mossman and Michelle Franch on page A148. But you can also refer to page two of your changes sheet. The impact of this is $42,396. I've also included some information in your packet that shows kind of the history of that line item and we'll kind of show you why I recommended a lower budget for that. However, with this being out for bid, that's an unknown. It could have been more or less. So we're here today to ask the court to re-look at that. Michelle is here. If you have any questions? I don't really have a question. Just a couple comments. I mean it is what it is. We need to do it. So we don't really have a whole lot of choice in the matter. But I have two comments. One, But I have two comments. One, this is like a three year contract visit. I mean, we have in the contract that we can renew for three more times or two more times, I'm not sure which. Three, okay. When this comes up for bid again, can we bid it earlier in the year so that we will have this information so when they do their original request for that budget year, they'll have this information sooner and we won't get hit with a $42,000 surprise. I mean, you know, it is what it is. I understand that. So the other thing I was going to tell you in Donna knows this. And I forwarded to all members of court the email that we got from the state concerning the original health partnerships. And we have been moved into RHP 9 from my 18, consequently the $45,000 that I asked on it to put into the budget to be paying the calling county company that was going to handle administrative duties. We do not need that $45,000. And so we can take it out of there. We can eliminate that expense and I'd dedicate that those funds to offset this $42,392 expense that we weren't anticipating. For the budget year. So we have a motion by Commissioner Marchand. I will second the motion. Are the questions or is there discussion? Here none all in favor. Oh, done it. Is that a combination of the two? They increase in the reduction or just this. Yes, a combination to the increase in the reduction. So that's the motion and the second are there. Question further questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. Motion does carry. OK. OK, that takes care of item number one and item number three on our agenda. The next item is North Central Texas Council of Government Regional Data Cooperative Purchase Program. On page A54 of your packet, there's a letter from Mike Eastland, the director, indicating that based on recent federal and state funding cuts, there are some programs that they currently provide to us that they will no longer be able to do so free of charge. There's a list on page A54 of the services that they provide. It includes GIS data, clearing house information, land use, inventories, census data, that's where they develop our population estimates. We use technical assistance, all other sorts of data access. They have, I guess, communicated with all the entities that are members and the county portion would be based on our population would be a $4,000 annual fee. On page A, 154 and 155, you'll see the breakdown of the funding. So we've been in communication with Judge Horn and Kevin Carr, and they all feel that this is an important program to participate in because we have a lot of ideas from this too. Well, on page, where is that on our spreadsheet, Luna? It is on page four of five. And it's second grouping in the department called Appropriations at $4,000 line. Maybe we have a motion by Commissioner Marchand. I'll second the motion. Are there questions or comments? No. Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Item number four on our agenda is discussion of now now we're going to get into the items that have been appealed. We've had some discussion on, so we kind of just go through the list. Technology services appealed a new hire. We did provide you with an updated spreadsheet and on page one of five you'll also see there are two lines on here for the new higher position. It is the same position however we've given you the figure for it being an October 1st start date or a December 1st start date which was the original request. So remember that was at my request going to suggest that I would be, I think, a good idea for records management to be reporting to Kevin Carr and to start this person 10-1 with the new budget year. There's an awful lot of things in that department that need attention concerning updating their technology and taking advantage of news. He already had this office administrator on here. That's so good. He did, but it was with the equivalent one. Start date, my point is he's going to need this Disadministrator Office Administrator to start before December moving records management over to that department. So do you want to take this in two motions, commissioners? Is that what I'm hearing? We move in records management now. I don't think that's on the agenda, is it? There can be a part of this discussion is Starting technology services Well, we need to take this into motion because I'm certainly not in motion two motions and Never do that is okay, so And record from all my life. Everton? How it is? OK, so what we're fixing to do is to we had a discussion on an agenda item which we decided to put the records management under Barbara Looper, right? And but we were going to do that as October 1st, correct? Right. Kevin here? Okay. And Kevin, you and I had a talk, right? And you're a willing to, because I've also talked to Miss Looper about this. And Kevin, you're willing to take on the responsibility of supervising records managed. Based on that willingness to do that you feel like you might it would be changed? Yes? Okay. Now, John, let me ask you this. Under the guidelines of that agenda item that we have, is it okay for us to just, would it be better built in suspenders or would it be, I mean, because... The only reason I brought it up now is excuse me for intercom issue. Yeah. Donna needs to know for budget purposes, you know, an allocation of funds. That's why I brought it up during budget. Then, you know, because it would start the new budget year. I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going'd be happy to give him the office administrator. I don't know how they were as the all feel But I understand that records management is gonna be an additional supervisor. I could think he I don't know if I was for the office administrator Justifying it until he was only taking on records management. I think that's understandably so But would it be appropriate for us to do the office administrator continuing upon him still willing to take it next week? I think there are two different issues. First of all, this office administrator was on here before we discussed the rest of the management going on on the cabin and it's not like he's not getting the employees to go with that department. So I personally don't see the reason why we're putting a two together. Obviously, if you want to vote on the Office of Ministry, it stands on its own, whether you give the department a given or not. But I think there are two different things because he had already asked for this Office of Ministry. And he's getting a department that's fully equipped that was working before he's getting it. So it's not like he's getting a department that he's got to have more employees to make this department better. So that's what I see. I know. If you want to put on the office administrative, well, it means do that. Well, I was prepared to make a motion to go ahead regardless of the regardless of him taking recommendage men or not. And I would make a motion to approve the new higher office administrative with the date of 1012 at $64,092. That's my motion. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Marchant. Chair, we'll second the motion. Is there for the discussion? I will support it if we take action to allocate the record management to information services I know So I'm not gonna support it unless we give them records management For the discussion I was kind of on the fence to vote for it, you know, I Know that I was kind of on the fence to vote for it. I know that, and I think a lot, like Judge Warren, you'd made several comments about when we hired the architect and the subsequent construction managers, which I thought was an excellent decision for us to do. But you know, you and Commissioner Mitchell also made very good points about how we hire additional employees for you know well span of time and you know we always seem to never lose employees always just seem to kind of gain employees although you know our construction projects are going to be less than probably three to four or five years there may not be you know past that so that's kind of on the fence, but let me if I can interject. You know, I can recall the first couple of budgets. And you know, I try to have as my mind will allow it. Historical data up here sometimes is hard to recall it. But because of the market out there, I think that either the first or second, those that were here, I think that we beefed Kevin's department up. But in the last four or five, and I may be totally wrong, I don't believe he's come to us to ask for his employees. And there's significant amount of IT stuff going on. And that's why I'm supporting his ability to hire a new office administrator just knowing how thin he is spread. That's one of your employees. No, he didn't get four new employees. They were contractors. Right. They were contract. They were long-term contract. They were contract employees. They were expenses, but I think they were probably doing for the job as a full-time employee. Well, you know, one thing that I've always talked about when I talk to different groups about Denton County and what we do. Thankfully, what our tax rate is and a number of employees per capita compared to other counties, we're pretty darn efficient and I always credit technology services for being able to do that. Didn't County has always taken advantage of at Kevin's suggestion, usually. A different technological advances. And it has helped us keep a low tax rate. It has helped us be able to function efficiently with a fewest number of employees per capita compared to other counties. I am prone to be, Kevin has never come to us and asked us for outrageous things. He has never come to us and asked for, I never got the feeling he was trying to pad his domain over there. I think he's always been very frugal in his request and he's always come to us with suggestions, things that we needed to do. Yes, there might be an upfront expense, but it had a long term payout. So I trust his judgment, I trust his expertise and I consider this a wise investment for the county. You know I'm not saying that Kevin doesn't make wise decision. I think every employee that comes or every elected official or the department that comes and asks for an employee, a new employee, I believe they have the best interest of the county and hand and they're asking because they think they need that employee. I believe they have the best interest of the county at hand, and they're asking because they think they need that person. I, on the other hand, have to look at the big picture. And that doesn't mean that I don't value an employee. I value every one of these employees. But in tough times, when our taxpayers are facing tough times, I'm going to be tough too with adding new employees. And I think each and every person know that, doesn't mean that Kevin doesn't do a good job. I think he does a great job. Otherwise, I'd be yelling at him. He knows that. And I have to look at the big picture. And the big picture is for me is that we don't add another employee. OK. Unless there's anybody else that wants to comment, we have a motion in the second on the floor to make this. I have a question for Donna. Sorry, so I had. Donna, can we still make budget changes next week? Today is the day we need to take final action in order to meet our schedule of September 4 adoption. So this is our last schedule budget workshop. Any other questions? I'm not. I'll be in support of it with the intention of the leave that we will be revisiting the issue of the records management next week. It's Kate, if you'll put that on to agenda. For your reassignment of that department. Donna, did you have something else you wanted to add? I guess if you want, we could put the money this week in contingency. And then next week, when you vote on it, we could make the move this week in contingency and then next week when you vote on it We could make the move it won't change the bottom line if you do that And that way we'll have a number today to Oppose as far as a bottom-around budget and tax rate I like that idea we revise that motion. Yeah, I'll revise motion We have a revised motion by commissioner March and I'll second them. Further discussion or are there further questions? Here in NANO and favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Aye. Motion carries. Foreign favor one. Opposed. And that is with an October one start day. Okay. All right. Okay. Last week we had some discussion with Spain who had concerns about their transportation funding. On page 5 of your changes sheet. Actually page four, sorry. We gave it our best shot on trying to come up with a scenario for you. The current budget is $49,013 that's been recommended by the committee. If we are to separate that funding into two different sources, including having funds and appropriations for the transportation project, and follow the committee's recommendation for reducing other social service agencies by the 25 or so percent, what you would need to do in order to accomplish that would be to reduce the health care relief fund by $38,718, which would leave funding for meals on wheels at $10,295. So in order to accomplish having transportation separate, if you look up on that spreadsheet, the second department, the span transportation funding would be 54,860. Now that is very close to the figure that was in this current year's budget for span with the exception of the reduction of the percentage that applies to meal zone wheels. So by doing this, just want to make you aware it will impact the budget because it won't be paid for out of the health care relief fund. It'll have to be paid for out of general funds separate. At $10,000 or the $38,000? Actually $54,800, $860. But that's the best scenario I think I could come up with. So next to the transportation. And make sure we separate the transportation portion out to come out of budget and the other portion will be a part of the social service agent. And we will probably ask them to submit two separate proposals in the future. The one that can be sent to the committee for normal review and then we'll handle this as if it were MHMRs, another agency that we fund separately. We have any questions from members of the court. Everybody understand what's being proposed? Okay, the chair is going to make a motion in favor. Second by Commissioner Mitchell hearing no further questions on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the Senate? Motion carries. Last week there was discussion and actually a vote on the probate court appeals, but Commissioner Coleman had requested permission to visit with Judge Robison about an area with regard to the attorney position. Page two of your changes sheet. What was originally submitted was before the probate investigator to be an attorney investigator with a budget impact of 19135. I believe he visited with the judge and the agreement was to keep the grade attorney level three for that position, but to lower the salary. So that impact would be lowered to $14,975. Page A, we'll see. A 157 of your packet, that salary changed from $74,000 per year to $70,000, 513 as the annual salary for that slot. So that's the scenario that I've been asked to present today. I'm sorry. When I spoke to Judge Robison, she was willing to, because I asked her to, you know, the different scenarios and she said she was willing to prioritize the attorney investigator Based on the fact that that attorney investigator would be going to court litigating and be the main cause of the protection in the up court appointment fees so From my understanding so then I guess I'm prepared to make a motion to approve the Re-lass for the attorney investigator to the salary is listed by Donna and to also include in that motion the increase in the training and education which would be is that $975 would be the increase? I've already done that too. Oh, that's my only joke. Okay, training, okay. In order to make that equal per important, yes. Make a equal training for all the other courts get. Okay, let me answer the question. Yes, ma'am. You're prepared to make the motion to lower that salary to 14 instead of 19 or you as that the new one The she was proposing to make the new salary 19 Okay, and she's agreed to allow that have the new salary be 14 Not adjust the salary of the other person that she was seeking the $10,000 increase for so all I'm asking the only changes I'm asking because I figure we already approved the increased mileage greatly upon Donna. So in the compromise I developed with Judd Robison, we turned the investigator into an attorney investigator, three, 5% above minimum, which was the salary listed by Ms. Donna. And we did that last week, right? No. We talked about it. Y'all directed me to talk to Judge Robeson about it. There was a motion last week, but after the motion and vote was taken, I think that request was made to do that. So we're back to release it. So we're removing the motion we made last week for the 19th. Yes, Miss Donna, you haven't highlighted as gray is Coleman. I've moved motion and I seconded it. That's right. You did take that vote, but you'd need to rescind that. I was just to make that part of the 191 to the 14 9. That's correct. Okay. What about the one for the 10? We're going to leave that the same. Leave it. What? You think you're not going to unchanged not gonna unchanged unchanged? So it would be zero I'll second his motion and then he added the nine seventy five My my intent to all this to just clean take this whole thing off the plate right okay Before but you need to take that in one motion because I'm not voting for the train. I mean two motions Okay All right, well then I'll just move to go ahead and rescind our previous order and take the attorney investigator to 14 975. I'll second that. Hey we have a motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Eiz. Here are no further questions on favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion carries. I'll move to increase the training to be at the equal level as all the other courts for a total of $975 per employee. The motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchand. Are there questions or comments? You're none all in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sinny? Aye. various foreign favor one opposed Okay Okay, Constable precinct 3 had requested additional $1200 of leave for training and education. I provided a report that was requested that breaks down the employee, the cost per employee that's been extended for the last two years and you have that report that we handed out this morning. It's not a stonna to do this report. And I want to draw your attention to the bottom right hand side where it has the expenses in the current budget year, a breakdown by employee. And then Donna's also done an awful lot of research and thank you Donna, because I know she would last time I talked to her is about eight thirty last night. So I don't know what time she finally got out of here but she went to an awful lot of effort to pull this information specifically what courses are taken by everybody. And there's an awful lot of training going on here that is not required. And I'm sorry, but I think this is outrageous and I will not be supporting the request. So question you use Donna, we, we, you've got the number that we include per, per, I'm not per capita, but per employee, right? Yes, we based all the constables training on a set amount per employee. There were a couple of exceptions that were lower because they asked for less money. But the rest were all left at the same level per employee. But would it be fair to say our policy is that we figure out what the average is and we pretty much recommend anyone to ask up to the average? That's what that's our attempt is to try to keep those locked departments at the same level. Okay, if I don't hear anybody needing to make a motion when we'll move on to the next subject, that'll be denied. when we'll move on to the next subject that'll be denied. We may want to skip number eight. We'll talk about reclassifications in general, because that's kind of tied what option you choose. There were a couple of other appeals for Constable precinct four. for Constable precinct 4. They had asked for $1,700 in body armor and $300 in training and $400 for vehicle equipment which would be for the purchase of deep cows for the vehicle. Other than the reclass issue, those were their specific appeals. Can I ask you something and it may have been addressed already. Commissioner Mitchell you can help me with this. When you get a new equipment, I mean when you get a new vehicle, is the vehicle assessment committee just giving permission or are making a recommendation for the vehicle itself, separated from any kind of equipment like lights, decals, or whatever? I look at the entire thing. Yeah, you do the entire thing. If this is for a new vehicle, how come that wasn't in the original recommendation then for the $400? You know what I think it's our opinion that what was recommended is sufficient to do that, but the department had concerns about it and requested the additional $400 bett can correct me if I'm wrong, but we feel like that what was recommended is sufficient for that. And these are for decals, the $400 of this and $400 for decals. Yeah, I mean, there's certain striping that in identification you put on the vehicles. This $400 above what the committee recommended for that. Yes, yes. Are we putting Tim's face on it? I didn't want. Oh. Good. Okay. That's $400 more than what we typically put. 400 more than the committee recommended. Now, I think the analysis we looked at was the vehicles that the sheriff's office is receiving are fully equipped vehicles. They're actually a little bit less money than what's recommended for this position. So that's why we feel that enough there's sufficient funds for the decals in the original recommendation. If they ever come, I'm just wondering what the difference is. If, I mean, have they asked for increases, increase for decals, cause of a certain design in the past with new vehicles or assist us to new, I'm trying to figure out what to do. This is really the first time this to well really the second time this department has received what we call a fully equipped vehicle from the out-wrap purchase. Typically they have an extensive list of equipment that they want on that vehicle as well. So this actually condenses down some of the equipment maybe from what they've had in the past, but it's a package deal when it's bid. No, I did heat. I'm sorry. Commissioner, did he send any justification? Did was the decals not included in the package that we recommended? I saw if they were. I'm sure that we're included in this. Bill Lyons. I saw if they were? But all the equipment in there, my recommendation is that he will probably have to purchase those separately is that you could reduce the actual vehicle by that 400 and offset it. Because I do believe the 34,000 will take care of everything. Okay. So I recommend decreasing one. Yes, you know the nature of these details, but these specifics, is that something that vehicle maintenance cannot do? Is that a product or material that we do not have in house? You know, we do take care of most of our cars in house. I know the sheriff's office does, but a lot of the constables have there still an outside. Whether or not our vehicle maintenance can do them I don't know. I know we do have equipment we do have equipment that why are they having them done outside? That's their elected officials and they think they can do that. Usually is there something special be done by somebody outside. They have some particular talent that are there. I just have their own design, each constable, and that's usually how that's done. I think we need to look at vehicle maintenance does have a wide range of capabilities. And I think we need to, if we do have that department, I think we need to. We do take care of most of the things. We need to utilize, fully utilize that department. If there's a reflective material or something that they desire that we don't have, then maybe that's something we could start to carry in stock. If you all would direct us, we'd be happy to discuss that in our vehicle assessment. Please do. So that would direct us. We'll just reduce the line item of the new vehicle by $400 and pick this up and that'd be their total vinyl decal budget. I believe that would be adequate. You need that in a motion. Do everybody understand that motion? But I'm taking 34,000 in the original recommendation and the approval of the original vehicle included decals. She is suggesting recommended that we take that $400 out of that original recommendation and then vote on it separately as a $400CAL budget here. We just leave it and he would get the 400 and we move on. You would have to do a budget amendment to transfer the money separate since it's not the original purchase. Well, you guys want to do it? I'd be happy to do you guys all the ocean. Kind of gives them all the flexibility, but I mean to do it up. Be happy. Do you guys all the ocean kind of gives them probably one of the stability, but I mean, I don't. And what's the cleanest way? What you recommended? Let's pay for it for Donna. She doesn't have to do a budget amendment later. Another item on the commission record agenda. Yeah, I mean, it's six or one half dozen. Yeah, that's a wide range. Sorry. I mean, it's 6.5 doesn't it? Okay. Okay. Don't take action. We don't take action on it. Well, one thing I'd like to add here is yes, Commissioner Mitchell, if you would take that up in your vehicle assessment committee meeting because if there's something that our vehicle maintenance department needs in Abe, which would enable them to accommodate requests like this so they don't have to go outside, we need to take a look at that. And your product cost is less money. We have the capability. I don't know if there's the capability our vehicle maintenance department is lacking. Apparently so. I think most of the cash is. Let's take a look at that through the vehicle assessment committee. I think it most of the people report you with the the intricacies of the designs that they are designing for their individual departments and since there's no guidelines as a common design for every department, one may be more so than the other. I don't know enough about it. We can report back to the committee or... Maybe there's something we can do in the committee. I have a question at Judge Ford Donna and Amy, what do we do regarding the, I believe we already took action on the administrative specialists that we're in. We haven't. You may want to talk about reclassifications in general, because there's two options there depending on what you do. Okay, that's right. We did discuss it, but we did not take action. And then the body armor requested, how I'm going to move for approval for the body armor. You've moved for approval? Is that what I heard? Okay. We have a motion for approval. The body armor is there a second to the motion? Second. Second. Second, a back condition or a march? And if I recall, that was because there is a, we will have a new Constable and a new Chief Deputy and there's a cascading of the need impacts there for all you know they can have a new Constable but he is still very still has his shit still has his old body on my course and there'll be a his vacancy but my question is then we bought some more reasonable body armor? I don't, I mean, I think they need the best, but I know we had that discussion in precinct three about the body armor. So is that? The original request was $5,000. Is that where this came in? This is $17,000. That's listed there for purchase. Is that for two of two at their higher level. Now what we recommended for precinct three was more it was under $400 a piece. I'd have to look that up for a week. Aren't the new vest there? They're part of the uniform now. Aren't they built into the shirt? Yeah. The precinct six, they are. We've got them. It's a witchy order, I guess. Yeah, that's what I was saying. So I wonder if this is it. I mean, like precincts. The victim of the shirt? It's the shirt is the actual vest. It's a. I have panels that slip in. Oh, to the piano. Inside the shirt. Okay. I'm sure he's shaking his head. I don't know if that's a more expensive way that they chose, but that's the way they've chosen. And the reason we recommended precinct three at that lower level was based on what precinct six received. And it's under $400 a piece. I can look at it. 3.83 is something like that. Something like that. I can look at it and give you that information. Yeah, well, it is. And I think they have the best time. Then you're sure it is actually. Yeah. And you know, I'm certainly not an expert on this. And I want our officers to have the best so they can protect themselves. But my question was, it's so much different in prices. Jody, you all have this? Jody, you all have vest? We all have vest. Keep in mind that there's a shelf life on vest and it's typically about three to five years depending on what type of vest you buy. The other issue is the weight of the vest. The cheaper vest are heavier, the more expensive the vest, the lighter the weight. It's not how much pounds per square inch that it will stop of a bullet. It's how much it weighs. So the better the technology, the less weight it is, and it's 108 degrees outside. You want the lightest vest possible. So that's probably where this expense is coming from. There's new technology available in vest that make them extremely lightweight. On to the point where they're lightweight enough to make them out of a shirt now. But when you get into the lightweight vest it gets more space. I don't foresee this as a setting a new standard. This is a recurring line item every year. But there is light and there is going to be it. There will be changes in the office. I think it's appropriate. Okay. We have a motion and second is there further discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any motion? Discarried. Thank you. The next topic is reclassifications. As you know, we've discussed this for the past few years. There's evergreen study recommendations that are included as well as some reclassifications that were approved in 2011 and 2012. I did provide you with a new revised spreadsheet. There had been some turnover with what we had provided you last week. So in your packet, you should have a new and improved version. I'm sorry. Yes 69 yes and it was one of the handouts that I gave you today that would need to have been inserted in that area. We included some additional information on this form for you so that you could see which positions had received an increase whenever the Evergreen study was implemented. Everyone was recommended to be brought to minimum. So those that you see on the far right to columns with something included did receive an increase to be brought to minimum. 11. Pardon me? Those in the far right column that have something in there were brought to minimum. The others did not receive an increase because they fell within the pay range. Yeah, they were within the minimum. So yes, we verified that. That's why we made some updates. There have been a couple of positions that have turned over. So we've cleaned it up. And so these are currently occupied slots that this person was in the slot at the time the Evergreen study was done. So if you had employee, two employees, employee A and B, and they're both working the same job, employee A has been here longer. So am I allowed to be hired in at a higher rate? But they both got reclassified with the evergreen. So A and B both got reclassified. And if the first person, because they've been here longer longer was already in that new pay scale the higher level They did not get a pay increase although they both got reclassified they did not get a pay increase but the other people did to bring them to minimal Correct Amy Amy's not incorrect It'd be correct and those are the people that are, so those people in his far column are the ones that did get the adjustment. So that total impact? That's not ideal situation there either. I mean, I mean, that's, I know we're trying to rectify inequities, but if you have two people, they both got reclassified. That's almost a, that's somewhat of an inequity there. We have total budget impact. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at all. We did it at that what I was going to ask 2772. That's the revised number. As you know, we did include $250,000 in contingency for this. But with the cleanup we've done with the recent turnover, that amount was lowered. Lowered to 230, 230,772. Okay. Okay. A couple of questions on the constables for the... Why? Let me... Because we have new chief deft reconstitles, but why was it the... On the Evergreen study constables, 2, 4, and 5 were recommended to be adjusted in one... The chief deputies, but 1 but one three and six weren't. They were all recommended initially but as you just suggested some of those people have left those positions. So when the new people are... They got hired in and hired in at a higher salary. Yeah when the new people come in they get hired at the new grade. And so that's taken into account in their salary. It could be hiring. It could be less. It just depends. The number of orders could have been. It could be. It could be. It could be. And then. It could be. It could be. It could be. But he will be in the slot for three months of the fiscal year. Let me ask that I'm sorry, yes you're right, Commissioner. Should we decide to take this action today? Does that end everything we need to do according to the Evergreen study? It ends all the pay adjustments that were recommended there, yes. There are, you know, I mean, certainly maintenance things, yes. Okay. And we, yes. So we can quick talk about the Evergreen study. Well, with that being said, a good idea to be a good good idea to be a good good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be And I really have an issue with one person in my department receiving 5% more raise than anybody else in my department. I've discussed this with my employee. She's aware of it. I just can't end good conscious leave that on there. That's kind of the way I think. I mean it's tough. You know, as an elected official, you know, you want to hold Act equitable right make sure we treat we best as we can everybody the same But you can wind up having somebody in your department getting a 7% raise or more whereas Other people are fixing to get a 2% right. I wasn't elected when they did the Evergreen study, but it's really made me uncomfortable the whole time. And, you know, we frankly, we put it off for several years in a row to the point where, and I know Ms. Phillips has addressed some of my concerns in which she thinks is the best manner possible, but I still hold my opinion that I think the study has gone stale, and I think is going to result in further inequities rather than curing some. You know, we really try, I think we try. Other people may have a different opinion to you know a bolster employees morale make them make us show us that we're appreciative of their hard work that didn't count as a good place to work and some instances you know we don't particularly pay the best amount of money and some job we do are frankly not the most fun jobs you know they're not very exciting you know working in the jail or working on a road career, there's a lot of things that I think other people would like to do. I would like to get into a discussion about proposed raises across the board. Let me just add one little thing here. Sometimes when people here just talk about giving a percentage increase in salary across the board to all employees, they don't realize that we do have a performance evaluation system. It's just like, you know, get the raise whether you do a good job or not. No, that's not true. We do have a performance evaluation system within the county and people need to rank at a certain level or even though we voted to give a managed raise across the board if that person doesn't rank a certain level, they don't get the raise. Sometimes that's missed in the discussion. Commissioner Eads. I want to say I support the fact that we did the study. I think it was timely and probably overdue. I regret the fact and I didn't agree with all the findings of the evergreen. I don't think any of us did. I do wish we were able to implement it at the time sooner. But I think we were being good stewards of the public treasury as we incrementally implemented it. What I personally have a problem with is that the definitions of promotion. And maybe it's a personal thing, but I view a promotion as someone leaving one job going to another job. And that is a promotion. That's new job duties, new job description, new pay level. I believe, and Amy, jump in and correct me here. But I believe this is, you may have an incumbent in a position that got reclassified due to market conditions and that being viewed as a promotion and their job duties may not have changed. And they're still doing the same job duties, but outside market, which we're trying to be competitive, is dictates that that salary is out of scale with what market conditions are. And so that's being viewed as a promotion. Is that a true statement or not? It's not that it's untrue. We have some that are true promotions. And we have some that are reclassifications due to market conditions. And they're all lumped together in that study. And I guess my question would be then, how would we address those employees who are clearly true promotions in that group if we didn't address them all together? I think a promotion is a promotion and if you got a promotion you got a promotion. I mean I think that's... And there are some in here that our promotions that did not get adjustments. And that's why I'm asking how we would- Yes. Well, I think that's a, that is a, if you got a promotion and you were, you obviously need to have the pay match what that promotion is. I think that's a no-brainer. I think someone doing the same job and just because outside market conditions changes for them to get that. I think you could go through so many of these jobs. I think you could go to Rodenbridge and look at them and what they're the people who do driving our trucks for Rodenbridge compared to Devon Energy and all these other places. I think you could go and explore that. I mean, we could be an endless cycle with market adjustments, you know, and be a bidding war with other entities and so forth. I mean, we do need to stay fresh. We do need to stay current. But that could be an endless cycle. take action today, but I would really strongly encourage that as we move forward, there's a clear line about the reclassifications and a promotion because I don't think they should be moving forward. I don't think they should be viewed the same at all. And I'm making that motion as part, I believe, housekeeping because we've already made these reclassifications and we've already put them in effect and all the housekeeping that we're doing is that we're funding those reclassifications now that we've already, excuse me, that we've already made before. And I believe that this court needs to reaffirm what we've already done before by taking care of that housekeeping. That's why my motion was there. And then I'm going to make that motion again as part of my motion withdrawing slot 005 you out of those reclassifications. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Marchant. Do we hear a second? I'd like to ask anyone more questions. This is spending motion here again. I want, well. That's okay. I've got a question after years. Okay. Am I correct? Not every job was the scope of our evergreen contract had them do a sampling of job positions. Correct. Yes. So if they did a sampling, there may be, I'm fearful that there may be positions that are not on this list. If they did not, if they did not evaluate everyone of the jobs in the county. So we're perpetuating inequities. In any job study and I'm not going to agree or disagree, I don't know the answer to that. I can tell you that in any job study, they're always going to do a sampling, the differences whether they sample 50 jobs or 200 jobs and then they're going to slot those other jobs where they're supposed to be. I think those adjustments are valid if they're slotted properly. I'm worried about it just leaving people behind. If you did some clerk jobs, but not all the clerk jobs, or if you did the road in bridge form and I think they were evaluated or tweaked. But if we didn't do, what if we didn't do all the truck drivers and all the, if there's groups of people that were not evaluated? I can tell you that in just about any job setting, they're always going to look at truck drivers, truck drivers, equipment operators, are good benchmark positions. And we all agreed on the benchmark positions. I think the court approved the benchmark positions before they went forward. As far as clerks, they would look at all the job descriptions. They would not have had conversation with every clerk in the county, but they would look at every clerk, and you have a series of clerk one, clerk two, like that, that are shared job descriptions around the county. So the ones that can be matched are the ones that are always looked at. They always identify the benchmarks first. Excellent point though Andy, because I don't know if you all have been approached, but there's several patrol deputies who feel that there is inequities based on their 10 year and new patrol deputies who are paid, you know, if you enter later, then when they were, they get additionally compensated. And, you know, those situations exist throughout the county with all, you know, all 1,500 employees. That's kind of, I guess, you know, I understand we paid big bucks for the study and all that, but the arbitraryness may be irrational, but it seems to me a lot of it was arbitrary. And that's kind of, I think we've had policies in place for a long time. We have not had a timing grade policy in place to my knowledge ever. Time and grade. That's like a lot of cities will have, especially in law enforcement, and that's the way your law enforcement people look at things. A lot of times they'll have a step plan and they move to a step. And then the people that everybody kind of starts in the same place and they advance with time. That was one of the recommendations of this study that this commission's court declined to adopt. I think Commissioner Coleman was in favor of it at the time and stated that. But the majority of the court did not vote for that. There are differences in payout there. You can't line everybody up according to their seniority and find exactly the same pay. And a lot of that is not necessarily arbitrary, but it is because of the discretion of elected officials in department heads that this commissioner's court has elected to provide. Yeah, I had another question. I'm sorry. Now, I just think that there's some real brass tax, you know, inequities, particularly in some positions that we all put out that, you know, it's interesting sometimes to get people who are hired in new with no experience to the county, get paid more than people who have been with the county for a while. I'm sure you all have heard those complaints. Some of them justified, some of them not. Really they had experienced somewhere and because we've changed our slots and grades, that's why they get hired in. And with Moa and you know, we're never going to be able to. It's endemic. It is. I have a question of James Wells. You stepped out of the room for just a minute, but Donna removed the position from her office from consideration for this adjustment and I remember reading an email for you. Have some concerns about your internal auditors? Do you want them included or do you want to exclude them like Donna did? If the reclassification item is approved I I'd like my own employees, all my employees, including in it. It's one of the clarify that point. I think the point is probably James, it's tough because you don't want to be seen as, you know, not giving your employees an additional, or you know, increase that might be available. I mean, that'd be it. You know, that's tough to be a good manager to do that. But, I mean, it's, you know, micro, you want your employees to work more money, you know, macro, we may have a problem with the inequities that we feel it exists, and that's kind of where the rubber meets. Donna, I'm sorry, are you done commissioning? With the changes that we've made, I guess my question is where are we money-wise? And if we're all, well, at some point here pretty soon, we're gonna have to decide on the percentage raise, you've given us different scenarios here. I guess what I'm asking you is how much money is left, so we can figure out what kind of ways we can give. If we did or did not do the recommended reclassifications, we've been keeping up with all the actions. So, right now where it stands with all your votes, you're at 0.95% above the effective rate. The recommended budget was 1.17%. We did plug in Commissioner Coleman had asked what an extra half percent raise might be. That's about $300,000. If you were to include that, you'd be at 1.16%. Above the effective rate. The recommended be at 1.16% above the effective rate. The recommended budget was 1.17. And that's the actual amount of the debt service property tax. Donna, can you email us? You cannot email us what you just said. We could have it. What was the the percent over and? The recommended budget was 1.17% over effective tax rate. If we do. That was for the debt service correct Donna. That was the service exclusively. Right. Exactly right. We did the recommended adjustments and a two and a half percent. Is that what you're saying? Yes, if you are, we already have two percent in the budget. If you add a half percent, it would bring us to 1.16% about the effective rate. That is what you recommend. But we are still under the effective rate. I don't know the effective. You're under what was recommended. Under what? Under what is recommended. That's what I'm saying. Under the proposed. Right. Sorry to keep beating this, but I want to make sure I'm clear on my head. That is including the adjustments as we're in the recommended budget for these high-level unit positions to have a green card. The re-organization or the reclassification? Re-class. So the reclass and a 2.5 percent would make us at 1.16% above the effective tax rate. That's correct. Okay. I'm sorry, Ron, I didn't mean it. Give the ability to tell us what that would be if we did a, without the reclassor 2.5 and a 3% rate. If we didn't do the recommended but we did do a 3% rate. Didn't do the evergreen. If we didn't implement the evergreen, which is I know was budgeted at 250. And we had $50,000 to that. Let me get to that number. Now what the effective rate increase would be, I suspect it'll be. That was, if I do my math right, I think it'll still be less than 1.6. It'll still be less than the recommended budget. And probably less than when it would be otherwise. That's where I was going. That's all right. While they're doing that, let me just make it statement. If you guys remember, and I know commission come when you won't because you weren't here, when we decided that we were going to do this study, we did that not anticipating our economy hitting the skids. And part of that study was follow up of exactly what you're talking about revisiting it every year and the continuation of refreshing it so it would be a actual what is occurring in the market and what's occurring within our employees in their situation at the time. And one of the reasons why we didn't associate money with these overall reclassification was because of those same economic skids. kids. So I don't know that it was short-sightedness by us at all. It was just we were a product of our economy of not being able to do the things that the study really encompassed at the same time. So I think a lot of the questions that we have, if we were able to enact the study ask us to do at the time, a lot of those questions could be answered because we be refreshing it every year. But I think because of the economy, we've had to cut back on that. And so this truly is, to me, just some housekeeping that we really owe our employees. And I don't know right now how to address any of those inequities or compressions? I thought we were addressing that by having the study to begin with. I think we all probably agree on that. If we would have had the money at the time the study was brand new, we would have tried to find. We've been done. We would have tried to find them. Yeah. Well, she's competing down here. Crunching numbers. Got a big chief tablet and pencil out there. Hey, I'm telling you, we're doing a lot better than I was fearful we might be doing today. Okay. No, that's it. We're waiting for Donna to come up some numbers. Whether some ocean on the floor by me to reclass and take out a 0-0-5-B, I don't know what it is. I don't think there's a second though. I wait and see what the numbers are before. Donna, your scenario was to if we didn't do reclassifications and we were to give an extra half percent to bring it up to 3 percent you'd be at a 1.18 percent increase. To go back down to the 1.17 you'd have to deduct $10,000 from contingency or somewhere. We make a 3% in the recommended budget. We need to find $10,000. If you just reduce the contingency line out of about 10,000 and you're there. 3%. What's the 2.5 without the, well, would be a 2.5 pay increase without the reclass? without the, what would be a 2.5 pay increase without the reclass? Do we know if that would be? It's less to 30. So it was, it was 1.16%. Out the reclass? That's with the reclass is included. So what's it, the two and a half percent without the reclass? So just deducted to thirty. 1.16 is a two percent increase with the reclass. It's two and a half percent. When did we get from two and a half? I thought you put two in the budget. Yeah. When the commissioner called in last week asked her to do a calculation. I'll give you the option. That's all Andy. Okay. Just to give us that scenario. You know, the more information we have, not saying we make those decisions, but I'm all about it. We did. So what she's trying to get for us is if we did a 2.5% across the board increase but not the reclassifications, what percentage, where are we in relationship to the calculated effective rate? Correct. Thank you. So to leave 2% raises to take out reclases, you'd be at 1.09%. I'm sorry. It's an even 1% I my eyes deceived me. Two and a half. No you said I thought you said 2%. Well the percent without reclass is a 1% above calculated effect. And then I guess like yeah I and I'm I was unclear I'm sorry but I wanted to know what two and a half was without the reclass. I think we can I think we can get it all done before lunch, I think. Anna, you want some time? Should we take a break and come back? Or are you okay? You can just give me a few. Just okay, that's fine. Commissioners, while we're doing that, let me tell you about something else. And this thing that I'm gonna cost you money, not this year anyway. Ha ha ha. Feel free to say that in the Commission of Congress. I just wanna tell you about this. If you all remember the fire is done in South Texas last year and my daughter, well they could actually see the flames from Austin and the smoke and was choking them and it was very tragic and she later became acquainted with a fireman who was one of these volunteer fire department guys that was out fighting the fires in Bastrop and his home burned with ground and while he was doing all that, you know, he's out there fighting the fires trying to protect other people's homes and literally using his own personal credit card to put fuel in the fire truck because they didn't even money to buy fuel. So Jennifer decided, you know, need to see what she, she wanted to do something for the volunteer fire departments across the state of Texas who have a hard time not only by infuel, but the necessary equipment and protection for our firemen. So try and make a long story short. She worked with the Texas Welfare Relief Fund to create this 501C3 and just for the record, she is not taking a dime for her services here. This is voluntary but the Midland County Judge Mike Bradford and I put out this letter that I've given you a copy of here asking the County Judges of all 254 counties to join this effort, yes. And it's all pretty well self-explanatory there, but also there is the response form, the sponsorship response form that's on the back page. And I have paid that $2,500 amount for this budget year. I figured if I'm going to be one of the people signing letter asking everybody else to join, I should at least pony up. So I did. So that's been paid for it in County for this coming budget year. But you will see this next year at budget time because they hope to make this an ongoing effort in support of volunteer fire departments across the state. I just want to let you know about it. Great. Great. Get our runs checkbook right now. I've paid for this year. It's $2500 is paid for this year. But, I said, it's going to be an ongoing effort from year to year. And I think it's certainly a good deal. I take care of you, buddy. I already got back a thank you letter from this organization. They're going to be buying protective gear for these volunteer firemen. Donna okay to give a two and a half percent increase to deduct reclases would we would be looking at a one percent increase in the rate so that did and that was included. So that did and that was included. 2.5 with no reclass is still 1%. That's right. But a 2.5% worth of reclass is 1.17. And that's what we said. 1.16. I think 1.18 was to give 3%. I'm going to move to do a two hundred and a percent. Without the reclass but I'm sorry. You're right. I'll let those motions on. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right of 005-BU in the budget office. That was my motion. Okay, we have a motion as stated as our second to the motion. I'm gonna second the motion. Your further discussion or questions? Okay. Commissioner E. I wanna talk about the insurance. And what are we anticipating? Because I don't want to spend all of our money on raises and around and apply an increase, a significant increase in insurance. And so I think it's important that we look at that as, and what are we going to, what are we plan to absorb as far as the insurance? That's entirely up to the court. We plan to bring several scenarios. One of the scenarios you could keep the cost share where it is right now. That would be an increase to all employees. Another scenario might be to increase the premiums on the more expensive EPO plan and leave the PPO premiums alone, which if employees in the EPO decided to move to the PPO, their premiums would actually decrease. So that way, employees would have a choice of taking a higher premium, taking a lower premium. The ones in the PPO would stay the same under that scenario. The commissioners court could, although I don't think anybody would recommend it, absorb all of the increase again this year. That- Pardon me? Last year? We absorbed it the year before that and we absorbed it the year before that. The years we did not give raises or the year that we absorb. That's correct. Which I think is important that we, I think it's important that when we're looking at compensation, which if we're looking at market adjustments and employee salaries, we've got to look at it hand in hand with the insurance. It's a, in my opinion, it's a complete package. I agree. And we cannot look at one and not the other and then later and I know Amy, I'm not being critical of you, but I just know that it's tough to get those, the actuary information from the insurance companies. Miss, should we have that information? We have not, I'm sorry to interrupt. We haven't brought it forward because you asked for a lot of additional information. We didn't want to piecemail it. We wanted to bring you all the information one time. And that's why I said I'm not being critical. But I do think we need to look at these jointly. I mean, I think I don't want to give with one hand to take it with the other. I want to, yeah, let me ask you this, then how did you budget in the recommended budget, the direction we were going to go? So, I mean, in other words, did you put in the recommended budget where it came to the insurance, did you put in there that there was going to be an additional contribution on the part of the county to the employee, or did you put in the recommended budget that there was going to be that was all absorbed by the employee. So what did you put in the budget that we know is already there as part of the recommended budget. We actually had $1.9 million in this year's budget for contingency. What we did was we allocated that to each department because we felt like we were going to need that based on our expenditure history. Then we gave our best guesstimate of an increase and it was I think $1.2 or $3 million additional that we have in contingency this year. We never know going into that meeting what we're going to be faced with. It's kind of the worst case scenario is what we have in the budget. So we were just actually fortunate that the amount that we have included, it fits within the actual burial information that they provided us. So it fits within that recommendation that they brought us. Yes. So what you're recommending is a scenario that we make the additional contribution to the health plan. That's in your recommended. I didn't really look at it that way. I felt like that was a decision. Well I understand that but like you said you had to put buffer in. We just used worst case scenario as far as what we thought the impact would be to our plan based on our claims history. Each year, that's what we do. We do that the same way every year and we never bring you scenarios that there is not money in the recommended budget to cover. And each year we hope that the estimated amount will be more than we really need. We really need to build a reserve in the insurance fund. We have not yet been able to build a reserve in the insurance fund even though every year we try to bring you scenarios that I mean we have the money in there but there's not enough for reserve we can never predict from one year to the next exactly what those expenses will be and our expenses are growing quite a bit. Well did you have something you would like to share? I'd welcome your input. I'd like to thank Donna and Amy for answering this. Well, but just clarification in preparing the county budget, the county expense for insurance is the only thing that is considered. I think just restating both Donna and Amy. It's the best estimate is what the county expense is going to be. The insurance plan in a way stands outside the budget. So I think all of us view the decision on how the increased costs are going to be shared is really a entirely separate decision of the commissioners court based on the recommendations from the committee. So we mean that there's extra funding. County's expense for the plan and the budget, correct? Still another decision if it's going to be, if the increased costs are going to be shared by the county and the employees. That's really a separate thing. You can't really build employee expenses into the county budget at all. I think what Commissioner Eige was trying to get to is if we are going to make a decision to give a two and a half or three percent raise as well as absorb the total increases in the insurance then we have given more than there's more benefit that they have received this year than just a raise. Is that, is that, that's correct. Amy, in the past, well, like you just stated, the years, not last year, but the year before, and the year before that, and we did not give a raise, the county did absorb the increased cost and insurance for employees. And consequently our percentage between what county pays and what employees pay has changed kind of with county taking on more and more responsibility. For quite some time we had like a 80 20 split. That's correct. We've gotten away from that. What are we now? Considerably, on the top of my head I want to say we are at about an 80. It's about 86, 14 or 87, 13 somewhere around there. I think the mischievous my point here is that next year with the so-called Affordable Health Care Act, that's not so affordable, our costs are going to be going up even more dramatically than they have in the past, we need to get back to that 80-20 split. And I would really love to just see that be policy if we can see our way clear to do that. I totally get why we didn't do it the two years we didn't give raises, but I really hope that y'all will keep that in mind. When we come to our interest discussions here, we need to be building that reserve that Amy was talking about. I'm sorry, bad times do come and we need to be prepared for it, but in order to do that, we need to get back to that 80-20 split. We, you know, the decisions that the employees make to, it's real hard to say, well, you know, we're going to give this percentage increase and then what percentage are the premiums going to go up. All of that is going to depend, not just on action that you take, but it's going to depend on the choices that employees make, whether they choose to enroll. Their spouses are not, whether they have children to enroll or not, which plan they choose, whether they choose the EPO, which is almost 100% plan. It's an extremely generous plan, you almost, anyway. I didn't mean to say that. It is more generous than the PPO in their out-of-pocket costs. And so employees have to balance the premium that they pay with the deductible and those other things. And those are personal decisions that our employees choose to make. There might also be premiums if, well, I don't want to get into all that because the board hasn't approved it yet. But you know, last year we added a tobacco discount and there might be other changes in the next few years that will affect employees premiums as well. A lot of employees made a wise choice last year to quit smoking and not take on the higher premium. To their credit, I would say that some who were not successful in the long run with that contacted us, told us that and paid those back, those back deductions or reductions. So all that really is, as James well said, a separate decision from deciding on the budget. We won't bring you scenarios that are not accounted for in the budget. But as a rule, our employees are accustomed, and I think most employees out there are accustomed to the fact that insurance costs go up every year and that they expect their premiums to go up every year. Our employees have been, I think, thankful that this commissioners' court has not increased premiums in years when there were not pay raises. A lot of other organizations weren't able to give pay raises and still had to increase their premiums. Okay, we have a motion in the second on the floor for approval of the reclassifications. Thank you, as in the recommended budget with the one adjustment. I was there for the discussion. Any other questions? I want favor the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed say aye. Motion carries. I believe for favor one oppose. For clarification that did that motion not looking at include the reclassification of the administrative specialist for it didn't. No, no. That'll have to be taken separate. Hope for those. Okay. Just now meant for clarification with the reclassifications that we just did. And a 2% that puts us at 1.1 6 above effective. is that correct? That was a 2 and a half percent was one point and turn That's why I'm trying to clarify here 1% was 1 point a minus 10 grand would have been. So it's 1.16 was 2.5 plus the recross. So for 2%, plus the recross, we're at 0.95. Okay, but 2.5 plus the recross was 1.16, was it not? Yes, it was because you had two and a half plus no reclass was an even 1%. Okay, and the recommended budget was a total of 1.17. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, I'm going to do 2 1 1 half. I'm going to make a motion for the two and a half percent Increasing the sound Sorry second to the motion I'll second Sian question. Done the the reclasses I thought it would have been a lot more equitable. So we're at one point one that would put us at 1.16% above the calculated effect of where is the recommended budget was 1.17 above the calculated effect of. one point one seven above the calculated effective. Any more time to think about it is there any more discussion? Any other questions? Okay, all in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed any motion carries foreign favor one opposed. I'm sure all employees thank you. So that's our tax rate then right? Well, we need more than a minute here. I think we do need to talk about the constable. Reclasses for precinct four and precinct six. So based on your actions on the other, reclasses you would want to consider for constable four the first line, which would reclass, would include bringing them to minimum plus 5%, plus a 2%, over 2.5% raise. So they'd be $1832. Like that motion. The motion by Commissioner Marchion, seconded by Commissioner Eads, questions. You're not on favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, any? Drink carries. And for Constable Pristensix, it would be the same thing. The top line would be the same. It would be $3,068. Make that motion. Motion by Commissioner Marchion, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Questions? Your none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Capostini. Motion is carrying. I oppose any motion to scaring. If we typically we do ask just to reiterate or have separate actions on the library funding, social service funding and the new hires that we've included in the recommended budget. So I'll move for approval as they stand in the recommended budget. So our second. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Questions? You're not on favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Post any. There is. Hi. Hi, I'm Post-Synny. There is. They're on social service or was that for all three? That was for all three, man. And so that's library, social service, new hers. We also had included the remodeling projects that were broken out for you in a specific list. We usually typically ask for a motion on that as well. Yeah, members, if you remember last budget process that I, I as well as the rest of your believe wanted to see some type of plan that facilities have put in place to justify some and to be able to really separate what is a maintenance, what is truly maintenance of maintaining the building and then what is truly a remodeling and I believe that's been done this time and Danny and his staff have worked tirelessly to put together a five year plan. Basically identifying each facility that we have when certain major expenses like flooring, air conditioning, any other spending, striping when those occurred and when they will occur again, trying to push them to the place to where they're able to better estimate what their expenses are going to be for the upcoming year based upon that table. And I believe that we're there, aren't we? Yes, I think the only thing that you have to working on the cost estimates to go along with that, to have a complete plan, but yes, I think that they've addressed some of your concerns. We just need to tie the numbers down. Thank you. So I make a motion to accept those remodeling projects as recommended in the budget. We have a motion by Commissioner March and seconded by Commissioner Eiz. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed and in. Motion carries. Okay. We need to take official action on setting the elected official salaries is in the recommended budget. With the action that you've taken with the two and a half percent scenario that includes all. Okay. I just didn't know if we needed to take a separate vote on it. I think what we'll do and knowing, we'll start the process and send the letters out to the officials either this afternoon or tomorrow so that they'll be aware of what's included and they'll be aware of the process if there was an appeal. Okay, with the action that we've taken today, that puts us at, proposed tax rate of, it's 0.2867, 0.282867. 0.282867, okay, by by law we need to take official action on proposing a tax rate for tax year 2012. So I will move to propose a tax rate of 0.28286-7 for tax year 2012. And all right. Second. We have a second. I'm sorry, I don't know. And also to include the setting of two public hearings. One would be scheduled for August 21st at 10 a.m. The second would be August 28th at 7 p.m. at the courthouse on the square here in the commissioners court room. I include that in my motion and I'm sure Ron except sad as part of his second. And just to clarify for the record the action today is to propose a rate to start the public hearing process. An actual vote on the rate will not occur until after the budget is adopted on September 4th. Oh, hold on. I want to hear what? I want to. I want to. We. The 28th is at the evening meeting, Donna. Yes. We will be at it. We will be having to get some continuing ads. So we'll be Bobby, Commissioner Mitchell, and I'll be at the tack. Is anyone else going? Does the set the tack legislative? Yes. I'm going. Ah, there's three. OK, we are. We have to get the hours. We've got to get the hours. How do we do this do I need to we do it the Monday morning. I'm going to fish the two. I have the evening meeting. First, you know, you do a great thing. I'm just a second. We have sent out invitations to the Iraqi Memorial, which is a 21st, and we did it so it'd be a court date. So the court members could be here. Cheed mention. Well, we can do Commissioner's Court in the morning and still have a brief meeting that night to accommodate what were required to do concerning setting the, you know, have two meetings that day. Have Commissioner's Court in the morning do your Iraqi Memorial and all that stuff in the morning. And then have a brief meeting that evening at 7 o'clock to do what's required by law concerning the setting to tax rate. And then have a morning meeting on the 28th after which y'all can leave for your conference. Sound like a plan? So I'm like a plan. So you're talking about changing the August 28th to 10 a.m. and August 21st to 7 p.m. for it. We're still going to have court the morning of the 21st, but we will have our evening meeting the night of the 21st. At works, we can certainly make that change with the notices haven the 21st. At works we can certainly make that change with the notices haven't been prepared so we can make that revision. Everybody okay? Okay so I will include that in my motion of the proposed tax rate and run, I'm sure accepts it for his second. Is there further discussion or any other questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, any motion does carry. Okay, I think that concludes all the action. What we will do, as you know, there's sometimes turnover and as we finalize the payroll budget, if there's any differences we'll put those funds in our contingency fund or if there's a slight shortage we might take from that but we should be really close on the dollar amount but just so you know that's how we will handle it. Okay thank you thank you. Anything else anybody needs? Well, we got done sooner than I thought we were going to here. I warned everybody to be prepared to come back after lunch. We don't need to. All right. We are adjourned to everybody. Have a great day.