[0:03] Okay, good morning everyone. Let's call
the meeting to order for P County
[0:07] Commissioner's Court uh August 4th,
2026, which is a special session. It's
[0:13] 10:00 a.m. PK County Regional Health
Building Suite A.
[0:19] Okay. At this time, do we have anyone
that's making public comment? Shelley
[0:23] Sidden.
[0:31] Good morning.
>> Good morning.
[0:33] » Good morning. I just wanted to bring to
the commissioner's court attention the
[0:39] salary study that y'all approved the
last time. I don't really believe it
[0:44] affects my attorneys because they're
exempt, nonclassified, and it's not
[0:49] they're not on the pay scale. But y'all
approved a schedule that says that my
[0:54] attorneys are overpaid by $22,000,
which is absolutely ridiculous.
[1:01] And I'm disappointed about the
commissioners that y'all would have
[1:06] approved this pay scale and not ask a
single question. There is
[1:14] » I asked for a copy of the salary study,
did not receive it. I got told they
[1:19] would be meeting with me yesterday.
Still have not had a meeting. Still have
[1:25] not been told what numbers were included
in the underlying data. And I was told
[1:29] it was sent to department heads. I don't
know why I'm not considered a department
[1:33] head. But I will tell you that if anyone
wants to do a salary study on the
[1:38] attorney schedules, it's very simple.
You go to TDCAA, they list every county
[1:44] what they're paying. Angelina County
starts 90,000 for a misdemeanor and 100
[1:51] and I printed it for you 110 to 130 for
a felony prosecutor with zero
[1:56] experience.
The other thing here first assistant
[2:01] if anyone had come and asked a first
assistant is supposed to be the person
[2:05] that if the DA is not there they know
what they're doing they can try any
[2:09] case. This has the first assistant
getting paid less than the misdemeanor
[2:13] prosecutor. So, whoever did this and
pulled the numbers are just not right.
[2:19] And if the numbers are so clearly wrong
in the DA's office, how do you know any
[2:25] of the numbers in the rest of the
schedule are even correct if you didn't
[2:28] look at the underlying data yourself?
Thank you.
[2:37] Thanks, Charlie.
But I still would like to see
[2:48] Okay, let's take a look. Um, I think
what let's do and start with the budget.
[2:58] So if you look at the new budget book,
[3:06] so tax revenues, we were not comfortable
going to a 98% collection rate. We did
[3:15] do a 97%
collection rate because every year we
[3:21] have had some surplus from year to year
that would be able to cover that
[3:26] collection rate. So the budget book that
you have is at 0.63
[3:34] which was at the request from from last
week and then we did the 97% collection
[3:41] rate.
[3:50] Okay.
So that is page 14 and 15.
[3:55] So if you flip over to page 72
[4:03] that gives you the information on
volunteer fire departments
[4:10] and it gives you some guidance also.
First of all, the formula was developed
[4:15] by the volunteer fire department chiefs
and then what they agreed to because
[4:20] they had some people that were serving
on volunteer fire departments that did
[4:24] not meet the background criteria. And so
the background checks, they uh came up
[4:31] with some criteria. They provided it to
the fire marshal so that he could do the
[4:36] uh background checks and there would not
be any uh concerns. that would be an
[4:41] unbiased opinion. And so they undergo
the background the criminal background
[4:47] checks and that also was developed by
the fire chiefs. And so we increased
[4:53] that by 10% which the court already
approved.
[5:01] Okay. If you go through page 101,
[5:07] uh you will notice juvenile detention
has gone up and we've already exceeded
[5:13] the 2026 budget.
So, we're increasing the funding there.
[5:19] Uh also, we have multiple capital murder
cases. We have not heard from Judge
[5:25] Judge Wells, but we have heard from
Judge Kitchens. And this is where we um
[5:31] developed a budget, an operating budget
that is strictly for capital trial
[5:37] expenses that was done at Bobby
Richard's recommendation a couple years
[5:43] ago. And so that should help cover any
expenses or overtime in the event that
[5:49] the district attorney has to go um
travel or the uh district clerk's office
[5:56] does a lifts, etc. Uh so that will go
directly. It has to be
[6:03] marked in that manner and provided to
the auditor's office.
[6:10] Okay. Um
if you go to page 136,
[6:17] you all approved
the the continue operation of the P
[6:22] County Recycling Center. And so that
includes those changes.
[6:28] You're also going to see uh a
recommendation
[6:33] on page 205, which is the waste
management fund for to utilize those
[6:39] funds that were allocated for business
for the building maintenance and
[6:43] equipment maintenance, the 20,000
to place that in there
[6:50] for use or buy uniforms or whatever is
needed.
[6:55] Okay. If you go to page
147
[7:02] » what?
>> 147 146 and 147.
[7:06] That's your road and bridge all of your
major funds.
[7:12] And basically um the only thing that you
need to to do is notify
[7:19] uh Carrie prior to publication of any
transfers or uh discretionary increases
[7:26] or anything like that that you all are
going to do. So, precinct one is on page
[7:32] 146 and 147
and then precinct two
[7:40] is on page 154, excuse me, keep going.
Precinct two is a 157
[7:51] and so forth. So, each precinct is
listed in there. Just make sure that you
[7:56] notify
how you wish to change those and the um
[8:04] for publication of the final budget.
And then that takes you to page 205
[8:10] which is your waste management fund
where the building repairs and equipment
[8:17] maintenance uh was included
[8:22] on that. [snorts]
uh the top two expenditures
[8:27] and that budget is pretty much intact.
There were some monies utilized but that
[8:35] can remain and that's what you all can
utilize to start the recycling.
[8:44] Okay. SB22 is page 227.
So, the sheriff's office receives
[8:52] $500,000
and the district attorney's office
[8:56] receives $275,000
for salary assistance.
[9:00] And this is for positions that have been
added to the sheriff's office. And so,
[9:07] all of those have been 100, the ones
that have been added since SB22 for the
[9:12] sheriff's office is implemented. And all
of them are 100% eligible for SB22
[9:18] funding.
Um if all the positions remain filled
[9:23] through the entire year that are
currently listed then
[9:30] they will have to utilize some of the
general fund money to balance. So
[9:36] balance those wages, taxes and benefits
the remainder of them will have to be
[9:42] from the general fund. So we more than
expend the SB22 monies
[9:49] because that's subsidized.
[10:04] Okay.
[10:15] [snorts]
[10:18] Okay.
Uh you should have a um
[10:27] just a review that we did for
commissioner support
[10:30] for the FY2027
[10:34] review.
[10:40] Okay.
[10:47] So this is where we are in the process.
Um this is the final review
[10:55] for adoption.
It's the work that we completed from
[10:59] July 14th and July 28th budget workshops
and the tax rate uh and the proposed
[11:07] budget will be set for August 11th, 2026
at 10:00 a.m. for adoption.
[11:14] So, it's built on the tax rate that was
approved at the last meeting. Um, we did
[11:19] change the projected collection rate.
The tax assessor collector Tatum did
[11:25] certify a 96% collection rate.
Um, our actual collection experience
[11:31] over the last few years has been that we
have increased the general funds. So we
[11:38] will be able to get
uh the given given the reserve position
[11:42] then it is manageable
and that avoids leaving a usable re
[11:48] revenue on the table.
Okay. So, um, at the public hearing, you
[11:56] will have the information this that this
budget will raise more revenue from
[12:00] property taxes than last year's budget
by amount of 2,248,176,
[12:09] which is a 7.65%
increase from last year's budget. The
[12:15] property tax revenue that is raised from
new property added to the tax rule this
[12:20] year is 929,533.
[12:25] So that new property is not eligible for
uh some of the programs that we have. So
[12:34] what that means roughly is that
approximately 41% of the increase comes
[12:39] from new property. So that's gross not
existing property.
[12:46] Okay. So right now and um
certainly after this meeting
[12:54] we will be happy to look at some of the
options and consider what Shellyley has
[13:00] to say. I I myself have not had a
conversation with Shelley and didn't
[13:06] realize Shelley that she had some
questions but happy to sit down. So,
[13:12] uh the budget as it is presented
um includes [clears throat] a surplus of
[13:19] $276,43
[13:23] and it's available and can be applied
towards additional compensation
[13:28] adjustments.
So some of the increases that we
[13:32] discussed uh look small.
Every employee receives an increase but
[13:38] some of those increases are very very
small. And then um we have some
[13:45] employees were being paid below market
for their positions and saw a large
[13:49] increase. [laughter] Some were within
the market and saw a modest one. and
[13:54] somewhere in a pay group found to be
above market and so their increase was
[13:59] minimal.
So when we establish the placement on a
[14:03] scale and we discussed this last time
that [snorts] some of those increases
[14:09] right are small and they remove the
steps for those people increase. So if
[14:16] you will look on your employee
compensation information,
[14:21] if you will look, you can see the
difference. The difference is on the uh
[14:26] right hand side.
So what we need today and also the names
[14:33] or the positions are highlighted uh for
those people that
[14:40] received minimal or have lost steps um
because of it. So you can go through the
[14:47] entire one.
Let's see.
[14:53] So if you look at them, you can see uh
the changes and you can see that we have
[14:59] some offices where there were multiple
people that lost.
[15:05] Try not to knock down cowbell. Uh there
were multiple people uh that got minimal
[15:12] increases. Uh specifically, if you look
like at the county clerk's office, there
[15:18] were minimal. Uh they also have some
increases that we need to consider for
[15:24] the auditors for the district attorney's
offices because a lot of those are
[15:28] unclassified.
So if you go through it, you can see how
[15:33] each one fell in that category. Uh we
did have some questions
[15:41] about uh the mental health grant. The
mental health grant through the uh
[15:48] sheriff's department is not our grant.
[music] That does not go through our
[15:52] grants purposes. That's a Burke Center
grant. Uh that's on page 19 um of the
[15:59] sheriff's department. So that goes
through Burke Center and those that's a
[16:04] supplementary for those particular uh
employees.
[16:10] So, you do have a lot of people that
lost steps in the sheriff's office. If
[16:15] you look at page 18, those are all
people that lost steps and in some cases
[16:22] got a minimal
minimal increase.
[16:30] Um,
[16:34] so that's the information uh that was
provided to you all.
[16:42] Let me see.
[16:46] Okay, let me I can go through some of
this and then the court can decide how
[16:52] you wish how you wish to proceed.
[16:59] Okay.
[17:06] Uh we we do have several options that
the court may wish to consider.
[17:12] Um
we do we do not have enough sufficient
[17:17] funds to hold every employee at their
current step and it would not
[17:22] necessarily always be appropriate
because some got greater raises than
[17:25] others did.
However, uh with the funds available, we
[17:30] could distribute funding to each
department that would allow them to
[17:34] restore one step for those people that
lost a step. Uh the cost for that would
[17:39] be $197,200
approximately.
[17:44] This does not include unclassified
employees in the county auditor's
[17:49] office. It does not include uh the
district attorney's office and it does
[17:57] not include the district court staff.
So the unclassified positions are not uh
[18:06] necessarily included that in that
estimate. So that's something that
[18:12] we the court needs to consider is how to
proceed with your with those offices. Uh
[18:19] we did have a another commissioner that
contacted us expressing dissatisfaction
[18:26] with the increase for corrections
officers. Uh the study did show that
[18:31] they're within the market and so they
also did not receive um huge increases.
[18:40] However, if there are [laughter] 42
corrections officer positions
[18:45] and to move them all up one step uh
would be a total estimated cost of
[18:51] $63,000
if that's something that the court
[18:54] wishes to consider.
Um we do have uh an avail the available
[19:01] surplus of approximately $276,000.
And so that would allow the court um to
[19:11] restore some of the lost steps for all
the employees and to provide one step
[19:17] for the corrections officers.
And that would leave approximately
[19:22] $16,000
[19:26] which could be used for the auditors or
for the district attorney's um
[19:32] unclassified staff.
All of that's in your notes.
[19:40] And then the recycling center oper
operations.
[19:45] Um, we included a full-time recycling
program coordinator position.
[19:51] U, we don't have a uniform budget or a
supply budget yet, but the waste
[19:56] management fund
budget was not completely spent and is
[20:03] available if you wish to consider that
way.
[20:14] Okay. So, um, number eight, since there
have been some questions about SB22, we
[20:21] put an explanation in there. Uh, Senate
Bill 22 was to, uh, support rural public
[20:28] safety by adding personnel and
[clears throat] raising wages for the
[20:32] sheriff's office, the constables, and
the district attorney's office. So, the
[20:37] total amount received uh for the
sheriff's office is $500,000.
[20:43] For the district attorney's office, it's
$275,000.
[20:47] And for the constables, it's $18,594.75.
[20:54] So, the total revenue from SB22
is $793,594.75.
[21:04] Um you will notice that the constable
port portion uh each constable is
[21:09] eligible to receive a set amount.
Constable [clears throat] precinct three
[21:14] since he began his term after SB22 was
implemented is not eligible for as much
[21:21] and so all four coniples receive the
same salary. uh constable precinct 3 is
[21:27] to just gets more funding from the
general fund.
[21:33] Uh with the sheriff's office in the
jail, all positions that were added to
[21:37] the sheriff's office in jail. The
keyword is added since the grant was
[21:42] first awarded are 100% eligible for SB22
funding with the exception of
[21:48] certificate or longevity pay that those
employees receive. So you have four
[21:54] corrections officers, one detective, two
patrol deputies um that are funded.
[22:01] Uh district attorney, she has
distributed a portion of her allocation
[22:06] money to eligible staff.
So both departments are budgeted over
[22:12] the amount that they will actually
receive. The total budgeted expenditures
[22:17] in the fund are 94,44161
[22:24] against 793594
[22:29] with 75 cents in revenue. So the
difference from the general fund is
[22:34] $110,447.
[22:39] So if they all remain filled then the
difference in wages and taxes and
[22:44] benefits will be covered by the general
fund.
[22:47] U basically we did this on purpose
because this way we don't have to return
[22:52] any money right to the state for SB22.
[23:02] Okay, let's see.
[23:06] Let's pull.
[23:21] [clears throat]
[23:30] Okay, let's
[23:34] let's start
with the district attorney's office.
[23:40] So, the district attorney's office
shows some people that lost
[23:49] steps.
So if you look on that page which will
[23:53] be page 11
you have some vacancies but you also
[23:58] have your senior trial associate
uh lost some steps
[24:06] your senior two senior trial associates
Jody Taylor
[24:12] uh Katrina Britain those they they need
to be considered for increases.
[24:18] um Janna Himemenz, which is also a trial
associate that got a a bump
[24:26] and but loses steps in the process. You
have Ranada, which is a trial associate
[24:34] also that got a bump but lost steps in
the process. Uh Rachel Stinson got an
[24:43] $8,000 raise. Uh, you have a vacant
vacancy.
[24:48] Leon Middleton, your chief investigator,
got a $1682
[24:53] raise, but
lost steps as well. Um,
[25:00] then you have Megan Nighton who is
recommended also for a slight increase
[25:07] but lost steps as well.
[25:17] And then you have some some vacancies
that we
[25:22] did not address.
[25:30] So the um
[25:35] the first district assistant district
attorney uh current pay rate is 119,684.
[25:45] » Can I interrupt that? Yeah, my numbers
are not wrong. I apologize. This is just
[25:50] the general fund funded portion of those
salaries. This is not
[25:54] » portion. Yeah, that's all we're looking
at is just general funding
[25:58] » at the time.
>> Yes, at the time.
[26:00] » But the problem is if you're saying that
someone like my ladies needs an $8,400
[26:07] raise.
>> Could you come up here to the
[26:08] microphone, Shelley?
>> The problem is you can't look at this
[26:12] pay rate with only county funds. I get
$275,000
[26:19] to supplement and I have a list
>> and we don't and we have that. We cannot
[26:24] interfere with that. We can't.
>> No. But if you come in and say this lady
[26:27] needs a $8,000 raise, but because I can
use Senate Bill funds, you have to look
[26:33] at
>> I didn't go in and say, "Oh, market is
[26:37] 42, but I'm going to pay her 48."
Shelly,
[26:41] what how you choose to proceed in your
case, in the sheriff's case, we sign off
[26:47] on the SB22 in the case of the
constables and in case of this sheriff's
[26:52] office. All we look at here is what the
general fund can afford and you can move
[26:59] that money around however you see fit.
>> But if you announce in here that you're
[27:02] going to give one of my employees an
$8,400 raise, she's expecting an $8,400
[27:07] raise. And what she doesn't understand
is because Senate Bill had been giving
[27:11] her a different amount of money, she's
not getting an $8,400 raise. You're
[27:15] moving around what's going to be paid by
the county and what's being paid by
[27:19] Senate Bill 22. And so without looking
at it together,
[27:25] » when you make an announcement that she's
underpaid by $8,400, they expect an
[27:30] $8,400 raise. But they're not getting
that if they had Senate bill funds
[27:34] because those will adjust. and and
that's fine. That is fine. How you
[27:39] subsidize with your own Senate bill
monies is is entirely up to you.
[27:44] » But the other statement made was that
Senate bill funds were were being
[27:47] overspent. The Senate bill funds in the
DA's budget were 275. They've already
[27:52] been backed down to 214 so that I don't
spend more than my 275 because the
[27:57] difference between the 275 and the 214
are all the retirement, the taxes, the
[28:02] benefits that I have to pay out of that.
And mine's not budgeted at above. So if
[28:07] I don't spend a dollar on it, we lose it
because I can't spend it on anything
[28:11] else.
>> Well, that's correct. And that's the
[28:13] same thing with the sheriff. He cannot
[clears throat] use it on anything else.
[28:16] » He can't He can use it for equipment. I
cannot.
[28:18] » Yeah, we can buy equipment, but we don't
know what's going on with our Senate
[28:21] bill either since 24. We're We're
definitely not spending the money like
[28:26] the sheriff wants to spend it. We We
don't have a clue what's going on with
[28:29] the Senate bill either. And and to say
to the general public that listens to
[28:33] this that we've budgeted more than the
275 so we don't lose it is incorrect.
[28:38] I've budgeted at 214. If I don't fill
the slots, we lose it.
[28:41] » I and nothing was said about you
budgeting. We are budgeting over. We
[28:47] have overbudgeted to make sure that the
that the sheriff's office is always
[28:53] covered. That no matter what happens,
the sheriff's office can
[28:57] » you made the statement and it was not
[29:03] Okay. So the the discretionary funds
what that they that that the that the
[29:10] SB22 monies. Okay. The SB22 monies are
are budgeted
[29:18] exactly as they requested. One time they
requested some equipment that was
[29:22] covered as well. All SB22 monies are
right in here being funded.
[29:29] Okay. Along with the fact that if if
something should change that you will
[29:36] not lose any SB22 monies.
>> Well, the difference is is that the
[29:41] insurance office receives $500,000
and we requested it one time and we've
[29:47] we've tried to stay steady with that
amount that we requested for the for the
[29:51] jail employees as well as the law
enforcement side. And then we took all
[29:56] other monies the first time and we spent
it on equipment cuz it allows the
[30:01] sheriff's office to do so. Since that
date, we have that first time, which
[30:06] would have been 24. Uh
we have we we don't know. So when you
[30:11] say you're budgeting over to make sure
that we don't spend over the a loted
[30:16] amount of money, we don't have a clue.
But there's no way $500,000 for our side
[30:21] for the sheriff's office. We should be
be able to we that we should ever go
[30:25] over. But again, when we start trying to
say, "Hey, what we have in there? What's
[30:30] that?"
>> And you know, sheriff, if you want to
[30:33] change it next year, you can because let
me tell you something.
[30:36] » I'd like to change it this year. You you
open
[30:39] » We have provided you with the
information.
[30:41] » No, we have not. We requested. You have
not require regard provided that
[30:45] information. We requested that
information on several occasions trying
[30:49] to figure out, hey, what money do we
have? Because the other thing we look at
[30:52] is that we don't want to have to come to
you every single time and ask for the
[30:55] taxpayers's money. We figure, hey, we'll
be able to get some of this equipment
[30:59] from SB22. We don't have a clue. And so
when that statement is made that we've
[31:04] been provided this information, no
negative. It has not been provided to
[31:08] us. So that's why we I say that we don't
have proof. No,
[31:13] » you no, judge.
>> Well, because it's impossible to keep up
[31:17] with 5.4% over here and 7.2 two over
here and call the comprollers's office
[31:22] and no one can answer the questions. So
what we did is we did we did say okay
[31:27] let's fully fund them and if the general
if the general fund has to absorb some
[31:33] of that then the general fund will if
you want to change it next year then
[31:38] that will be fine
>> because it is not a simple budgeting
[31:44] question when you're dealing with a
controller
[31:45] » and I I can't imagine it's a simple
question or a simple answer but this is
[31:50] the thing I look at is that if there was
if there was not such a disconnect
[31:56] between us that we can sit down and
start talking about what SB22 does and
[32:00] what we have and what's available for
us. It's just like now where we I asked
[32:04] a simple question. I can tell the
attitude just automatically just eats
[32:08] you up. It just boom just it just
becomes aggressive. All all we want to
[32:12] know is what money do we have?
>> Well then you know what? Why didn't you
[32:15] send us an email asking us that?
>> We have.
[32:18] » Carrie, have I not reached out to you?
>> I can't remember the last time y'all
[32:21] have asked me about that. I've not I've
not asked you uh about what money we
[32:26] have remaining. I've not I've not
contacted you and asked you that.
[32:29] » When was the last time that you did? It
might have been two years ago.
[32:32] » Two years ago? No, ma'am.
>> No, we asked this year.
[32:34] » No, we we have been asking.
>> Yes, we we constantly ask how much
[32:38] money's left so we don't go over
>> spent on salaries. 100% of it is being
[32:42] spent on salaries,
>> but we don't know.
[32:44] » And that's
[32:49] no, we're not trying to ask. But then
the other part of it is
[32:51] » conversation is all we're asking.
>> And the other part of it is we shouldn't
[32:53] have to ask. It should automatically
just do a spreadsheet to say, "Hey,
[32:56] look, this is the money set aside for
the sheriff. This is what you have
[32:59] remaining.
>> If you don't ask,
[33:01] » okay, sheriff, let's let's answer some
of your questions because we have asked
[33:05] you for this and we have provided this
information. We provide it to the court.
[33:11] So in there has been an escalation
in terms of your request. So, in uh
[33:18] 2021,
the court spent additional over
[33:24] $300,000.
Now, if you look at your at the request
[33:29] for equipment and changes and
improvements and so forth, uh if you
[33:35] look at that the for 2025
over $2 million
[33:42] and and right now you're dealing with an
issue. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
[33:47] » From Sydney.
>> It's all right here
[33:50] » from Sydney.
>> Okay. So, mobile radios, renovation of
[33:54] this jail, which was unplanned. Mobile
radios, unplanned, handheld radios,
[34:01] generator systems. So, the commitment
from the court has been very, let me
[34:06] finish speaking.
>> Sure. I have the commitment from the
[34:09] court has been pretty high in terms of
the jail and the sheriff's office.
[34:14] Furthermore, we went on to fund all the
payouts. Everything you have requested,
[34:21] we have paid out. So to say that we have
not
[34:28] » Now, here's the other thing. Um, just
this week, just this week, oop, sorry.
[34:34] Just this week, y'all contacted us
saying that the $30,000 that you
[34:41] requested from the court [clears throat]
that the work had not been done
[34:45] appropriately. It had not been correct.
But that's a request that did not follow
[34:51] court protocols. You did not go through
purchasing and procurement. There was no
[34:56] RFP. There was no contract.
>> I mean,
[35:00] » and then you asked for the contract.
>> So, I don't have a clue just where
[35:03] you're at. We we were talking about
Senate Bill 22 and you start throwing
[35:07] numbers about like you said, let me
finish. So you were asking about we
[35:11] asked about Senate Bill 22. We that's
why we were up here and now you start
[35:14] throwing out numbers about generators
and this and that. If I'm not mistaken,
[35:18] when it come down to Senate Bill 22,
it's the sheriff discretional money.
[35:22] What's what they spent on not
generators, not this that you brought
[35:26] that up. You bought generators up and
you bought you just brought that up and
[35:30] you bought about jail renovations. That
has nothing to do with Senate Bill 22.
[35:34] » Nobody said that the court has not been
generous and not been taking care of the
[35:37] jail. But on the other part of that
deal, that's the court's responsibility.
[35:40] » Okay. Sheriff, I have not received one
single email from you requesting
[35:44] anything.
>> Not one.
[35:45] » Judge, I never seen when I need when I
need information, I reach out to this
[35:50] young lady right here because it seemed
over the last two to three years, this
[35:53] is the only person in your office that I
>> That's because she was appointed to be
[35:56] your liaison, sheriff, to make things
more efficient for you. the question
[36:00] where you make a statement that you have
not received any information or request
[36:04] from me. It goes to your liaison
>> and and that's fine and that's and that
[36:08] is exactly the way we set it up.
>> That is exactly the way we set it up.
[36:13] » So as as we maneuver back to where we
were we were talking about Senate Bill
[36:18] 22. We don't have a clue about what is
being done with it. I'm sure it's being
[36:23] spent on the status. All we would want
to know is when it comes down to
[36:27] equipment, what money is remaining? So
we know that we can buy for one
[36:31] consoles. We know we're going to have to
get consoles because what we were told
[36:35] again, it's not true. So we're going to
have to get consoles. There's a grant,
[36:39] but we don't know when that grant's
going to fall through. So we were just
[36:42] what money is there? Can that money I
know it can. I know it can be used. So
[36:46] we were looking at other equipment,
radios, other things that we need to get
[36:50] that we were going to send Bill 22.
That's why I was standing here. all this
[36:54] other stuff, the smoke I I don't have
for the scent bill is what we hear from.
[37:00] We just want the information on there.
>> Well, then you know what? Send send
[37:03] Carrie another email. But I have not
seen anything.
[37:08] » Okay.
>> And Carrie was set up to be your
[37:10] liaison. And so
>> that's why you didn't see anything cuz
[37:13] she was set up to be
>> Well, chair,
[37:17] » you don't respond to me. So that's okay.
That's fine.
[37:20] » Yes, ma'am. But for for you to say that
that you don't know when you need to
[37:24] spend it on equipment, that's that's not
a fair assessment of what the court has
[37:29] provided you with.
>> Is that a correct statement that you
[37:31] just made?
>> No, sir. I'm responding to the fact that
[37:34] you're saying you need it for equipment
and consults. All of that can be
[37:38] included on the capital projections.
>> But why would we put it there when I
[37:42] know I can get it from SB22 where it
won't have to go through?
[37:45] » And that's where that's that's where you
have been told. Carrie, you are free to
[37:49] respond.
That money has all been allocated
[37:52] towards salaries.
>> You originally requested $800 for
[37:57] » the entire $500,000
and and and quite a bit more have been
[38:03] increased towards your salaries since
2024, but every every bit of that
[38:08] $500,000 is going towards a quick
question. Eligible.
[38:12] » So a quick question. Yes.
>> So is the Senate Bill 22 funding the
[38:16] entire sheriff's office salary?
Yes, sir.
[38:19] » So, along with the county's salary and
then $500,000 from Senate bill, that's
[38:27] what it takes to to pay the sheriff's
office.
[38:29] » And what is budgeted right now is four
corrections officers, one detective, and
[38:33] two patrol deputies. And that eats up
the entire $500,000 plus some.
[38:38] » Yes, sir.
>> Just for those seven employees.
[38:41] » Okay. If the rest of the employees are
funded by the general that's different
[38:46] from what we sent in for it to be paid
that y'all chose to do it that way but
[38:50] » for the administration.
>> We told you that last year when we had
[38:53] the minister and we told you that last
year when we had the meeting that was
[38:56] not told to us
>> because that all we wanted was the
[38:59] information
>> and we told you that last year when we
[39:02] sat right here at this table. We told
you that last year that all
[39:06] » we got the same answer at that table
last year as we got this year is that we
[39:10] don't know how much money is remaining.
>> We're still figuring the we're still
[39:15] figuring the numbers. That's what we
were told.
[39:19] » No sir, the Senate bills money. We have
two different
[39:23] » We told you last year every dime, we
even said it in open court that every
[39:29] dime was going to you for your salaries
to fund those added personnel. Does it
[39:36] go to any of those guys back there that
have been here? No, because it's for
[39:41] added personnel. That's
>> but that's that's that's not you know
[39:45] even judges that's true but that's not
the way that I had it set up because
[39:50] Senate Bill 22 is designed for the
sheriff to say that I want this to go
[39:53] here this to go there and the judge's
office to sign off whether they agree or
[39:57] disagree. Now you're telling me that you
did it this way but that's not the way
[40:00] we sent it in for it to be done. And if
you chose to do it that way and this was
[40:04] the best way to be done would have been
simple just to say hey sheriff we
[40:07] decided that we this is the best route
for us to be able to do this and this is
[40:11] why
No sir, it's not intended for me to just
[40:14] sign off and you do whatever you want.
It's intended for us to be able to look
[40:18] at it and to make sure that whatever you
do is affordable and actually legal. And
[40:23] so yes, we did go through it. And last
year when we sat down and discussed it,
[40:30] when we sat down and discussed it, we
told you and we told it in open court
[40:35] that those those positions were being
fully funded by SV22,
[40:42] but because of the 5% over here and 7%
over there, we streamlined it all in to
[40:48] make sure that they remained funded and
to make sure that we did not have to
[40:53] return any funds to the state That was
>> that was the vote not to return any
[40:57] funds. I agree with that part. All the
other things and that's what you agreed
[41:00] to then but there's other things that we
did not agree to. We didn't have a clue
[41:04] that this don't do in open court. So
then the commissioners themselves should
[41:08] also
>> what specifically did you not agree to?
[41:11] » I did not agree.
>> You did not agree to fund new people.
[41:15] » You asked the question you let me
answer. So what I did not agree to is to
[41:19] that you change what we sent it in for
it to be done the way that we wanted it
[41:23] allocated because it was for the sheriff
to allocate this money for here this
[41:28] money for that and then if it does not
fit or it does not work then the court
[41:32] be able to say or the judge be able to
say hey look this doesn't work sheriff
[41:35] the way you want this done
>> but we decided to do this better this
[41:39] way
>> sheriff my point is you agreed to it
[41:41] last year
>> to what judge we never were asked
[41:44] anything about agreement for sent 22
too. Not one thing,
[41:49] » Sheriff. We discussed it last year,
which is part of why it's it's it's
[41:54] because we sat down. We discussed it
across the table. Yes, sir, we did.
[41:59] » Okay. We both we we agreed to disagree
on that.
[42:02] » Well, and and then later we discussed
the TR grant with you and or the
[42:08] contract with you and and gave you some
options on that and you said you wanted
[42:12] to make no change. So, that's your What
does what does that have to do with
[42:17] Senate Bill 22?
>> It has to do with payment. It has to do
[42:20] with pay of your staff.
>> Everything has to do with payment, but
[42:23] it's like these smoking mirrors, but we
talking about this and you you you got
[42:26] to throw something else out there. It
has nothing to do with Senate Bill 22.
[42:30] » There's no smoking mirrors,
>> you guys. I mean, here at conventional
[42:34] court, not judges court. I mean, nobody
has nobody else has I mean, this is what
[42:38] was said and nobody has nothing to say.
I'm you guys. I And this the proof is in
[42:43] the pudding. Well,
>> look up Senate Bill 227 and see how it's
[42:47] supposed to be allocated. Who gets to
say where it go?
[42:50] » But that's not what we were sent in ways
being done.
[42:54] » The proof is in the pudding right here.
>> Four corrections officers, one
[42:57] detective, and two patrol deputies.
>> You you read that in the pudding in the
[43:02] writing that just But we had nothing to
do with that.
[43:04] » Well,
>> then then sheriff
[43:08] at any point in time at any point in
time, you could have called this office
[43:12] and you're going to come over here. And
sheriff that you're asking if
[43:17] to speak up. I'm telling you, I would
have to go back and look at the
[43:20] recording before I could say one way or
the other. I I would as far as I'm not
[43:24] arguing one way or the other. I would
have to look before I could say,
[43:28] » well,
I'm concerned SB22
[43:34] that was for you and it was for the D. I
I I don't have any say so in where you
[43:40] do what you do with it.
>> Can I speak?
[43:42] » Yes, ma'am.
That's the way I read it. Am I Am I
[43:46] wrong?
>> No, you're correct.
[43:47] » Yes, sir.
>> When SB22 was implemented, you requested
[43:52] the entire $500,000 be put into
salaries.
[43:55] » No,
>> you did. You requested a $3,400 raise
[43:58] for every person at the sheriff's every
talle officer at the sheriff's office
[44:01] and5 $5,800 for every person at the
correction at the jail
[44:06] » that fit into
>> when you do all of the math for all of
[44:10] those positions and all of the taxes and
benefits that go along with it. That is
[44:13] more than $500,000.
>> So the general the the comm the
[44:17] commissioner's court agreed to that that
increase and to help fund that increase.
[44:23] So, the $500,000 was originally
requested to go 100% into salaries. That
[44:28] first year, there was money left over
for equipment because it was implemented
[44:33] after the start of the year. So, instead
of 12 months of salaries, it was only 9
[44:39] months of salaries. So, there was money
left over at the end of the year to use
[44:43] or equipment.
after that because y'all had already
[44:47] requested that the entire 500,000 go
into salaries and that is what the court
[44:51] had already approved increasing those
that wage scale so that all of those
[44:55] departments were or all of those
positions were going to be increased by
[44:58] that amount no matter what whether they
were eligible or not. So the court when
[45:04] they when they continued to lift up
salaries has put that 500,000 every year
[45:09] into salaries that was your original
request. So let me ask you uh Carrie. So
[45:16] those funds that were used where we
allocated x amount of dollars for the
[45:20] jailers, x amount of dollars for the
peace officers that fit within the the
[45:25] outline of the of the program. Was that
money was that the direction on how we
[45:30] said it? Was it changed and used now to
fund fully fund positions
[45:36] » for streamlining the paperwork? Yes.
because it used to be a nightmare to
[45:42] figure out how much of each deputy's
payroll was actually funded by SB22 and
[45:48] the taxes and the benefits that went
along with it because everybody had a
[45:51] different percentage and every time
their pay changed that percentage
[45:54] changed and the percentage is different
for the salaries versus all the taxes
[45:58] and the benefits. So it is it is an
administrative nightmare if you are
[46:01] going by 130 people that I did that
first year. But again, and that and and
[46:07] I guess this is where my problems at is
that I I understand what you're saying,
[46:11] the nightmare, and I understand about
about increases,
[46:16] but it changed from what we requested or
what we seeing,
[46:18] » but you requested that it be put into
salaries.
[46:20] » Except, but you just said that it was
used to fully fund new positions
[46:26] » for the administration part of it. Those
positions had already been agreed to by
[46:31] the commissioner's court. So, the
$500,000 is still going 100% to
[46:35] salaries. But as far as the paperwork,
the easiest way to do it is for these
[46:41] positions to be 100% fully funded. And
then instead of certifying 130 different
[46:45] positions and figuring out the math on
all 130, you have seven.
[46:50] » Okay. [clears throat] So, in open court,
so and that's the part is in open court,
[46:54] you're telling me that all $500,000 is
being used towards salaries and to fund
[46:59] new positions. that change from what the
sheriff originally put in.
[47:02] » But what you originally requested was
for it all to be the salaries. And it
[47:05] still could be all towards the salaries
that were eligible based on the original
[47:09] amount.
>> But the documentation that you're going
[47:11] to have from us is going to be towards x
amount of dollars for here and x amount
[47:14] of dollars for there.
>> When it's submitted to the state, it's
[47:17] for those new positions because that is
the easiest way to do the paperwork.
[47:20] » That was the easiest way to do it. But
it changed from what we originally
[47:23] » but those but no one lost pay. If
everybody paid the pay that you
[47:28] requested,
>> I appreciate it.
[47:42] Okay.
[47:50] So,
>> we need some
[47:55] guidance from the court on how do you
like to take
[48:18] Okay, first of all,
[48:22] all SB22 monies
are going as we originally were directed
[48:29] and how we do the budgeting portion of
it. If that was if we thought that that
[48:36] was uh essential, if you all want to
change that, Andy uh next year, then
[48:43] feel free. Someone can keep up with the
percentages and do all of that.
[48:48] » I think the thing, judge, is that
>> can you come up here?
[48:53] » Come on up.
>> We're asking we're asking to be included
[48:56] in the communication process when it
comes to changes that's going on within
[49:01] our department instead of coming to open
court. we're learning about a change. If
[49:05] that's fully funded and that's easier
for her to do, we agree with that. We're
[49:10] just asking to be a part of that
communication. I've asked several times.
[49:15] » So, when y'all agreed to pay overtime
out of our unpaid salaries, all right?
[49:20] The first year we did it, I would call
Miss Stephanie, she tell me what's an
[49:24] unpaid salaries for jail and what's an
unpaid salaries for the sheriff's
[49:28] office, and I would drop below 10 grand
on that. to make sure I wouldn't go over
[49:32] my budget to pay this over time. Since
then,
[49:37] we're told they can't tell us because
Senate Bill 22 is not worked out. And
[49:42] that's been all year long. We've just
been told we have plenty of money. I
[49:45] think what the sheriff is upset about is
we're not included in the conversation
[49:49] when it comes to changes to our
employees when we actually should be.
[49:55] I agree what she said. That's probably a
whole lot easier to do this budgeting
[49:59] for Senate Bill 22.
We would just like to be included in
[50:03] that conversation. We were not. It was
not covered any budget meetings. It was
[50:07] not covered in open court. Uh I'll stand
up here and apologize to everyone of
[50:12] you. Any of y'all find that on video
that this was covered in open court
[50:16] during commissioners court because it
was not. The petitions were approved,
[50:20] not how they were funded.
>> And
[50:22] » we just want to be included in the
conversation.
[50:24] » And you know what? I apologize for that.
I apologize uh that we did not tell
[50:29] y'all, well, we weren't going to do the
5.2, the 7.4. We thought the goal was to
[50:33] get your guys paid and we thought the
goal was to make sure that no matter
[50:37] what, we did not send back any SB22
monies.
[50:41] » No, we didn't. But we wouldn't we would
have bought equipment for with ours.
[50:44] Now, DA's office would have to send it
back if it's unpaid.
[50:47] » Well, here's the thing. When when you
request a payroll increase, then it's
[50:52] going to continue. It's not going to go
away.
[50:54] » I agree.
>> And so that first year, you did have the
[50:57] flexibility of some equipment because it
was only funded for the eight or nine
[51:02] months, whatever it was, because it was
midyear, right? So with it being
[51:06] midyear, yes, you had that flexibility.
But we honored what the request was from
[51:12] the sheriff and it got included from
that point forward in every budget. Now,
[51:18] how we don't go ask, you know, the
auditor's office, well, how do you do
[51:23] this? Well, why did you move that? Why
did you do this? We thought the goal was
[51:27] to make sure your guys got paid. So,
>> but we do ask those questions cuz, you
[51:32] know, we're trying to keep track of what
we have so we don't have to come back to
[51:36] y'all and ask.
>> And and we're not we're not arguing
[51:39] that. We're not arguing that at all. You
should keep track of it. Every
[51:42] department should keep track of it. But
to
[51:48] » we just want to be included in the
conversation when it comes changes to
[51:50] employees if that makes sense. And I
think every one of y'all's as
[51:55] commissioners or department head is out
here that they would want to know the
[51:58] same thing instead of being surprised.
>> Okay. We'll agree to disagree
[52:05] what was discussed. Okay. So we need to
um move forward
[52:13] and
[52:17] Okay. Uh, are you all okay with the 0.63
rate, which actually we already voted
[52:25] on, and the 977%
projected collection rate? So, we're
[52:31] going to start with 96 97.
>> 97.
[52:36] » We modified it to 97. Okay.
I think I had a question to ask and Andy
[52:42] and I were discussing this yesterday and
today this morning early like on this
[52:49] new pay schedule on the pay sheet I'm
sure where just let's take a deputy for
[52:55] instance that's been getting paid it's
showing here $52,962
[53:02] can
>> that's 1152
[53:04] » can you go to this one
>> I got I do better on this one
[53:08] » okay
>> I got it written Tell me which page on
[53:11] that.
>> I'm not sure about that on that page.
[53:15] I'm just looking at the page scale here.
>> Okay.
[53:20] » 17.
>> Huh.
[53:22] » 17 on your
>> Okay.
[53:25] » Okay. So, let's look at what you got. My
biggest question is and and he's telling
[53:31] me this and if we do it this way you
budget that's fine but I would like it
[53:36] clarified which what's what here is
showing we're going to be going but he's
[53:41] saying they're getting paid $49,46
[53:46] what check is being paid for right now
on the beginning
[53:49] » that's a starting deputy
>> starting
[53:53] it shows here 529
>> because That's your See, I don't know
[54:00] what you're looking
>> on 2184 hours.
[54:03] » Okay.
>> So, a sheriff's deputy and a corrections
[54:07] officer, several other positions are
scheduled to work 7 12-hour shifts a pay
[54:13] period. That is 84 hours every two
weeks. And that comes out to 2,184 hours
[54:19] a year. when they fill out their time
sheets, if they take time off, if
[54:24] they're they're not scheduled to work,
they should still use their time for
[54:27] that 12 hour shift. So, at the end of
the pay period, they're they've got 84
[54:32] hours on their time sheet.
>> So, the 20 they at this time they are
[54:40] paid for the 2080, but they're
accumulating those law enforcement
[54:45] credit hours for any hours worked
between 80 and 86 hours per pay period.
[54:49] So if they're working 84 hours of pay
period or they're just putting 84 on
[54:52] their time sheet because they've taken
time off at the end of the year the 2184
[54:57] they've got 104 hours in their law
enforcement credit hour bank.
[55:04] They if they still have 104 hours at the
end of the year that's going to get paid
[55:08] down to 80. So they're going to get a
check for 24 hours. And then if they
[55:13] work another year and they've got
another 104 hours added to that at the
[55:17] end of that year, now they've got 184
hours. They're going to get paid 104
[55:21] hours. So the way it is set up right
now, they they're going to get paid for
[55:27] all of those hours. whether they they
they could take them off. [music] They
[55:30] could use them as a leave bank and take
those credit hours off or they can keep
[55:36] them in the bank and get paid for them
either at the end of the fiscal year or
[55:40] upon separation or the insurance request
as they have often been requested to
[55:45] have vacation or comp or whatever hours
paid out and the court has always
[55:48] approved that. So they have those hours
in their bank because that is the way it
[55:53] is set up right now. Well, let me say
>> the 21 and the amount that's on here,
[55:57] the 21 is based on the 21.84 because
that is the amount of that they are
[56:01] eligible to receive.
>> Well, let me say something. If I was a
[56:04] deputy or whatever and I was working it
[snorts] and I worked 84 hours of two
[56:11] weeks, I'd be expected to be paid on 84
hours. I wouldn't be expected to
[56:17] be changed,
>> huh?
[56:18] » The policy can certainly be changed and
do that.
[56:20] » It needs to be changed.
>> Not a problem. just just ask the human
[56:24] resources office to make that change and
present it to commissioner's court and
[56:27] it's already budgeted so the funding is
already there for it. It just needs to
[56:32] be a change in policy if that's what
everybody is asking for.
[56:34] » So like for 27 here we're coming we're
showing $55,299
[56:40] starting out.
>> Okay,
[56:41] » that's what budgeted right that's not
what they're checking.
[56:45] » That is based on the 21.84.
>> If the policy is changed then they'll
[56:50] get paid. But if the policy not changed,
they gonna wait a year before they get
[56:54] paid on that.
>> Okay, that that's what I'm want to know.
[56:59] » You got anything to say on that one?
>> Well,
[57:03] that's still not a guaranteed price.
That That's a guaranteed price. If a
[57:08] deputy works every day they're assigned
to work, don't take advantage of the
[57:13] sick leave and does not take advantage
of vacation pay,
[57:17] » then that's a guaranteed price. If you
work 80 hours, you're not banking any
[57:21] hours for this 104 over here. If you
work an 80 hour pay period, you would
[57:26] have to work an 84h hour pay period
every time to get to that bank over
[57:31] here. If you're just turning in 80
hours, you're not turning in anything to
[57:35] your bank to get paid for it.
>> But if you're not working, you shouldn't
[57:38] get paid for it.
>> That's correct. That's correct.
[57:41] » But I've got another question. If we're
we're set up here, and this is just me.
[57:48] If we're saying we don't have money to
give out pay raises, but we are
[57:52] budgeting, which is very smart, I would
say, but we're budgeting for this
[57:56] amount. Why are we paying the deputies
that amount? Cuz apparently we do have
[58:00] the money for that pay raise.
>> You better come up here.
[58:03] » Let me say one thing. It sounds to me
like we are paying them, but at the end
[58:07] of the year,
>> you're not paying them that complete 48.
[58:10] The only way you going to pay that
complete number. All right? And it's
[58:14] easy to do on the math. If that person
doesn't take a day off,
[58:18] » if they take the time off, they're still
supposed to account for the 84 hour pay
[58:22] period they're scheduled.
>> No, they just turned in 80 hours.
[58:26] » Yeah, they're just turning in 80 hours
cuz that's the reason why we went to
[58:28] this 80 hour deal because the the
software over there did not like the 84.
[58:33] » That's not that's not falsifying any
records if you're using time because
[58:36] you're scheduled for a 12-h hour shift.
You're scheduled for seven 12 hour
[58:39] shifts in the pay period.
>> Yeah, that's not what we're told and
[58:41] that's not the way we've been doing it.
That's not the way he told me to miss to
[58:44] be honest with you.
>> The policy changed and that did change
[58:47] with him and I
>> thought we had that conversation but
[58:51] it's possible we didn't. I've had this
conversation with James so he and I are
[58:54] on the same page and he said that he has
told you all. So I
[58:57] » but essentially if you take
>> a day off that means you work 72 hours
[59:03] then use 12 hours of vacation or use 12
hours of FLSA or some some lead bank.
[59:08] » Oh 72. Yes. They got to get to 80. Yes.
They have to get to 84 because that's
[59:13] their schedule.
>> No, we've never been told that and
[59:15] that's never been that way.
>> Well, it's that's in the policy.
[59:18] » That's in the policy.
>> So, I policy that was put out that was
[59:24] changed under the uh consent agenda,
>> which a lot of it gets done and not
[59:29] brought. This is what I'm talking about.
When we made changes to personnel and we
[59:34] don't get with the department heads on
this, we don't know what's going on.
[59:38] I've had conversations with you and I'm
surprised you're saying this. Really? It
[59:41] really surprises me. Get to 80 on the
time sheet.
[59:45] » That was over.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[59:48] » 80 on the time sheet.
>> The policy was changed last year.
[59:51] » Yeah. Well, let's We've been doing that
this whole time.
[59:54] » But HR won't let you do it because they
what they do is
[59:58] » I know, but they they
HR even
[1:00:01] » you can come on up here and talk. It's a
workshop.
[1:00:04] » I do time sheets a lot. It's not if if
if I take a vacation day and I work my
[1:00:10] my hours, if I turn in 12 hours
vacation, they're not going to take the
[1:00:15] full 12 and give me comp. They're just
going to drop it to 8 hours vacation to
[1:00:20] get to 80.
>> HR will not do it. They tell us all the
[1:00:23] time I fix it.
>> We don't we just get to 80. There is no
[1:00:27] other four hours. I just don't burn 12
of vacation. I only burn eight.
[1:00:31] » I only burn eight of vacation instead of
12. So that's what's happening right
[1:00:35] now.
>> That's what hap that's what's always
[1:00:37] happening. They only only get to 80.
>> Okay. Because that was the whole thing.
[1:00:41] The whole discussion was that every time
sheet should be accurate. I mean, we
[1:00:47] sent out an email saying that that every
time sheet should be accurate because
[1:00:52] even not just you all, okay, every other
department, if they work more than their
[1:00:58] eight hour day, well then they're
supposed to put that information in
[1:01:02] there accurately. That way you have the
comp time accumulated or vacation or
[1:01:08] whatever.
>> But vacation is lost, right? If you
[1:01:10] don't use it within a year, you lose it.
There are some things that
[1:01:14] » Okay, so if you turned in 12 hours
vacation and you only work 72 and you
[1:01:18] turn that in, they're going to give us
four hours of comp time that they trust
[1:01:21] that they won't do that cuz that stacks
up.
[1:01:24] » But the time sheets should be accurate.
>> That's correct. And the way you have
[1:01:28] been, but what he's saying is if
[1:01:33] » I work by days, but I take a vacation
day. So it puts you over on your comp.
[1:01:37] So you're going to actually add FLSA
time into your time deal. Okay.
[1:01:42] » Okay. So, they're taking that time off.
Personnel is getting to 80 hours. They
[1:01:47] do not care about 84 unless you worked
it. Now, if you're taking off, they're
[1:01:51] adding the 80 hours and they're actually
putting that time back on the employees
[1:01:55] books. It has always been that way.
>> And that is a conversation that we are
[1:01:59] going to have with HR and get that
corrected.
[1:02:01] » So, y'all get paid some weeks, every two
weeks, you get paid for 80 hours.
[1:02:05] » Yes, sir.
>> And then sometimes you get paid for 84.
[1:02:09] Well, I'll put it to you this week,
Commissioner. So if he works an 84 hour
[1:02:12] pay period and we we have the same we
make the same money. We got the same
[1:02:17] thing taking out our checks. He works 84
I work 80. It's the same take-home pay
[1:02:23] » because the four hours
>> because the four hours goes into a bank
[1:02:28] » and if you're pay goes up we're basing
it on
[1:02:32] » that's why our starting salary is 49
something because that's what you're
[1:02:35] guaranteed.
Yeah,
[1:02:37] » we can't advertise the 48. If we're
going to advertise 48, let's pay them 48
[1:02:43] » for the jailers. The 49, I think it's 51
if you figure it up on the 2184.
[1:02:49] And this this deal that we're talking
about on this time sheet has been that
[1:02:53] way. It has always been that way. Well,
that should not have been that way
[1:02:57] because the time sheets, we were very,
very clear when we went to the new
[1:03:01] system that the time sheets needed to be
accurate because we had the same thing
[1:03:05] happening in other departments where
they were like, well, I I worked 81, but
[1:03:10] I put 80. No, if you worked 80, put 80.
If you worked 84, put 84. If you worked
[1:03:17] 76, put 76. I mean, whatever.
when the policy was changed to create
[1:03:22] the law enforcement credit hours that at
that same time was supposed to be 21.84
[1:03:26] 84. That's your schedule. That's what
goes on your time sheet. And I I've had
[1:03:31] that conversation with HR
>> multiple
[1:03:34] » multiple times. So, I don't understand
why we're having that issue, but we will
[1:03:37] definitely correct it going forward.
Make sure that you're putting 84 hours
[1:03:41] on your time sheets.
>> Well, is that in the,
[1:03:43] » you know, getting to the 84, but even if
we turn the time,
[1:03:48] » is that uh that's in writing someplace?
>> I believe it's in.
[1:03:53] » Can we get a copy of that?
>> It's in the policy. That should be
[1:03:56] because whatever is in writing is what
you go by.
[1:03:59] » Yes.
>> Well, the judge just proved the point.
[1:04:01] If you make if you work over, yes, they
want you to put it on there.
[1:04:05] » Yeah.
>> But if you work 80, you put 80. Our deal
[1:04:08] was to get to 80. Yes. If they work over
the 84 or they work 84 over, yes, that's
[1:04:13] going on the time sheet. That's correct.
But working seven or 12 every two weeks
[1:04:17] a day.
>> Yes.
[1:04:19] » Which do the 50
>> the deputies, the corrections officers.
[1:04:25] you know the people that are working
there.
[1:04:26] » Yeah. The 52962.
>> No. What? 52962.
[1:04:30] That's
>> 2184.
[1:04:33] » Yeah.
>> Yes.
[1:04:34] » But
>> how the hell do we get to all these
[1:04:37] other 80s and everything if they work if
they
[1:04:39] » because that's what the software took
them. The software is having problems
[1:04:42] with 84 and that's been the problem the
whole time. The reason we went back to
[1:04:46] this 80
>> cuz before we were doing 84 to get past
[1:04:51] me.
>> I was I was thinking back. But if you
[1:04:54] work but if you only work 72 cuz one of
those was a vacation day. They're only
[1:04:58] getting you to 80 which was 8 hours.
>> But if you but if you but if you if you
[1:05:02] turned in 12
>> Yeah. If I turn if I turn in 12 vacation
[1:05:05] they're what they're going to still do
is they're still going to only take 8
[1:05:08] hours vacation from me at 80. The only
time I apologize because
[1:05:14] that's not the way it's supposed to be
set up. That's not the way it's supposed
[1:05:18] to be set This is in policy for us and I
know this the only one time that we have
[1:05:22] to use that they have to take it if a
deputy or jailer works holiday
[1:05:28] and to get them to 80 they only use 4
hours holiday they have to burn that 12
[1:05:32] hours holiday
>> because that's in policy and that was an
[1:05:36] agreement on the pol on the holiday time
when it was changed before
[1:05:40] » to get back to the 12 hours on what you
worked
[1:05:43] » because we increased the rate you got
more money for holidays, right? For
[1:05:50] working holiday.
>> Yeah, for holiday.
[1:05:52] » If you work on holiday,
>> so but it was based on how people were
[1:05:55] scheduled. I mean, if you're scheduled
to work on a holiday, then you should
[1:05:59] you deserve to be paid for that holiday
time that you're losing. And so that I
[1:06:04] do I I do know that that was one of the
modifications we made for law
[1:06:09] enforcement specifically
um because we needed to make sure that
[1:06:13] that they were not having trouble
staffing when it was holidays because of
[1:06:18] course everyone wants to go spend
Christmas with their family. So they
[1:06:22] should be compensated for that. If you
were come to sit at my desk today to get
[1:06:26] hired on, I'm going to do a PAF for you
for 49,46
[1:06:30] is your guaranteed salary for a start.
>> Well, then
[1:06:34] » that's a guaranteed salary that you're
going to get.
[1:06:37] » We should probably just change it to the
hour.
[1:06:38] » That's Yeah, that's going to use your
>> That would be correct.
[1:06:43] » Well, because that is some of the people
we do have a lot of people in the
[1:06:48] sheriff's office that are losing steps
as well. So if you look at at page 17,
[1:06:55] you can see that some of the increases
are very very minimal. You know, we have
[1:07:00] a one increase in the amount of $160.
But that's also they lost steps. And so
[1:07:08] that was one of our objectives in some
of this was to find a way to recoup the
[1:07:16] steps that people lost.
Matter of fact, you're one of the
[1:07:21] examples.
So, we have to get to law enforcement
[1:07:25] jailers under 207. You have to get to 86
before LSA kicks in. That's where you're
[1:07:31] getting this four and the six numbers
when everybody normally works an 80 hour
[1:07:35] shift. But the four and the six is
regular time paid because of the 207.
[1:07:40] But the the the having to put in for the
80 hours
[1:07:44] » is is incorrect because
>> I mean we did have that discussion about
[1:07:52] how you all wanted to structure some of
that and what other counties were doing
[1:07:56] and how you wanted to proceed with that.
And so we've tried multiple different
[1:08:01] things in terms of law enforcement which
included the holiday pay, you know,
[1:08:08] different rotations, that kind of stuff.
>> Yeah, we did have that discussion,
[1:08:12] judge, for sure.
>> Yeah.
[1:08:13] » And that's where we're banking the time
now.
[1:08:16] » Yes.
>> But it was still 80 hours on the time
[1:08:18] sheet.
>> Well, I
[1:08:21] » Well, I
>> I don't know that I like banking the
[1:08:24] time.
>> The start should be 50.
[1:08:27] » That's my opinion. If that's what we're
going to say it is based off 2184 that's
[1:08:31] what it should say on your PA.
>> Yeah.
[1:08:34] » And I agree with and and we need to be
you know I budgeted for it. Yeah. You
[1:08:40] need some cushion in there. You do. But
even if you got them make here and then
[1:08:44] to the side of it what's actually being
paid because when I look at it sitting
[1:08:50] here behind this desk and I look at it
then it makes sense to me. It makes
[1:08:54] sense to me when I look at one thing but
it's not something else. Okay. Then we
[1:08:57] need to change the policy, right? And
and take out the banking hours, right?
[1:09:04] And and go from there.
>> And if you think about it this way,
[1:09:08] commissioners, if if we're going to pay
the 52, if that's what we're paying, our
[1:09:13] ask for pay raises here would have been
much less.
[1:09:17] It really would have been.
>> Okay. So you have the and that's a
[1:09:24] policy change which is not a problem
because that was that was a discussion
[1:09:31] » that that was brought to the
commissioners.
[1:09:36] » Okay. So let's let's back up to the 97%
and the rate as it is.
[1:09:45] » So we'll have that policy change on the
next quarter. Uh we'll have it before
[1:09:50] the fiscal year starts.
>> Have it before. Okay. So that'll start
[1:09:54] October 1st
>> because it'll be okay.
[1:09:57] » Yeah.
>> So number one budget at 0.63% rate which
[1:10:04] we've already approved and what we're
changing is the 97% projected collection
[1:10:10] rate.
[1:10:14] » So move. Yes.
>> Mr. Mr. Robertson. All in favor say I.
[1:10:19] » I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[1:10:23] Okay. We need to know whether or not you
want to fund the one-step restoration
[1:10:28] for employees who lost steps. Uh and
that will cost us an $197,200.
[1:10:37] Um we want to fund a one step increase
for corrections officers which will be
[1:10:44] approximately $63,000.
Um, and then do you want to add funds to
[1:10:51] the auditors and to the district
attorney's office,
[1:11:00] » which would be uh discretionary. Then
they can decide where to allocate.
[1:11:05] » Two and three. We're talking $260,000.
>> Correct.
[1:11:09] » Right. Correct.
>> And funds for four. Where is that?
[1:11:15] » That That's about 16,000.
[clears throat]
[1:11:18] » So if you look at number six, look at
number six on your
[1:11:25] » information we gave you,
>> we have an available surplus of the
[1:11:30] 276,43.
[1:11:36] So to restore one step to employees
which benefits everyone across the board
[1:11:43] um would cost us 79 uh excuse me would
cost us $197,200
[1:11:52] which leaves us $79,203
remaining.
[1:11:57] And for one step uh for the 42
corrections officers, it would cost us
[1:12:04] $63,100
[1:12:07] um which leaves you a little over
$16,000.
[1:12:12] And that would address um some of the
auditors, classified staff, and your
[1:12:20] district attorney's office.
[1:12:33] That would that be a one time?
>> Oh, no, no, no.
[1:12:39] That's that's a that would be budgeted
personnel.
[1:12:42] » Okay.
>> We would not come back and pull any of
[1:12:44] those
>> because it would be a recurring cost.
[1:12:50] But I'm talking about restoring the
That's what I mean. Yeah.
[1:12:54] » Well, we would restore the one step and
then it would go forward.
[1:13:00] » Yeah. Right. But for this
>> Yes.
[1:13:02] » purpose of this. Yes. You need a U
motion.
[1:13:06] » Yes.
>> I'll make the motion.
[1:13:08] » Okay. You want to make the motion uh for
number two or two, three, and four? How
[1:13:16] do you want to do it?
[1:13:20] » So, I want everybody to, you know, we we
want to stay within our our area, but I
[1:13:27] mean our budgets, but at the same time,
we want to help everybody and and make
[1:13:33] Okay. So, uh this is where I'm going
with that. So, we would restore the one
[1:13:39] step for employees who lost
>> correct step. And then do you want to
[1:13:44] include the one step
>> also for correctional officers?
[1:13:49] » Right. So we'd have we'd have about a
little over 16,000.
[1:13:52] » So then we would have 16,000 that we
could allocate for the district attorney
[1:13:58] and for
the auditor's office.
[1:14:02] » You okay with that?
>> Yes, I am.
[1:14:04] » Okay. Comes as a recommendation from
Commissioner Robertson. Any discussion,
[1:14:09] questions?
>> Second. Huh?
[1:14:13] » Second.
>> Second. Commissioner Pervvis.
[1:14:17] » All in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:14:23] Motion carries.
Okay. And then item number five, confirm
[1:14:29] the use of unspent waste management fund
dollars for recycling supplies and
[1:14:35] equipment.
>> So second.
[1:14:38] » Okay. Commissioner Cassidy, Commissioner
Curtis. All in favor say I.
[1:14:43] Any opposed? Motion carries.
Okay.
[1:14:47] » Motion to adjourn. Second. Very well.
Minister, Commissioner Kathy 11:15.
[1:14:54] Thank you, ma'am.