[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.

One Time Event

Agenda

Transcript