[00:00:01]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME, EVERYONE.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
THIS IS OUR SECOND BUDGET MEETING FOR OUR SPRING 2024 YEAR.SORRY FOR THE LATENESS. AMY OR JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> MS. LEWISON? MS. MCMULLEN? MS. MASSEY?
>> MR. KEITH IS ABSENT. MS. GREEN?
WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH OUR MEETING.
CAN WE GET AN APPROVAL FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
SECOND. THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSES OR CORRECTIONS? WE'RE MOVING NOW ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
[4. NEW BUSINESS]
BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR OVERVIEW FROM OUR COMPTROLLER.MR. HUTCHINSI, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> YES, MA'AM. Y'ALL HAVE THE PIECE OF PAPER.
>> AT THE TOP FROM TALKING TO THE TREASURER, I TOLD YOU ALL WE WOULD COME WITH A REVISED PROJECTION AMOUNT.
THE 3,217,000 CHANGE IS A REVISED PROJECTION.
THAT'S EXTRA MONEY YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH ON THIS THING RIGHT HERE.
THE EXPENSES YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER, THOUGH.
YOU ASKED ABOUT A 2% SALARY INCREASE, THAT'S 2.8 MILLION A YEAR.
THE REASON THIS HAS YEARS ALL NEXT TO IT, EVEN THOUGH YOU'D BE DOING IT FOR THE NEXT SEVEN MONTHS, IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE YEARLY AMOUNT FOR NEXT YEAR, THEN YOU WILL BE BUDGETING FOR ALL YEAR.
MOVING THE ELECTED SALARY RANGE, MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT TO WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SAID IT SHOULD BE. YOU SEE THAT NUMBER.
THEN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NIGHT REGARDING COUNTY GENERAL, THOSE ARE ALL THE NUMBERS IN BLACK.
THOSE EQUAL ABOUT $1.16 MILLION.
ADD ALL THAT TOGETHER GIVES YOU A LITTLE OVER $4 MILLION, WHICH TELLS YOU YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO IT ALL.
THAT'S WHY THEY PAY YOU THE BIG BUCKS SO Y'ALL GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, HOW YOU WANT TO SPLIT IT UP.
I CAN JUST GIVE YOU THE NUMBERS AND YOU'LL GO FROM THERE.
JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MS. MASSEY. HUTCH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE SUBMITTED THESE REQUESTS FOR UPGRADES, RECLASSIFICATIONS, AND NEW POSITIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THERE'S A NEED IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS FOR THOSE UPGRADES AND NEW POSITIONS.
IF WE LOOK AT THE AT THE COLORED SHEET THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, HUTCH, YOU WERE REFERRING TO, IF WE WERE TO TONIGHT APPROVE THE UPGRADES AND NEW POSITIONS IN FRONT OF US, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT, THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO ABOUT A 1% RAISE RIGHT NOW AND THEN WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE SOMETHING WE WOULD REVISIT THIS FALL FOR THE 2025 YEAR.
AS YOU STATED, WE CAN'T DO BOTH, AND I BELIEVE THAT TO APPROVE 2% OFF THE TOP, WHICH IS 2.8 MILLION OF THE 3.2 TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROJECTED REVENUE, THAT DOESN'T LEAVE A HELL OF A LOT TO DEAL WITH FOR THESE NEW POSITIONS AND UPGRADES.
I WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND I'LL MAKE IT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO DO THAT OR A BETTER WAY TO DO IT.
BUT AT THE TOP OF OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE 2% SALARY INCREASE, I WOULD LIKE TO FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT AND THE SALARY COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, IF WE COULD FIRST DISPENSE WITH AND CONSIDER THE UPGRADES AND NEW POSITIONS AND THEN SEE WHAT WE HAVE LEFT AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS TO GIVE A RAISE BECAUSE IF WE DO THE 2% ON THE TOP, THAT ONLY LEAVES ABOUT $400,000 FOR NEEDS THAT ARE THREE TIMES THAT THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO US.
[00:05:01]
ONE OTHER THING AND I'LL SHUT UP, MS. MASSEY.MANY YEARS, WE COME UP HERE IN SPRING AND WE TELL ELECTED OFFICIALS OVER AND OVER AND OVER, WE TELL THEM IN THE FALL, COME BACK IN THE SPRING, BRING YOUR UPGRADES, BRING YOUR RECLASSIFICATIONS, BRING YOUR NEW POSITIONS.
IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE GET HERE OR IN A LOT OF YEARS, WE GET TO THE SPRING AND WE'RE LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO DO A RAISE RATHER THAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF THESE DEPARTMENTS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONSIDER THE PERSONNEL REQUEST AND THEN TAKE UP THE RAISE AT THE END OF THE MEETING AFTER THOSE HAVE BEEN DISPENSED WITH AND I WOULD HOPE FOR A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE WILL DO A CONSIDERATION OF 1% INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEES. WAIT A MINUTE.
>> YOU'RE TAKING IT OUT OF ORDER IS ALL YOU'RE DOING.
>> RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE UPGRADES.
>> CORRECT. THEN YOU'LL COME BACK.
>> COME BACK AND DEAL WITH THE RAISES.
>> THAT IS ON THE ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER THE UPGRADES FIRST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I SEE, JUSTICE ELLIOTT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> WELL, IT'S ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.
>> JUSTICE GREEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> THE MOTION IS TO TAKE OUT OF ORDER.
>> MR. KEITH IS NOT HERE. MS. GREEN?
>> FIVE AYES, ONE NAY, ONE ABSTENTION, ONE NOT VOTING. MOTION PASSES.
>> WE ARE NOW DOWN TO PERSONAL REQUESTS, UPGRADES, WHICH WE WILL BEGIN WITH DEPARTMENT.
>> WE'VE GOT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY LISTED FIRST.
>> I'M SORRY. WE HAVE THE TREASURER. I'M SORRY.
WOULD YOU GIVE US A COUNT, PLEASE, AGAIN ON HOW MANY AYES? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW MANY FOR.
>> THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW DOWN TO DEPARTMENT 103, THE TREASURER'S DEPARTMENT.
IS SOMEONE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE TREASURER DEPARTMENT, TREASURER MANAGER WITH UPGRADE?
>> THEY HAD INFORMED ME THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT.
I'M ALSO SUPPOSED TO REMIND Y'ALL THAT IT'S NOT ACCOUNTING GENERAL FUND.
>> QUESTION. IN REFERENCE TO THE PROJECTED AMOUNT, THE 3.2 MILLION?
>> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT'S NOT COUNTY GENERAL.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
HUTCH, WHERE WOULD I FIND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE? I'M LOOKING AT THIS HUMAN RESOURCE SHEET.
BUT WHAT IS THE HICKEY OF THE UPDATE?
>> RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WHERE IT SAYS TOTAL INCREASE.
RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, BOLD PRINT.
>> IT WOULD'VE BEEN A SNAKE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $4,700 HERE.
I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THE TREASURER'S UPGRADE REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT 103 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL?
[00:10:01]
>> SIX AYES, ONE PRESENT, ONE NOT VOTING. MOTION PASSES.
>> THIS WILL GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
WE ARE NOW DOWN TO DEPARTMENT 104, THE COLLECTOR'S DEPARTMENT. IS THERE SOMEONE HERE?
>> THEY DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE.
MR. STOWERS ASKED BEFORE $101,020.
>> JUSTICE GREEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
WHY WOULD WE DO UPGRADES BEFORE WE GIVE THE EMPLOYEES A REGULAR RAISE? MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IT.
>> YOU'RE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON.
>> THE MOTION WAS TO BASICALLY TAKE OUT OF ORDER IN THE CALENDAR ON THE AGENDA.
YOU WERE PASSING OVER THE ITEMS OF SALARY INCREASES AND MOVING INTO THE POSITION REQUESTS.
THAT WAS WHAT THE MOTION WAS THAT WAS SECOND AND PASSED.
YOU'VE TAKEN THIS OUT OF ORDER.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF WE DO THE UPGRADES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEES THE REGULAR RAISES? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
>> I GAVE YOU ALL THE NUMBERS OF 3.2 MILLION, DEPENDING ON WHICH UPGRADES YOU DO.
NOW, THIS FIRST GROUP YOU'RE DOING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTY GENERAL, DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT NUMBER.
ONCE YOU GET INTO THE COUNTY GENERAL DEPARTMENTS, YOU START PULLING OFF OF THAT NUMBER.
DEPENDING ON HOW MANY UPGRADES OR CHANGES YOU MAKE, THAT WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT FOR A RAISE.
>> IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY WON'T GET THE 2% RAISE?
>> IT'S VERY POSSIBLE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A 2%.
AS I TOLD YOU ALL A WEEK AGO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING.
>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.
>> IS THE REASON THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY BECAUSE WE PUT MONEY INTO SAVINGS?
>> THIS IS AN INCREASE IN PROJECTIONS.
TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> THIS IS JUST HOW MUCH MONEY THAT WE MAKE YEARLY?
>> YES. YOU NEVER SPEND ONE TIME MONEY, WHICH IS WHAT CARRYOVER IS, ON OUR ONGOING EXPENSE.
>> THIS IS JUST OUR REGULAR YEARLY MONEY?
>> IS HOW MUCH WE'RE MAKING HERE?
>> YES, MA'AM. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.
>> THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW. THANK YOU.
HUTCH, WOULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN FOR THOSE HERE THAT MAY NOT UNDERSTAND? FOR NEW MEMBERS, AS WELL AS FOR OUR AUDIENCE.
THE ONES THAT WE ARE HEARING AND APPROVING RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT COMING FROM GENERAL FUND.
WHAT TYPE OF FUND IS IT COMING FROM? HOW WILL THIS BE FUNDED?
>> THE COUNTIES HAVE 65 DIFFERENT FUNDS, BUT THE TREASURER HAS A TREASURY AUTOMATION FUNDS, HAS A TREASURY SALARY FUND, HAS A COLLECTOR SALARY FUND.
THOSE ARE COMMISSIONS THAT ARE EARNED BY THE TREASURER'S OFFICE THAT CAN ONLY BE SPENT BY THE TREASURY.
THOSE BUDGETS DO NOT COME OUT OF COUNTY GENERAL.
YOU'RE GETTING READY TO HEAR ONE FROM ROAD AND BRIDGE.
THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUND.
THAT MONEY CAN ONLY BE SPENT ON ROAD AND BRIDGE ISSUES AND THE PERSONNEL TIED TO ROAD AND BRIDGE.
NO IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND.
NOW, WHEN YOU GET INTO GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS, WHICH ANY DEPARTMENT HAS FUND 1,000 NEXT TO IT, THAT'S THE GENERAL FUND.
THAT'S GOING TO BE PROSECUTOR, THE VICTIM WITNESS, GENERAL SERVICES, TWO RIVERS PARK.
I THINK YOU GOT 10TH DIVISION ON THERE AND YOU GOT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT.
ALL OF THOSE ON THAT SHEET THAT I GAVE YOU IN BLACK, THAT'S ALL COUNTY GENERAL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.
JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ITEM WE CONSIDERED BEFORE, WHICH WAS $4,500, THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT 104, IS AN INCREASE OF $101,000.
[00:15:03]
IT'S A REQUEST FOR TWO NEW POSITIONS AND A REQUEST FOR AN UPGRADED POSITION.I DON'T SEE ANY LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT WE RECEIVED.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE HEARING THIS $100,000 INCREASE AND TWO NEW POSITIONS FOR THE COLLECTOR UNTIL SUCH TIME OF THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING THAT THE COLLECTOR CAN BE HERE TO GIVE US THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDING $100,000.
I KNOW WE SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT GENERAL FUND MONEY.
I WOULD REALLY PERSONALLY LIKE TO HEAR THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE TWO NEW POSITIONS AND THE UPGRADE.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE MOVE THIS TO OUR NEXT BUDGET MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THIS MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> SIX AYES, ONE NAY, MOTION PASSES.
>> THIS DEPARTMENT, THE COLLECTORS DEPARTMENT WILL BE POSTPONED TO THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING?
>> MOVING ON TO DEPARTMENT 200, WHICH IS ROAD AND BRIDGE.
>> I'M THE LUCKY PERSON ON THAT ONE.
>> WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A DOWNGRADE AND THEN TWO UPGRADES AND BASICALLY A TITLE CHANGE.
THE DOWNGRADE IS OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN THAT THEY HAVE, I BELIEVE AN ENGINEERING DEGREE AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DOES NOT HAVE AN ENGINEERING DEGREE.
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HAS GOTTEN MORE DUTIES ON HANDLING THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS WITH THE ENGINEER WE BROUGHT IN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEN THE PARKS CLERK, EVERYTHING'S JUST GROWN AND THEY'VE GOT MORE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH.
THE GOOD NEWS IS WHEN YOU TAKE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FROM THE DOWNGRADE, IT WASHES OUT THE TWO UPGRADES.
>> WE ACTUALLY SAVED A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN $1,000, BUT WE SAVE.
>> JUSTICE STAFFFORD, YOU RECOGNIZE?
>> TO BE PRECISE, IT'S A $794 SAVINGS FOR DEPARTMENT 200.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THE BUDGET 200 REQUEST FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> THE MOTION AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT, BUT THE RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
ANYWAY, I'M SORRY, WE DID NOT DO THAT. I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
BUT ANYWAY, THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> JUSTICE MCMULLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> CURIOSITY, WE HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY IT'S A SAVINGS OF $794 BECAUSE OF THE DOWNGRADE AFTER THE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE AS WELL.
>> YES. IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THE SALARIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT COORDINATOR AND THE PARTS CLERK HAS COME UP.
WE STILL HAVE A SAVINGS THERE.
I AM VERY CURIOUS THOUGH, SINCE I DO UNDERSTAND JUST EXACTLY WHAT THAT MOTION IS ABOUT.
WOULD YOU MIND SHARING WITH ME HOW LONG THIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WAS WORKING UNDER THE TITLE OF ENGINEER.
>> NO. HE WAS NOT WORKING UNDER TITLE ENGINEER.
>> ONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION REQUIRED THAT, BUT HE WAS NOT BEING PAID TO THAT LEVEL.
>> HE WASN'T BEING PAID THE FULL SALARY OF AN ENGINEER?
>> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE DISCREPANCY THAT HE WAS BEING OVERPAID.
>> NO. IT'S FIXING THE POSITION AS IT'S LISTED VERSUS
[00:20:04]
WHAT IS REQUIRED OF IT.AS PUBLIC DIRECTOR AT UNCLASSIFIED POSITION 31 REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE AN ENGINEERING DEGREE.
>> BUT HE WAS WORKING WITHOUT THAT QUALIFICATION?
IT DOESN'T STOP HIM FROM BEING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
IT STOPPED HIM FROM MAKING THAT SALARY.
WE WAS NOT PAYING HIM THAT SALARY.
WE WERE PAYING HIM AT THE U-30, WHICH IS WHAT WE JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE BOOKS AS.
>> I SEE. YOU WERE PAYING HIM AS A U-30, AND THAT WAS THE PROPER AMOUNT TO PAY HIM?
>> WE ARE NOT REDUCING THAT RIGHT NOW.
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?
YOU'RE CORRECTING THAT, BUT HE WAS NOT PAID THERE.
YOU HAVE A RANGE ON A BUDGET OF STARTING WHEN YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVE WHATEVER UP HERE.
WE PAID HIM THERE WHERE IT MATCHED THE U-30.
>> I GOT IT. THANK YOU. I GOT IT NOW.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON DEPARTMENT 200? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN CALL THE PLEASE.
>> SEVEN EYES, ONE NON VOTING.
>> THIS WILL GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
WE ARE NOW DOWN TO DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF GENERAL FUND.
JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I'M SORRY. I TURNED MY LIGHT ON PREMATURELY.
>> THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.
>> JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. IT'S ALWAYS AND I KNOW THAT THE PROSECUTOR IS NEW TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER, MOST ELECTED OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, AND THEY HAVE REQUESTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 SUCH AS THESE REQUESTS ARE TONIGHT FROM THE PROSECUTOR.
THEY SEND A DELEGATE TO EXPOUND AND SHARE WITH THE COURT THE JUSTIFICATION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THE SAME MOTION HERE FOR BOTH BUDGET 416 AS WELL AS 440, WHICH IS THE PROSECUTOR'S TWO BUDGET REQUEST.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT THERE ADDS UP TO 192,000.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE 416 AND 440 UNTIL OUR NEXT BUDGET MEETING IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTOR TO BE HERE IN PERSON OR TO SEND SOMEONE IN HIS STEAD TO HELP US AS A COMMITTEE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THESE FIVE NEW POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.
I'LL GET IT RIGHT HERE IN A MINUTE.
THAT'S MY MOTION THAT WE ALLOW THAT TIME FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO JUSTIFY THESE NEEDS TO THIS COMMITTEE. DO I HAVE A SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TO OUR NEXT BUDGET MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE MOTION? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> THE PROSECUTOR AND ATTORNEYS DEPARTMENT 416 AND 440 WILL BE MOVED TO OUR NEXT BUDGET HEARING.
MOVING ON TO GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 108.
>> THE NEXT TWO ARE MINE 108 AND 605. [OVERLAPPING]
>>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR BOTH.
>> 108, MY GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, HR CHANGED HIS CLASSIFICATION ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO AND MOVED HIM TO C122,
[00:25:01]
WHICH IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, MEANING I HAD TO START PAYING HIM OVERTIME.IF WE UPGRADE HIM TO U23, IT'LL COST US ABOUT $7,000 A YEAR.
BUT I'M PAYING HIM ABOUT 11,000 IN OVERTIME RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT HURT HIS FEELINGS, HONESTLY, WHEN THEY TOOK HIM OUT OF UNCLASSIFIED.
BUT MONEY WISE, WE'D BE SAVING MONEY IF WE LET HIM BE UNCLASSIFIED AGAIN.
>> JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> HUTCH, YOUR REQUEST FOR BUDGET 108 IS A GRAND TOTAL OF $5,295.
YOUR REQUEST FOR TWO RIVERS PARK, BUDGET 605.
WHAT I MEANT WAS 5,295, AND THE ONE FOR GENERAL SERVICES IS 4,177, SO FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF 9,472 ON A BUDGET OF $100 MILLION.
I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND BICKER AND ARGUE OVER THOSE AMOUNTS, SO I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND BOTH THE BUDGET REQUEST FOR 605 AND FOR BUDGET 108 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> THEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE MOVE DEPARTMENTS 108 AND 605 ONTO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> THOSE TWO WILL GO ON TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
>> WE ARE NOW DOWN TO DEPARTMENT 437, TENTH DIVISION CIRCUIT COURT.
YOU CAN STAND AT THE PODIUM IF YOU LIKE, OR ACTUALLY, YOU CAN WHICHEVER YOU LIKE TO DO OR SIT.
>> I'D LIKE TO SIT. [LAUGHTER]
WELCOME, AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I'M JUDGE SHANICE JOHNSON. IS IT ON?
>> I HAVE BOTH OF THE MICS ON.
>> MAYBE PULL IT CLOSER TO YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I'M JUDGE SHANICE JOHNSON.
I'M THE TENTH DIVISION CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR PULASKI COUNTY.
I HAVE HERE WITH ME MY INTAKE OFFICE DEPARTMENT, MY CHIEF INTAKE OFFICER MARTY CARTER, ALONG WITH OUR JUVENILE INTAKE OFFICERS IN THE DEPARTMENT ARE ALSO PRESENT HERE TODAY.
TODAY, WE ARE REQUESTING A NEW INTAKE OFFICER POSITION.
THIS DEPARTMENT RECENTLY LOST AN ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY.
WHEN MY SECRETARY RETIRED IN DECEMBER OF 2023, I LEARNED IN DECEMBER THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT MY DEPARTMENT HAD TWO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS ON MY PAYROLL AND NO OTHER COUNTY OFFICIAL HAD TWO, THAT I WOULD LOSE A POSITION, AND THE SECOND POSITION WAS HOUSED IN THE INTAKE DEPARTMENT.
NOW, AS A RESULT OF THAT, WHILE THERE WERE TWO POSITIONS ON THE PAYROLL UNDERNEATH MY DIVISION, ONE POSITION ACTUALLY SERVED ME, WHICH IS A PERSON WHO RETIRED IN DECEMBER, THE OTHER POSITION SERVED THE INTAKE DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, BOTH PEOPLE HAD BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS.
OUR INTAKE DEPARTMENT COMPARED TO OTHER INTAKE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE STATE AND SOME OF THOSE COMPARABLE IN SIZE IS THE SMALLEST INTAKE DEPARTMENT IN THE STATE.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ONLY HAVE FOUR HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST WAS THE AID OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.
THEY DID KEY CLERICAL WORK, SO WHEN I LEARNED THAT IN DECEMBER, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT WAS RETIRING IN JANUARY, SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO HAVE A SECRETARY TO RUN COURT, I HAD TO MOVE THAT POSITION FROM INTAKE TO BE HOUSED IN A COURTHOUSE IN WHICH THEY LOST THE SUPPORT THAT THEY ONCE HAVE.
LOOKING AT THE BUDGET AND WHAT WOULD BE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AND MOST HELPFUL FOR THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, I DETERMINED AFTER DISCUSSING WITH MY CHIEF INTAKE OFFICER AND CONSULTING WITH THE REST OF THE TEAM, THAT IT WOULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT FOR THE COUNTY TO
[00:30:02]
HAVE ANOTHER INTAKE OFFER AS OPPOSED TO REPLACING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.THE REASON BEING, SIMPLY PUT, THE SIX JUDICIAL DISTRICT HAS 21 ALLOTTED SLOTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SO THERE'S 20 EVERY YEAR, WE'RE ONLY USING CURRENTLY 15 OF THOSE SLOTS, AND SO IF WE WERE TO HIRE AN ADDITIONAL INTAKE OFFICER, $20,000 OF THEIR SALARY IS REIMBURSABLE BY THE STATE, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THE TEAM AS A WHOLE TO BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE THE CLERICAL WORK THAT WAS ABSORBED BY THE LOSS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS AMONGST FIVE INTAKE OFFICERS AS WELL AS MAKE KEY INTAKE DECISIONS REGARDING JUVENILES WHO WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES IN THE COUNTY.
I THINK THAT WITH THE NEED FOR MORE DIVERSION, JUST IN GENERAL OF THE STATE AND KEEPING KIDS WHO DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SYSTEM OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND MAKING THE MOST APPROPRIATE DECISIONS AND PROVIDING THE MOST APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO FAMILIES IN THAT PROCESS, ANOTHER OFFICER IS NEEDED AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE SOME POWERPOINTS. WE HAVE PACKETS WITH MORE INFORMATION AS I KNOW THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW IT IS WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL PASS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT, BUT JUST REAL QUICKLY THERE, WE HAVE A POPULATION OF 400,000, WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OFFICERS.
BENTON COUNTY HAS 280,000 POPULATION, THEY HAVE SIX INTAKE OFFICERS.
WASHINGTON COUNTY HAS 240,000 POPULATION, THEY HAVE SEVEN.
SALINE HAS 122,000 POPULATION, THEY HAVE FIVE, AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS POSITION BECAUSE ONE IS REIMBURSABLE, A LARGE PORTION OF THE SALARY, AND IT WOULD DO BOTH HELP WITH ADMINISTRATIVE WORK AND THE WORK OF ACTUALLY MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE FAMILIES.
>> THANK YOU. HUDGE, SHE MENTIONED THAT PART OF THE SALARY OR SOME OF THE SALARY IS REIMBURSABLE IS THAT NOTATED HERE OR HOW IS THAT REIMBURSABLE?
>> IT COMES BACK IN THROUGH GENERAL REVENUE.
>> WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOUR ACTUAL COST IS, BUT IT'LL SHOW UP.
THEY HAVE TO DO A REPORT EVERY YEAR, MEET THE CRITERIA, THEN A CHECK COMES.
>> THANK YOU. JUSTICE MCMULLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE WORK CRIMES DOWN IN THE COURT., [INAUDIBLE], SO IF WE COULD UNDERSTAND [INAUDIBLE] JUST EXACTLY WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND HOW THEY USE INTAKE OFFICERS, AND HOW THEY ARE SHORT OF ONE, SECRETARY AS WELL, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP [INAUDIBLE].
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE CHILD CAN BE SAFE FROM GOING TO COURT, THAT IS ESSENTIAL.
IT SAVES TIME, AND IT'S ALSO IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST.
THEY WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE A LOT OF REFFERALS.
AND IMAGINE IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE OR TWO INTAKE OFFICES, IT'S QUITE EVIDENT TO ME THAT THEY NEED TO DO MORE.
AND I THINK THEY REALLY NEED MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS GO TO THE FULL COURT.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
MAY WE MOVE THIS TO THE FULL COURT? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU, JUDGE JOHNSON FOR BEING HERE AND BRINGING YOUR STAFF WITH YOU.
IS MS. SIPHERS, OUR DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES PRESENT TONIGHT?
>> DID SHE SEND A DELEGATE TO THIS MEETING?
>> OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE A REQUEST THAT ANYTIME WE HAVE A BUDGET MEETING WHERE HUMAN RESOURCES HAS MADE MULTIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE HAVE A PACKET HERE THIS THICK OF HR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT EITHER THE DIRECTOR OR A DELEGATE BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A MEMO THAT WAS DELIVERED TO US RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.
JUDGE JOHNSON, I BELIEVE THAT YOU RECEIVED IT.
IT WAS FROM MS. SIPHERS, OUR DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DATED APRIL 17.
AS IT RELATES TO THE INTAKE OFFICER, THE LETTER GOES ON TO SAY, THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS INFORMED HUMAN RESOURCES THAT HE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CREATION OF ANOTHER INTAKE OFFICER POSITION.
HOWEVER, HE APPROVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE REQUEST TO THE QUORUM COURT FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
[00:35:01]
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM WHAT IS THE OBJECTION.AND IF HE APPROVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE REQUEST TO THE COURT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT HE IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF US MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THE LAST PROBABLY EIGHT TO TEN YEARS AS IT RELATES TO THE INTAKE OFFICERS AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD TRULY REPORT TO STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHICH ARE THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD REPORT BEING COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO A COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIAL.
SO WITHOUT HUMAN RESOURCES HERE TO ANSWER, WITHOUT ANYONE FROM LEGAL HERE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, DOES ANYONE ELSE, HUTCH, JUSTIN? WELL, IT WAS WHAT YOU PASSED OUT TO US JUST RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.
>> THAT'S NOT MY MIC, THAT'S FROM JUSTIN [LAUGHTER].
>> WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS THIS EVENING, I'M GOING TO VOTE PRESENT UNTIL WE HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS. I YIELD.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.
JUSTICE ELLIOTT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> JUSTICE GREEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I ALSO VISITED WITH THE TENTH DIVISION, THE JUVENILE DEPARTMENT, ALONG WITH MS. MCMULLEN.
SO WE WENT AT DIFFERENT TIMES, BUT I SPENT A HALF A DAY DOWN THERE WITH THEM, AND I THINK THAT THEY NEED WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF THERE BE NONE, JUSTIN CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. THIS WILL GO TO THE FULL COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE ARE NOW DOWN TO OUR LAST DEPARTMENT SHERIFF AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT 400.
>> MY NAME IS CHIEF WITTEN, CHIEF DEPUTY OF THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE HOUSE.
WITH MAJOR GREG EVANS OF THE INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION.
>> CHIEF DEPUTY EARNEST WHITTEN OF THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
PRESENT WITH ME IS MAJOR GREG EVANS OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
MAJOR ROBERT GARRETT FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING US TO COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
THE VERY FIRST THING ON THE LIST, YOU ALL KNOW BACK WHEN WE HAD THE ANALYSIS DONE, THERE WERE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THAT ENTITY.
AND THESE ARE JUST A PORTION, I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW THAT, OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO THIS BODY.
AND I WANT TO THANK JUSTICE STOWERS, DURING THE TIME THE ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING.
HE SAID THAT WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED, HE WAS GOING TO VOTE THAT WE GET THAT.
THOSE WAS A JOKE WE MADE UP MR. STOWERS [LAUGHTER].
YOU LOOKED AT ME REAL SERIOUS.
SENSE OF HUMOR THERE. OUR VERY FIRST ONE UP IS THE PRECINCT CLERK BEING MOVED TO AN FOI SPECIALIST.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL DOING THE FOI.
AND EASILY SAY THAT SINCE WE MOVED THE BODY CAMERAS AND VEHICLE CAMERAS AND CAMERAS IN THE BUILDING AND ALL AROUND,
[00:40:02]
EVERYBODY IS REQUESTING SOME DOCUMENTS FROM US ON A DAILY BASIS AND THAT HAS OVERWHELMED THAT PERSON WE'VE GOT DOING THAT JOB, AND WE DEFINITELY NEED AN ADDITIONAL PERSON.REALLY, IF THE TRUTH BE TOLD, WE NEED MORE THAN ONE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE WOULD TAKE THAT.
I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU ON A WEEKLY BASIS THE NUMBER OF FOIS THAT THE PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DISTRIBUTES OUT.
AND A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO ASK FOR EXTENSIONS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DOWNLOADING OF THE DOCUMENTS TAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ALL WHAT SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT IS WHEN YOU DON'T GET THE FOIS IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THE QUARTERMASTER, AS THE SHERIFF HAS COME TO THIS BOARD, A COUPLE OF TIMES AND EXPRESS DISPOSITION.
IT IS A POSITION THAT WE NEED BECAUSE WE HAVE 120, 730 OFFICERS THAT NEED EQUIPMENT ON A DAILY BASIS.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE TAKING OUR TRAINING STAFF SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUARTERMASTER.
AND WHEN A DEPUTY OR AN INDIVIDUAL COME IN TO REQUEST NEW EQUIPMENT, WHETHER THAT'S GUN, BELT, UNIFORMS, BADGES, ETC, OR WHATEVER THAT PARTICULAR DEPUTY THAT TAKES THAT TRAINING PERSONNEL OUT OF THEIR NORMAL ROLE TO ASSIST THAT INDIVIDUAL.
AND IT IS A POSITION THAT IS NEEDED VERY BADLY.
AND THE OTHER THREE POSITIONS, THESE ARE POSITIONS THAT COME FROM THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS RECOMMENDED.
>> YOU WERE REFERENCING THE DETECTIVE PHYSICIANS, CORRECT?
>> WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTY EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN?
>> THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I'D BE CIVILIANIZED.
JUST IF I MAY GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND, I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING THE LIAISON WITH THE CPSM IN ORDER TO GATHER ALL THE DATA THAT WE PROVIDED THEM TO DO THIS STUDY.
THE DATA THAT THEY REQUESTED, THEY REQUESTED IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
THEY WOULD SEND IT BACK TO US AND WE WOULD POINT OUT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT WE FOUND.
NOW, OF COURSE, YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT OUR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WAS NOT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
THIS BODY RECOMMENDED AND I BELIEVE THE FULL CORN COURT PASS THAT WE GOT THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE A NEW RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
OF COURSE, WE HAD TO USE THE ONE THAT WE HAVE TO GENERATE THIS DATA.
ONCE WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE STUDY, THERE WERE ITEMS DEFICIENCIES NOTED THAT THEY USED TO MAKE THEIR DETERMINATIONS, MEANING THE RULE OF 60.
THEIR INTERPRETATION WAS THAT WE HAVE 48 DEPUTIES IN THE PATROL DIVISION AT THE TIME OF THIS STUDY.
IF WE DID HAVE 48 DEPUTIES IN THE PATROL DIVISION, THEN WE WOULD HAVE MET THE RULE OF 60 FOR THE ENFORCEMENT BRANCH.
AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS 39.
NOW, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHERE WE HAD PEOPLE, WE HAD A BUNCH OF SERGEANTS THAT LEFT AND WENT TO OTHER AGENCIES.
STATE POLICE HAD THEIR ACADEMY, AND WE LOST SOME.
WE IMMEDIATELY FILLED THOSE POSITIONS, BUT BY THEN, THE STUDY HAD MOVED FORWARD AND THAT'S WHAT THEY BASED THEIR BASELINES ON.
THE OTHER RULE OF 60 IS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO PROACTIVE WORK.
THEY DETERMINED THAT WE ANSWER THE MAJORITY OF OUR TIME, WHICH IS ABOVE 60% IS SPENT ON COMMUNITY INITIATED ACTIVITY, MEANING JUST ANSWERING CALLS.
ANYBODY THAT KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT CRIME, YOU CANNOT BRING THE CRIME RATE DOWN, JUST ANSWERING CALLS.
IT'S ABOUT OFFICER PRESENCE AND THE ABILITY TO DETER CRIME.
THESE DEFICIENCIES CREATE THE ELEMENTS THAT THEY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON.
[00:45:04]
NOW, QUITE INCIDENTALLY, THE NUMBER THAT THEY CAME UP WITH WAS THE NUMBER THAT WE CAME UP WITH OUR ANALYSIS IN 2020.NOW, WE DID COME UP WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE WE TOOK OTHER FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT.
HAVING ENOUGH STAFFING FOR VACATIONS, STAFFING FOR TRAINING EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, WHEN YOU HAVE TO LET PEOPLE OFF TO DO OTHER THINGS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE.
WITH THAT, THEY STILL PRETTY MUCH CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.
NOW, IF YOU'VE READ THE STUDY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MADE WERE LEFT UP TO INTERPRETATION.
THERE WAS NO HARD LINES DRAWN ON THAT STUDY WHERE THEY SAID, WE RECOMMEND THIS MANY NEWLY BUDGETED POSITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PATROL DIVISION, RECOMMENDING EIGHT AND THEN FIVE WITH THE SROS WITH US PARTNERING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
THE R REST, THEY SAID, THIS IS WHAT THIS UNIT SHOULD BE OPERATING WITH.
NOW, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EVERYTHING WE FEEL OTHER THAN THE PATROL DIVISION COMES FROM THE PATROL DIVISION.
WHEN YOU GO TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, YOU START OUT AS A DEPUTY IN THE PATROL DIVISION.
WE DON'T HIRE IN DETECTIVES, WE DON'T HIRE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORS, WE DON'T HIRE IN JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
YOU GO TO THE PATROL DIVISION.
THAT'S HOW THE SHERIFF FILLS THE REST OF THE UNITS THAT WE HAVE.
IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT THOSE UNITS BE FILLED TO TAKE THE WEIGHT OFF OF THE PATROL DIVISION.
THIS AGENCY, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 16 YEARS AT ANY GIVEN TIME, IF THE PATROL DIVISION IS FULL OR OPERATING WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, EVERY OTHER DIVISION IS WORKING SHORT, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE AT LEAST 10 LESS IN INVESTIGATIONS THAN WE HAD, WHICH MEANS INSTEAD OF BEING ON CALL EVERY OTHER WEEKEND, 24 HOURS A DAY MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, YOU'RE ON CALL EVERY WEEK, THAT IS NO WAY TO LIVE A FAMILY LIFE OR DEAL WITH THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
UNFORTUNATELY, UNLIKE LITTLE ROCK, WE DON'T HAVE A UNION.
WE CAN'T GO OUT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME TO WORK, WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND WORK.
NOW, ONE OTHER THING THAT I WILL SAY, EVERY TIME WE'VE COME TO ASK FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OR THE STUDY HAS COME UP, WE PAY ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE AS TO WHY WE DON'T NEED ANYTHING OR WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
THE PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS JURISDICTION IN PULASKI COUNTY.
WE ARE NOT THE UNINCORPORATED POLICE.
WE PLACE OUR RESOURCES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA BECAUSE LITTLE ROCK DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.
NORTH LITTLE ROCK DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. WE DO.
WE ALSO HAVE JURISDICTION IN THOSE CITIES WHO ALSO HAVE CITY GOVERNMENTS.
NOW, I LOOK ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE QUORUM COURT AND IT SAYS THAT THE OR QUORUM COURT REPRESENTS 390,000 PEOPLE IN PULASKI COUNTY.
WELL, SO DOES THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
THOSE SAME CITIES THAT YOU REPRESENT IN PULASKI COUNTY HAVE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS ALSO.
JUST LIKE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
THEY CALL ON US TO FILL WHAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE, STATE POLICE, LITTLE ROCK, NORFOLK ROCK, SHERWOOD, MAMA, SPECIFICALLY JACKSONVILLE.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE OFFICERS OUT HERE WORKING IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT.
THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY IN A METROPOLITAN AREA THAT WE SERVE THAT A DEPUTY SHOULD BE ANSWERING A CALL BY HIMSELF 60% OF THE TIME.
NO STREET LIGHTS LIKE LITTLE ROCK.
WE DON'T HAVE FIVE UNITS IN A FIVE BLOCK AREA TO GO RESPOND TO CALLS.
WE ALSO DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOT TO RESPOND TO A CALL OR SEND IT TO ANOTHER AGENCY.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING JUST TO SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE.
NOW WE WOULD TAKE WHATEVER WE CAN POSSIBLY GET, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE IF THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. JUSTICE DOWAGER RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IN CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
ONE IS THE INCREASED REVENUE PROJECTION THAT THE COMPTROLLER DELIVERED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, AND THAT IS THE FINITE NUMBER OF 3.2 MILLION THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH DURING THE SPRING BUDGET HEARINGS.
[00:50:02]
THAT'S IT. I THINK THAT THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS YOU MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, CHIEF, THAT WE ALL AGREED TO LIVE BY THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY.WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TONIGHT ARE THE NEW POSITIONS AND THE UPGRADES THAT THE STUDY RECOMMENDED.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO LIVE BY THE STUDY, WHY DID WE PAY HOWEVER MUCH COUPLE $100,000, I BELIEVE IT WAS TO HAVE THE STUDY DONE.
I ENDORSE THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT.
I THINK AT A MINIMUM, I WOULD HOPE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WOULD SEE IT AS A GOOD FAITH START.
AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO DELVE OUT HERE AND THEN THE SECOND COMPONENT BEING THE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US ARE THOSE THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE STUDY.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THEY DO PASS RECOMMENDATION, THE UPGRADES, TITLE CHANGES AND NEW POSITIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US FOR BUDGET 400 SHERIFF ENFORCEMENT. SO I SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO MOVE DEPARTMENT 400 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT.
>> MS. MCMULLEN? MS. LEWISON? SIX AYES, ONE PRESENT.
>> THIS WILL GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
OH, I'M SORRY. WE'RE NOW GOING BACK TO RAISES. FORGIVE ME.
>> AND I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE START.
>> SO IN REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SUBMITTED, AFTER YOU HEAR THE NUMBERS AND SEE THEM IF YOU WANT, WE'RE HAPPY TO PUT THOSE TOTAL POSITIONS AND COSTING AND ALL THAT STUFF AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU WANT.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A NUMBERS, A MATH THING AT THAT POINT WITH THE MONEY, BUT IF THIS BODY WANTS TO HEAR AN ADDITIONAL 30 POSITIONS OR 28 POSITIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO GET THAT PUT TOGETHER FOR YOU ALL.
>> I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING FOR THAT, BUT THERE'S JUST NO WAY POSSIBLE AND WE CAN DO THAT.
>> IF PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE NUMBERS, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT OBTAINABLE.
>> SO ADDITIONALLY, AS WELL, IS THEY HAVE SOME POSITIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO MOVE LATERALLY, SOME DISPATCH POSITIONS INTO A CIVILIAN POSITIONS IN DETENTION.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON GETTING THOSE DESCRIPTIONS LINED UP.
IT SHOULD BE ALL LATERAL POSITIONS.
WHEN WE COME BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING, WE SHOULD HAVE THAT HOPEFULLY IN FRONT OF YOU ALL SO THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER BASICALLY MOVING HIS POSITIONS LATERALLY WITHIN FROM THE SHERIFF TO DETENTION.
SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE ANY COST.
>> JUSTICE STOWERS, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I THINK JUSTICE BLACKWOOD HAD A QUESTION.
>> YEAH, I'M GOING TO ASK SOMETHING ABOUT THE SALARIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.
>> HOLD THAT THOUGHT FOR JUST A MOMENT.
JUSTICE STOWERS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. SO HUTCH, QUESTION FOR YOU.
WITH THE ACTION THAT WE'VE TAKEN TONIGHT, WHAT WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION BE THEN AS FAR AS A RAISE IS CONCERNED? DID WE COME OUT WHERE WE THOUGHT WE WOULD WITH ABILITY TO DO A 1%?
>> AND THE THINGS THAT WE PASSED TONIGHT?
THE THINGS YOU PASSED TONIGHT WILL BE ABOUT $830,000 NEXT YEAR.
YOU STILL GOT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY VICTIM WITNESS, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT, WHICH IS ANOTHER 300 AND SOME ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT YOU CAN DO A 1% FOR THE EMPLOYEES, AND THEN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS DO THAT ADJUSTMENT FOR
[00:55:02]
THEM AND STILL HAVE SOME MONEY LEFT OVER TO ADDRESS THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.>> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S AWARE THAT FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIAL, THAT IS SET BY STATE LAW, WE SIMPLY FOLLOW WHAT THE STATE LAW, WHAT THE LEGISLATURE STATES THE SALARY FOR A COUNTY JUDGE OF A CLASS, WHAT ARE WE, JUSTIN, A CLASS 5 COUNTY?
>> CLASS 7. WHAT A JP IN CLASS 7 COUNTY.
SO WE SIMPLY FOLLOW STATE LAW TO THAT REGARD.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INCLUDE OUT OF OUR SPRING BUDGET HEARING, SEND TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT A 1% SALARY INCREASE FOR ELIGIBLE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CURRENT STATE LEVEL FOR ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARY AND COMPENSATION.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE GO FORWARD WITH A 1% FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND THE REQUESTED INCREASE SET BY STATE LAW.
WE'RE DOWN TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
JUST ONE SECOND. SO THIS 1%, WHEN DOES IT GO INTO EFFECT? WOULD IT GO INTO EFFECT?
>> YOU'LL PASS IT IN MAY, WE'LL PUT IT INTO EFFECT, I THINK IT'LL BE THE SECOND PAY PERIOD IN JUNE.
>> THIS JUST HURTS MY FEET, 1%.
>> THAT'S THE MONEY YOU'VE GOT.
SHOULD WE JUST HOLD THAT MONEY AND THEN IN THE FALL AND JUST TRY TO GIVE A BIGGER RAISE FOR NEXT YEAR? I DON'T KNOW.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE REVENUES ARE GOING TO BE FOR NEXT YEAR YEAR.
>> ALL I'M TELLING YOU IS I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE REVENUE IS YET ARE GOING TO BE FOR NEXT YEAR.
AND SO YOU'LL HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF YOU.
YOU STILL GOT SOME STUFF YOU NEED TO HEAR, SO
>> JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT OUR COUNTY WAS DOING WELL, AND NOW I FIND WE'RE NOT.
>> OH, NO, MA'AM, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG.
>> YOU HAD A CARRYOVER OF $28 MILLION.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE INCREASE IN PROJECTIONS WE GAVE YOU LAST YEAR, WE GAVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL AND FOUND ANOTHER 3.2 MILLION.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ANOTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE THAT'S CLOSE TO THAT.
YOU'RE 100% WRONG, AND I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS WRONG.
>> I DON'T MEAN IT DEFENSIVELY.
>> WHAT YOU SAID, THAT'S WRONG.
>> WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE CAN ONLY GIVE 1%.
YOU APPROVED ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS YOU COULD HAVE GAVE IT TO.
THE MONEY IS 3.2, WHATEVER YOU HAVE.
HOWEVER THEY DECIDE TO BREAK IT DOWN IS UP TO THEM.
>> SO BY GIVING THE RECLASSIFICATIONS?
>> YOU CUT INTO THAT 3.2 MILLION.
>> SO THAT CUT INTO THE 3.2 MILLION?
>> BUT THEN MY OTHER PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WE'VE GOT 263 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY THAT ARE MAKING UNDER 40,000.
THEY'RE MAKING LIKE $32, $31, $33000.
THAT'S A FOURTH OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES.
WE HAVE 1,156 EMPLOYEES IN THIS COUNTY THAT WE'RE PAYING.
SO THAT'S A FOURTH OF OUR COUNTY THAT'S MAKING.
>> WE HAVE 263 PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTY RIGHT NOW MAKING UNDER 40,000.
WE DO. I HAD THE FIGURES RUN FOR ME.
>> I'M ABOUT TO, BUT THAT'S SURPRISING.
>> I HAD ALL THE FIGURES RUN FOR ME.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT THAT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY.
IF YOU'VE GOT TWO KIDS AND YOU'RE A SINGLE MOM AND YOU'RE MAKING $35,000, THAT'S PRETTY TOUGH.
AND I KNOW A COUPLE OF WOMEN WORKING AT THE MAIN OFFICE DOWN HERE THAT ARE MAKING THAT.
AND I HEAR THEM WHEN I GO DOWN TO MARRY PEOPLE, WHAT THEY'RE MAKING.
SO I'M FEELING PRETTY BAD THAT WE DIDN'T
[01:00:04]
GIVE THEM ANYTHING LAST YEAR AND THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM BUT 1% THIS YEAR.AND THEN THE YEAR THAT WE WERE GOING TO GIVE THEM 10%, WE PULLED IT FROM THEM.
>> NO, THEY DID NOT. WHEN THE 10% CAME IN, JUSTIN, WOULD YOU GO OVER THAT WITH THEM ON THAT 10%?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN WE DID IT.
>> DID WE GIVE THAT 10%, WAS THAT ALL GIVEN TO THEM?
>> I DID MY PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING].
>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THAT YOU HAD TO QUALIFY FOR THE 10% AND THERE WAS NO ONE THAT QUALIFIED.
>> WELL, NO, I GAVE MY STAFF 10%.
IF THEY CAN'T QUALIFY FOR WHATEVER RAISE YOU'LL GIVE THEM, I DON'T EVEN THEM WORKING FOR ME.
MY STAFF, WHAT YOU DO IS ADJUST THE PAY SCALE.
IT'S UP TO THE ELECTED OFFICIAL.
>> I WILL RECHECK MY FIGURES THEN BECAUSE I CALLED ON THIS. I WILL RECHECK.
>> WELL I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THIS DOES.
WHEN Y'ALL MAKE A 2%, IT ADJUSTS THE PAY SCALE.
NOW, IF I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WAS JUST HIRED, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE GOT TO 10% THAT DAY.
>> IF THEY'RE WORKING DOWN HERE IN ONE OF MY OFFICES AND THEY'RE NOT WORTH THAT, THEN I DON'T NEED THEM WORKING THERE.
>> I AGREE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT I CALLED ABOUT, THAT WAS THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVING WHICH I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG.
JUST LIKE YOU YOU'VE GIVEN INFORMATION BEFORE.
>> YOU COULD HAVE HAD AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
WELL, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU CALL ME, I KNOW YOU'RE CONFUSED WHEN YOU GET YOUR NUMBERS, BUT IT'S UP TO THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL.
IT'S UP TO THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL AND THEY'RE SAYING, IS THIS PERSON DOING THAT JOB TO THAT LEVEL? NOW, MY PEOPLE, I THINK THEY'RE WORTH THAT. I PAY THEM THAT.
>> YOU'RE SAYING EACH ELECTED OFFICIAL IN IN THERE?
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT WE PASS HERE, ONCE IT GETS TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR ELECTED OFFICIAL, I GUESS ELECTED OFFICIAL, THEY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IF THAT PERSON IS QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE WHAT WE SUGGESTED OR WHAT WE VOTED ON. IS THAT CORRECT?
IF YOU HAVE A NEW HIRE, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY START THEM THE HIGHEST.
I KNOW THIS ALL GOES WITH THE JOHANSON STUDY, BUT THE JOHANSON STUDY IS SEVEN YEARS OLD, WHICH I THINK IS GETTING OUTDATED, MAYBE, POSSIBLY.
>> IT'S RAISED THE SALARIES BY OVER 30% SINCE YOU'VE TAKEN IT.
>> BUT I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE POOR PEOPLE.
MAYBE NO ONE ELSE THINKS LIKE ME, BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY AT THIS UPPER END AND THEN WE'VE GOT A LOT OF POOR PEOPLE DOWN AT THE LOWER END.
I CARE ABOUT THE POOR END. IT'S JUST ME.
>> ALL YOU HAVE TO DO AS A QUORUM COURT IS SAY, WE WANT THE BOTTOM POSITIONS RE-EVALUATED.
THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING IS.
>> SO WE HAVE TO RECLASSIFY ALL THE BOTTOM END?
>> YOU ASK TO HAVE IT RE-EVALUATED.
SO WHEN YOU GOT THE 10% WHEN THAT WAS SUGGESTED FROM JOHANSON, THAT WAS BECAUSE ALL OF THE POSITIONS HAD BEEN RE-EVALUATED.
BASICALLY, THEY LOOKED AT THE PAY SCALE, THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS, AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, HEY, YOU GUYS ARE OFF BY 10%.
>> SO THAT'S HOW THAT 10% COME ABOUT.
>> YOU HAVE THAT RE-EVALUATED.
SEVEN YEARS WHEN YOU IMPLEMENTED IT?
>> YEAH. SO WHEN DID THEY REEVALUATE IT?
THAT'S WHERE THE 10% CAME FROM.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE IDEA IS WE DON'T FALL BEHIND.
WHENEVER YOU ALL SAY REEVALUATE, WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT THE IDEA IS AND THE REASON THAT WE ADVOCATE FOR A RAISE WHEN WE DO IS SO YOU DON'T FALL BEHIND WHAT THE MARKET SAYS.
>> I'M JUST STILL LOOKING AT THESE PEOPLE.
I'M STILL LOOKING AT 265 PEOPLE, ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.
EVERYBODY ELSE GOT A 3.1% RAISE LAST YEAR.
I LOOKED AT THE US STANDARD, EVERYBODY GOT A 3.1% RAISE.
I KNOW WE DUG INTO THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, HUTCH.
I KNOW YOU GUYS PROBABLY GOT THAT AT YOUR WORKPLACE, EVERYBODY THAT WORKS AND HAS A JOB.
[OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T BECAUSE I WORKED FOR MYSELF.
I WORKED FOR MYSELF, SO I DON'T EVER GET A RAISE.
I NEVER GET A RAISE BECAUSE I WORK FOR B, OR 2% RAISE, BUT I WENT TO THE NATIONAL STANDARDS AND I LOOKED AT THE NATIONAL STANDARDS,
[01:05:03]
WHATEVER, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL STANDARDS.>> [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO TELL YOU BECAUSE HE CAME TO ME AND HE'S LIKE, HOW MUCH CAN WE DO? I SAID 2%. WELL, ARE YOU SURE? YES, SIR, I'M SURE.
BECAUSE HE LOOKS AT WHAT INFLATION IS VERSUS WHAT EVERYBODY'S MAKING.
>> INFLATION WAS 8.7 IN '22, AND IT'S 3.2 IN '23.
>> THIS YEAR'S NOT LOOKING A WHOLE LOT BETTER.
>> I'M JUST ADVOCATING FOR THE POOR PEOPLE IS ALL I'M DOING.
[LAUGHTER] I KNOW NOBODY ELSE CARES, BUT I DO.
>> I RESENT THAT BECAUSE I DO CARE.
I THINK THIS IS REAL TRICKY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS AND HOLDING THEIR PEOPLE BACK AND WE CAN'T MICROMANAGE, I DON'T THINK.
IF WE COULD GO IN AND SAY, HEY, GIVE THAT PERSON A RAISE, YOU'RE FIRED, YOU'RE UNELECTED, IT WOULD BE GREAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING WE COULD DO.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU AND MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO RECONSIDER, LOOKING AT THE LOWER END TO SEE.
>> FOR THE RECORD, THE COUNTY JUDGE EXPECTS HIS DEPARTMENT HEADS TO MOVE THEIR PEOPLE UP AS HIGH AS THEY CAN IF THEY ARE MEETING THE STEPS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET, THE CERTIFICATIONS THEY HAVE AND DOING THE JOB THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
HE RECOMMENDS THAT TO ALL OF HIS DEPARTMENT HEADS.
I THINK SINCE THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, THEY DESERVE IT ANYWAY.
>> BUT IF THEY HAVE TO COME WITH A ZERO BUDGET, IF THEY HAVE TO COME TO BUDGET WITH NO INCREASES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE USUALLY ASK.
>> YOU ALL HAVE INCREASES ALMOST EVERY YEAR.
WE ASK PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR EXPENSES BEST THEY CAN.
WE DO NOT ALLOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS BUILD RAISES IN BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER GET IT UNDER CONTROL, BUT WE ASK THEM TO KEEP THEIR EXPENSES AS TIGHT AS THEY CAN, AND THEN IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE AN INCREASED REVENUE.
THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE THING WORKS TO WHERE YOU CAN GIVE SOME RAISE.
THERE'S ABOUT 10 OF THEM THAT MOVE AROUND.
>> WELL, WE HAVE A LOT OF LIGHTS ON.
JUSTICE GREEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU.
>> JULIE, I WANTED TO SAY I HAD THE SAME CONCERN YOU DID.
THAT WAS MY REASON FOR QUESTIONING NEW HIRES AND UPGRADES AS OPPOSED TO GIVING THE EMPLOYEES THAT 2% RAISE.
>> I AGREE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS, BUT AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY OPTION IS TAKE BACK ALL THE UPGRADES WE JUST PASSED, AND YOU CAN STILL DO THAT AT THE FULL QUORUM COURT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR DEAR FRIEND AT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO LIKE THAT.
I WANTED TO ASK, NOW THAT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHICH WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO REALLY BE A PART UNTIL IT COMES TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BUDGET PROCESS.
DO WE NOT GIVE A COST OF LIVING? THIS A COST OF A COST OF LIVING.
>> WELL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
THE THING OF POSTPONING THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THE 1%, WHY COULDN'T CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN IN THE FALL, BUT TO DELAY EVEN THE 1%, WOULDN'T YOU ALL WANT TO GET THE 1% NOW AND NOT BE DELAYED UNTIL THE FALL? THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL HOWEVER MANY MONTHS THAT PEOPLE WOULDN'T EVEN GET THE 1%, IN MY OPINION.
I WANTED CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO THAT.
JUSTICE LEWISON YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I'M SORRY, JUSTICE. SHE STILL WANTS TO SPEAK.
I'M SORRY. JUSTICE MCMULLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO TAKE MY PLACE.
I JUST WANT [INAUDIBLE] I'M RIGHT TO HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE I WAS THINKING ON
[01:10:02]
THE SAME LEVEL [INAUDIBLE] AS OPPOSED TO GOING AHEAD WITH WHAT WE HAVE.>> I HAVE HER ON. SHE NEEDS TO TALK INTO THE MIC.
I'M TALKING INTO THE MIC. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I HAVE HER ON JUSTICE CURRY'S MIC.
>> THAT'S BETTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE'S A LITTLE SIDE BUTTON DOWN HERE THAT TENDS TO WORK.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, AND THEN I WOULD SAY TO REVISIT THAT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER WHEN IT IS TIME FOR US TO LOOK AT THIS BUDGET AGAIN AND WHAT THE MARKET IS DOING, AND IF WE CAN ADD TO THAT, WE WOULD.
WELL, WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHERE.
WE ALWAYS DO THE BUDGET ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THEN WE COME BACK IN THE SPRING.
I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD AGAIN REVISIT IT, LOOK AT IT, AND SEE HOW THE MARKET IS AT THAT TIME, BUT NOT WITHHOLD ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. ARE YOU DONE?
>> THANK YOU. JUSTICE LEWISON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> HUTCH, DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE USED TO GIVE OUT BONUSES? CAN WE JUST GIVE EVERYBODY A BONUS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IT BONUS.
YOU'RE GOING TO CALL IT A ONE-TIME PAY INCREASE.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, ILLEGAL.
>> WELL, WE USED TO SAY THEY HAD A BONUS.
I USED TO SAY, DON'T CALL IT THAT, THAT'S ILLEGAL.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN [OVERLAPPING] RUN THE NUMBER ON?
>> BUT IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE ISSUE MS. BLACKWOOD HAS, IT DOES NOT MOVE YOUR PAY SCALE.
>> CORRECT. IF IT'S POSSIBLE AND SENSIBLE, IF WE COULD JUST GIVE A ONE-TIME INCREASE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, AS OPPOSED TO A 1%, I DON'T KNOW.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD?
>> I CAN RUN YOU THE NUMBERS ON IT, BUT YOU GOT TO DECIDE HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO DO, HOW MUCH OF 1% COST AND DIVIDE IT BY HOW MANY EMPLOYEES YOU GOT.
DO YOU WANT TO DO THE EMPLOYEES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT, YOU HAVEN'T DECIDED ON YET? BECAUSE THAT'S A MOVING NUMBER.
>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TABLE UNTIL OUR NEXT BUDGET MEETING, AND YOU CAN HAVE THIS INFORMATION FOR US?
>> IF YOU'LL GIVE ME SOME PARAMETERS.
>> ARE YOU TABLING THE 1% OR ARE YOU TABLING THE IDEA OF A BONUS OR PREMIUM PAY?
>> NO. WE'RE NOT TABLING THE PREMIUM.
I'M JUST SAYING POSSIBLY TABLING THE 1% FROM NOW UNTIL NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN HEAR POSSIBLY WHAT A PREMIUM PAYOUT WOULD BE?
>> TELL ME WHO YOU WANT ME TO INCLUDE ON IT FROM WHAT DATE.
GIVE ME A DATE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE NEW. DO YOU WANT THEM TO BE INCLUDED?
>> THE ONES WHO'S HERE SINCE JANUARY 1? PICK ME A DATE.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO MENTION REAL QUICK?
>> WELL, IF WE ARE FOCUSING ON THOSE THAT SEEM TO BE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SCALE.
>> WE'RE NOT FOCUSING ON THAT.
>> JUSTICE [INAUDIBLE], YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. IF I'M A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, AND I THINK AROUND 1% IS STILL WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE'VE GOT A POT OF CASH HERE, 1%, WE CAN EITHER GIVE THE EMPLOYEES A RAISE WHICH THEN WOULD PERPETUATE AND COMPOUND IN FUTURE YEARS, OR WE CAN GIVE THEM THAT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY JUST IN A ONE-TIME PAYMENT, AND IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BE GOING FORWARD A PART OF THEIR SALARY.
IF I'M A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, I'D RATHER GET A 1% RAISE THAN A 1% ONE-TIME PAYOUT THAT DOESN'T INCREASE MY SALARY ON A PERPETUAL BASIS.
[01:15:06]
I DO WANT TO ASK HUTCH OR JUSTIN A QUESTION.OVER THE LAST, LET'S SAY, THREE YEARS, AND YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, BUT IF YOU HAVE A NUMBER THAT YOU CAN GIVE US, WHAT HAVE BEEN OUR TOTAL PERCENTS OF INCREASE? I KNOW WE DID THE 10, I KNOW WE'VE DONE FOUR.
>> I KNOW I WANT TO SAY SINCE THE '21, PROBABLY 15% HAS BEEN THE SALARY INCREASE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?
>> 15%. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE.
>> THEN THEY DID DO THE PREMIUM PAYS WITH ARPA, BUT BEAR IN MIND, WHILE THAT IS AWESOME, YOU STILL PAY A LOT OF TAXES ON THAT.
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THE GREATEST IDEA, BUT IT WAS JUST AN IDEA.
BACK IN THE DAY WE USED TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME AND EMPLOYEES LOVED IT.
TO THEIR DETRIMENT, MAYBE, NOT REALIZING THAT GETTING A RAISE WOULD BE BETTER, BUT THEY LOVED GETTING THAT BONUS.
JUSTICE ROBINSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU. SO 1%, IS THAT ROUGHLY 1.4 MILLION IF YOU TAKE THE 2.8?
>> ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN DOLLARS.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND, THAT'S THE HIGH END AMOUNT.
IF NOT EVERYBODY GETS THE RAISE, IF IT'S UP TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, THEN THAT ENTIRE.
>> BUT IT MAY NOT BE USED. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A BUDGET.
>> MAY NOT BE USED TOO ALSO, NOT BECAUSE, SAY I GET THE RAISE, BUT THEN I SAY I GOT A BETTER JOB AND I QUIT OR I'M JUST TIRED OF IT AND I QUIT AND THEN THE MONEY IS NOT SPENT.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES ON THIS.
>> I WILL SAY I THINK THE SALARY INCREASES IN THE LONGEVITY IS MUCH BETTER THAN JUST A ONE TIME.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE MAKING, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, WHAT DID YOU SAY, $23,000?
>> THEY'RE MAKING UNDER, FROM 30-40. SO THEY'RE MAKING [OVERLAPPING]
LET'S SAY, YOU'RE GETTING A $300 BONUS.
BY THE TIME YOU TAKE OUT TAXES, YOU'RE GETTING 250?
WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM A 1% BONUS.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THAT 1.4?
>> BECAUSE HOW I UNDERSTAND IS YOU TAKE THAT 1.14 AND DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.
>> THEY WOULD GET SOMEWHERE AROUND [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUSTICE MCMULLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I'M JUST THINKING THAT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE LOSING FOCUS BECAUSE THE POINT THAT MS. BLACKWOOD MADE WAS THAT THERE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MAKING $35,000, AND THAT IS WHERE THE CONCERN IS.
BUT YET WE ARE FOCUSING MORE OR LESS ON AN OVERALL RAISE.
WHEREAS, IT APPEARS TO ME, YES, EITHER WE WILL DO AN OVERALL RAISE, BUT MAYBE AT THE VERY SAME TIME, WE MAY NEED TO REEVALUATE THAT BOTTOM SCALE AND SEE IF SOME ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE TO THAT.
NOW, I SEE HER SHAKING HER HEAD.
YES. I THINK I SAW YOU JUST SHAKING YOUR HEAD.
>> NO. I DON'T DISAGREE, MS. MCMULLEN, BUT IF YOU DON'T RAISE THAT BOTTOM SALARY BY 1%, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE $35,000 NEXT YEAR. REDUCE FURTHER BEHIND.
>> YES. THEREFORE, WHAT I WOULD SAY, AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE ONE OF YOU OR PERHAPS BOTH OF YOU MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE PROBABLY ISSUE AN ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF DOING THAT IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER DOING THAT.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THAT? THAT IS WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING, HOW CAN WE MOVE FORWARD?
>> YES, JOHANSON TO REEVALUATE YOUR SCALE.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN?
[01:20:02]
>> YOU JUST DID IT TWO YEARS AGO.
>> YOU JUST DID IT TWO YEARS AGO.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD DO THAT? CAN WE NOT?
>> WELL, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT PROPORTIONAL, BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT YOU RUN INTO.
>> BUT CAN WE NOT JUST MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON THOSE?
>> YOU CAN, BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
I'VE GOT SOMEBODY HERE THAT'S TO KEEP THIS SIMPLE A LEVEL 1 AND THEY MAKE $35,000 A YEAR.
THIS GUY OVER HERE IS A LEVEL 2 FOR SOME REASON BECAUSE HE HAS A LITTLE MORE EDUCATION OR HE HAS SOME KIND OF CERTIFICATION OR HE HAS A SPECIFIC SKILL.
YOU WANT TO TAKE A PERSON WHO MAKES 35 AND MOVE THEM OVER TO THE 40.
WHAT DO YOU TELL THIS GUY RIGHT HERE?
>> THAT DOES POSE THOSE TYPES OF PROBLEMS.
>> WELL, WHAT YOU RUN INTO IS WHAT THEY RAN INTO BEFORE ON THE OLD SCALE CALLED COMPRESSION.
THAT'S WHERE YOU MASH EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE DIFFERENTATIONS, AND THEN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION, WELL, WHY DO I WANT THAT JOB IF IT HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I GET PAID THE SAME AS THE PERSON THAT DOESN'T?
>> WELL, I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE YES, IT DOES DO THAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT CAUSES A PROBLEM TOO.
YOU THEN, AT THE SAME TIME, HAVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PAYING BEGINNING TEACHERS THE SAME AS THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING THERE FOR 15 YEARS, AND THAT HAS RAISED AN ISSUE.
IT RAISES ISSUES. BASICALLY, YOU'RE SAYING WE NEED TO STAY IN PROPORTION AND LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SCALE ONCE AGAIN.
>> WELL, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I ADDRESSED THE IS SUE YOU GOT.
>> OR THAT WE JUST GOT TO DOING A JOHANSON STUDY, WE FIND OURSELVES SAME.
>> TWO YEARS AGO. WE TRY TO DO THEM EVERY 3-5, SO YOU KEEP UP WITH INFLATION AND THE ECONOMY AND THE MARKET, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE JOBS ARE BASICALLY ON, HOW THE MARKET DOES.
>> IT MAKES SENSE. YES. TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, SINCE WE DID IT TWO YEARS AGO, WE'RE COMING UP ON ANOTHER YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE THREE YEARS.
WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT DOING THAT AGAIN THEN?
>> THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL AS A BODY TO TALK ABOUT.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO DO THAT?
>> YOU NEED TO TELL ME DO SOMETHING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I COULD WRITE HIM A LETTER.
>> BY COURIER, AND I'LL MAKE SURE IT GETS THERE.
>> WE STILL HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IF THERE BE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE MOTION OF THE 1% PAY INCREASE.
>> IT'S A 1% AND THEN THE SALARY ADJUSTMENT.
>> AND A SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
>> THIS WILL GO FORWARD TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? [OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?
[Announcements]
>> YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED JUSTICE STOWERS.
>> QUESTION FOR YOU AND JUSTIN.
WHEN MIGHT OUR FOLLOW UP BUDGET MEETING BE?
>> ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE OUT OF TOWN?
>> I'M AT A MEETING OUT OF TOWN NEXT THURSDAY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO HAVE THAT THING ON THURSDAY [INAUDIBLE]
>> HONESTLY, FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING EVERYTHING AT LEAST COMPLETED BEFORE THE END OF MAY, SO YOU CAN GET TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT BY THE END OF THE MONTH, MAYBE THE 16TH OF THURSDAY, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT'LL GIVE TIME TOO FOR HR TO COMPLETE SOME OF THEIR LINGERING [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN WE JUST REVISIT AND FINALIZE THAT DATE LATER AND NOT RIGHT NOW?
>> THAT'S FINE. IF YOU JUST WANT TO ADJOURN, THEN I'LL SEND OUT ON AN EMAIL AND PULL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT BEFORE THE MAY QUORUM COURT MEETING, SO WE CAN GET THAT FINALIZED AND PUT BEFORE THE QUORUM COURT IN MAY.
>> YES. WE WILL DO THAT. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> LATER. [LAUGHTER] NEXT MONTH.
[BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.