[00:00:03] GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. WELCOME TO OUR SPRING BUDGET HEARING FOR 2026. [1. CALL TO ORDER] WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT UNDERWAY IF WE CAN GET THE ROLL CALL JUSTIN, PLEASE. OH, I'M SO SORRY I HAD YOU ON AND TURNED IT OFF. SORRY. OKAY. MS. DAVIS. MS. CAPPS. HERE MR. KEITH. HERE MR. ROBINSON. IS PRESENT OKAY. SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT. [3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] SO MOVED SECOND. THOSE ARE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING OUR MINUTES. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE MOVING ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. IS THERE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS? THERE BE NONE. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM OUR COMPTROLLER, MIKE HUTCHENS. [5. NEW BUSINESS] WELL BEEN A LOT GOING ON IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS. MS. BUCKNER RELEASED SOMETHING. WE HAD THE SPECIAL MEETING, AND I RELEASED THE REBUTTAL, AND I THINK SHE HAS RELEASED SOMETHING, A REBUTTAL TO MY REBUTTAL, WHICH I'VE NOT HAD TIME TO REALLY READ THROUGH. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THAT REGARD. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE RFQ IS OUT FOR THE AUDIT. IT'S DUE BACK MAY 12TH. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME INTERESTED PARTIES BECAUSE I HAD SOME PHONE CALLS AND I SAID, I CAN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH THE PORTAL. I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ONE ON ONE ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE. SO WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT RESPONSE TO YOU. WHAT I HAD TO TALK TO Y'ALL ABOUT TONIGHT BEFORE ALL THIS OTHER WAS SENATE BILL 647. AND Y'ALL WOULD ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SPOUSAL COVERAGE. AND SO I HAD INFORMATION ON THAT, BUT I'LL TAKE WHATEVER KIND OF QUESTIONS Y'ALL WANT TO ASK. WELL, I, I THINK AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT. THEY HAD THEIR HANDS UP. I'M NOT SURE WHO WAS FIRST. I'M SORRY I WASN'T LOOKING JUSTICE MCCOY. YOU'RE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. HEY, HUTCHENS. MR. HUTCHENS. WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THAT FORMAL AUDIT TO BE COMPLETED? DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA? NO, I HAVEN'T EVEN GOT THE PROPOSALS BACK FROM THE COMPANIES YET, SO WE WON'T HAVE THOSE BACK TO THE 12TH AND HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT THEY WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU MA'AM. SO HUTCH TO KIND OF LEVEL SET TO START THE MEETING. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, AT LEAST FOR ME AND MY COLLEAGUES, TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTARY ON SENATE BILL 647, AS WELL AS SJR15 ON THOSE TWO ISSUES. AND THEN FOR YOU TO SPEAK TO THE SPOUSAL COVERAGE. OKAY. SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COVERING ON THOSE THINGS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF OUR MEETING. ALL RIGHT, ONE MORE, ONE MORE THING BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR. AND I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE THIS AT THE FULL QUORUM COURT. BUT JUSTICE PERSON HAD ASKED ABOUT GIVING THE QUORUM COURT A PORTAL TO GET INTO WHERE YOU CAN SEE BUDGET REPORTS, EXPENDITURE REPORTS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. WE'VE WORKED WITH IT. I'VE GIVEN THEM Y'ALL'S EMAILS AND YOUR FULL NAMES. YOU'LL BE GETTING A LINK. I'LL EXPLAIN THIS AT QUORUM COURT. YOU'LL BE GETTING A LINK THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO EITHER TAP INTO THAT LINK AND GO THAT WAY, OR YOU CAN CALL THE HELP DESK. THEY'LL WALK YOU THROUGH SETTING UP YOUR ACCOUNT. THEN WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE EXCUSE ME CLASSROOM TIME TO NAVIGATE THAT SOFTWARE. IT'S NOT HARD FINDING A REPORT YOU WANT, BUT PLUGGING IN INFORMATION TO GET THE ANSWER YOU WANT CAN BE IF YOU DON'T USE IT EVERY DAY, CUMBERSOME. AND EVEN WHEN YOU USE IT EVERY DAY, IT CAN BE CUMBERSOME. SO WE'LL HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU AT THE FULL QUORUM COURT. [00:05:03] AND THE ONLY OTHER THING WITH THAT IS ONCE YOU SET THAT ACCOUNT UP, IF YOU DON'T LOG BACK INTO IT WITHIN 30 DAYS, IT KILLS THAT ACCOUNT. YOU'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND SET IT BACK UP AGAIN. BUT ANYWAY. ONE OF THE CONCERNS, AND I BELIEVE THE TREASURER'S OFFICE SHARES MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS SJR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 15, SENATE BILL 647, WHICH SPECIFICALLY IT'S A IT'LL BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND IT SETS UP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND THEY CAN ELECT THEIR OWN BOARDS AND BASICALLY LEVY THEIR OWN TAXES. NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS IF I SAID MR. STOWERS, HOW MUCH TAX DO YOU WANT TO PAY THIS YEAR? I MEAN, I DOUBT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD YOURSELF VERY, VERY HIGH. ARE YOU? I MEAN, I WOULDN'T. YEAH, ZERO. IF YOU LOOK THE INFORMATION I SENT AND ALSO HE'LL PROBABLY SEND IT TO YOU. BENTLEY HOVIS FROM THE TREASURER'S OFFICE. DID A LITTLE SYNOPSIS ON THE THING, BUT DFNA DID A FISCAL IMPACT ON THIS AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. SJR 15 PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. OKAY. PART OF THAT AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION EXEMPTS ALL PROPERTY WITHIN AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FROM PROPERTY TAX UNLESS THAT TAX CHARGE OR FEE IS LEVIED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BY READING THROUGH THIS, THEY FORM THEIR SELF. SO WE COULD FORM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. WE OWN THE PROPERTY. SO WE'RE THE BOARD. AND WE SIT DOWN AND SAY, WELL HOW MUCH TAX DO YOU WANT TO CHARGE OURSELVES? YOU FLIP OVER TO SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS ON THIS THING. NUMBER ONE, LOCAL TAX ENTITIES WOULD SEE A DECREASE IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS. TAXPAYER IMPACT. AND OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSESS THEIR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY COUNTY WIDE REAPPRAISALS. NOW, THIS THING THE AD I'M GOING TO RUN IS, PASS THIS AMENDMENT YOU'LL HAVE LOWER TAXES, RIGHT? I MEAN THAT WHAT YOU WOULD SAY. AND IF I'M JUST SITTING AT HOME, NOT REALLY KNOWING THE FULL STORY. WELL, HELL, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I'LL VOTE FOR THAT. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN, I THINK, OR IT'S A BIG CONCERN I THINK. ANOTHER THING IS THE COUNTY ASSESSORS WOULD NOT LIST OR VALUE PROPERTY, PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT. SO THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE ON THE BOOKS. SO THE COLLECTOR WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO COLLECT ON BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE ASSESSED. THE IMPACT STATEMENT, THE FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FROM THE DFNA DOES OFFER SOME WHAT THEY THINK WOULD BE GOOD AMENDMENTS TO IT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S GOING TO END UP YET, BUT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE. COUNTIES AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THEY LIVE OFF OF THIS. SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. JUSTICE STOWERS HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. YES. THANK YOU MA'AM. THANK YOU, MR. HUTCHENS, FOR THAT THOROUGH EXPLANATION. A BETTER EXPLANATION THAN I'VE HEARD FROM ANYBODY ON SENATE BILL 647. WHICH GIVES ME EVEN MORE PAUSE, GIVEN THE CONFUSION THAT'S THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH OVER THE LAST 3 OR 4 WEEKS. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE SENT TO THE PEOPLE TO VOTE ON IN NOVEMBER, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THOSE FOUR ARE GOING TO HAVE A MUCH STRONGER LOBBY THAN THOSE AGAINST, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PAINT THE PICTURE TO EXACTLY TO THE PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU SAID, MR. HUTCHENS, THEY'RE GOING TO PAINT THE PICTURE THAT THIS IS A WAY TO DECREASE YOUR TAXES. [00:10:03] NOW, I'M ALL FOR LOWERING TAXES, BUT I'M ALSO ALL FOR GOOD SCHOOLS, FOR GOOD COUNTY ROADS, FOR GOOD COUNTY BRIDGES. AND YOU GO ON DOWN THE LINE. SO I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME REQUESTS BEFORE US THIS EVENING. THE COUNTY JUDGE CURRENTLY STILL HAS ON A HIRING FREEZE AND HAS PUT OUT THE RFP FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OR AUDIT OF OUR FINANCES. SO GIVEN THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE SHARED, I JUST WANT TO END IT WITH THIS. I ALREADY CAME IN HERE TONIGHT CAUTIOUS TO OBLIGATE OURSELVES TO ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES. I HAVE NOW BECOME EVEN MORE CAUTIOUS TO THAT REGARD, AND I YIELD. THANK YOU JUSTICE STOWERS. MR. HUTCHENS YOU CAN CONTINUE. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER? Y'ALL WANT TO GO TO SPOUSAL? WHAT WE LEARNED? YES. OKAY. SO TO START WITH, WE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO ALL COUNTY EMPLOYEES. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION. IF PULASKI COUNTY OFFERED HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SPOUSES, WOULD YOU ENROLL YOUR SPOUSE? OKAY, WE HAVE 1,100 AND I THINK CURRENTLY 1,152 OR 2 OR 3. 1,150 EMPLOYEES. WE HAD 251 TOTAL RESPONSES. AND OF THE 251 RESPONSES, 202 WERE YES, WE WOULD. WE WOULD WANT TO BRING OUR SPOUSE HOME SO WHAT I HAD AMY PASS OUT TO YOU AND I APOLOGIZE. IT'S BEEN KIND OF BUSY. SHOULD HAVE GOT THIS TO YOU EARLIER, BUT IT'S NOT ANYTHING YOU'D BE ABLE TO MAKE A PLAN, A DECISION ON THE NIGHT, ANYWAY IS A IT'S CALLED AN EXECUTIVE BRIEF. IT BREAKS DOWN WHAT THE HISTORY OF YOUR SPOUSAL COVERAGE WAS WHAT THE POSSIBLE OR WHAT THE PAST COST WAS AND HOW THAT BROKE DOWN AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL COST COULD BE TO THE COUNTY. AND THIS IS FROM OUR INSURANCE COMPANY. I MEAN, AND ALL OF THESE ARE IFS. I THINK JUSTICE STOWERS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT HE WORKS IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, I BELIEVE. THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES HERE. OF THE. OF, OF WHAT MCGRIFF PUT TOGETHER FOR US. WHO'S OUR INSURANCE BROKERS THAT, WHO BY LAW, WE HAVE TO HAVE A, IF WE'RE SELF-INSURED IN ARKANSAS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BROKER. AND SO THEY SPEAK THE INSURANCE LANGUAGE. RIGHT? MR. STOWERS CAN ATTEST TO THAT. SO. THEY CAME UP WITH A WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE 437 ELIGIBLE SPOUSES. AND THAT'S BASED ON PULASKI COUNTY'S GROUP LIFE AND VARIOUS VOLUNTARY LIFE CENSUS INFORMATION. THEY WENT AND LOOKED AT OUR OTHER POLICIES AND SAID, OKAY, YOU HAVE ABOUT 437 SPOUSES THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. IF 25% OF THOSE SPOUSES THAT WERE ELIGIBLE OPTED IN. YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE THIRD PAGE, THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING THIS INFORMATION FROM. YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $1.2 MILLION INCREASE, AND THEN IT GOES UP FROM THERE DEPENDING ON THE PERCENTAGE. SO THIS IS A LOT TO DIGEST. IT GOES BACK TO YOU KNOW, IT WAS A TOUGH DECISION WHEN I BROUGHT THE PROPOSITION TO REMOVE SPOUSAL INSURANCE. WE HAD AT THAT TIME. 18 OR 19 SPOUSES THAT WERE IN THERE AND THAT WAS $1 MILLION A YEAR. I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THIS. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A BAD IDEA TO DO THIS. I'M SAYING THESE ARE THE NUMBERS YOU NEED TO CONSIDER IF YOU WANT TO DO IT. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU NOT WHEN YOU'RE SLEEPY, HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE AND READ THROUGH THIS BECAUSE. IT'S HOT [00:15:09] YEAH. IT'S NOT EXCITING READING, BUT A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE IN. WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MS. MASSEY. SO IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT FROM YOUR REPORTING HERE HUTCH. 20% OF THE EMPLOYEES SAID THAT THEY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN ADDING THEIR SPOUSE TO THEIR POLICY. 80% SAID THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD INTEREST THEM. MY QUESTION IS THIS IS THAT 80%? IS THAT IS THAT RIGHT OR WRONG? WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TOTAL EMPLOYEES, CORRECT? YEAH, YEAH. YEAH. OUT OF TOTAL EMPLOYEES RIGHT HERE, IT SAYS YES 80% SHOWING THE MOST RECENT IF PULASKI COUNTY OFFERED HEALTH INSURANCE SPOUSES. OKAY, I GUESS SO. WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT IF WE WERE TO ADD SPOUSAL COVERAGE OR AN OPTION FOR SPOUSAL COVERAGE, WOULD THOSE WHO ARE SINGLE OR SINGLE WITH CHILDREN PLAN WOULD THEY BE SUBSIDIZING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THOSE WHO WANTED TO ADD THEIR SPOUSE TO THEIR POLICY? WELL. I'M GUESSING, AND IT'S PURELY A GUESS BECAUSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT GOING TO COMMIT TO ANYTHING. YOU KNOW THIS UNTIL YOU SAY, YES, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. NO WE'RE NOT. THEY GAVE US PROJECTED AND ROUGH NUMBERS. I'VE NOT DONE ANYTHING WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY YET WHERE WE ADDED SOMETHING THAT IT WAS CHEAPER. I MEAN, YOU KNOW THAT AS WELL AS I DO. IT'S GOING TO COME SOMEWHERE. YES. THAT'S WHAT I'D WANT TO WORK TOWARDS. YEAH OKAY AGAIN, TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER IN A FALL BUDGET HEARING AS A OVERALL. YEAH. WE YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE CHANGE RIGHT NOW ANYWAY IN THE YEAH. AND 80% OF THAT 21% THAT RESPONDED SAID YES, THEY'D LIKE TO DO IT. OKAY, SO AS AS LONG AS THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE ON THEIR POLICY WERE NOT SUBSIDIZING THOSE WHO DO HAVE A SPOUSE ON THEIR POLICY. IN OTHER WORDS. SO WE'D HAVE, WE'D HAVE, WE'D HAVE THREE WE'D HAVE THREE POLICIES, BASICALLY ONE THAT'S EMPLOYEE ONLY, ONE WHO'S EMPLOYEE PLUS CHILDREN AND ONE WHO COULD BE EMPLOYEE PLUS CHILDREN PLUS SPOUSE OR JUST EMPLOYEE PLUS SPOUSE. MY POINT BEING, AND IS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE WHO ARE SINGLE LIKE MYSELF, THOSE WHO ARE SINGLE AND CARRY THEIR CHILDREN, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE THOSE WHO WANT TO ADD THEIR SPOUSE TO THEIR POLICY. NOW IT I'M FINE WITH THEM IF WE WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. BUT THE FULL BRUNT OF THE. THEY SHOULD GET THE. THE BENEFIT OF THE GROUP PRICE, THE GROUP PRICING. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE AND DON'T WISH TO ADD THEIR SPOUSE TO THEIR POLICY SHOULD HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THOSE WHO ARE NOT. WELL BETWEEN NOW AND BUDGET TIME. WHAT WE CAN ASK MCGRIFF TO DO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND THAT TIME IS WHEN WE WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY ANYWAY ON NEXT YEAR'S RATES. SO THERE COULD BE AN IMPACT THERE. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO SAY WE OUGHT TO REBID IT. IF YOU REBID IT THEY DO KIND OF A SOFT REBID WHERE THEY LOOK AT THE MARKET, YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND THEY GO, OKAY. WE USED TO BE. PULASKI COUNTY USED TO BE IS WHAT CONSIDERED WAS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE. IT WAS THE SAME AS FOOTBALL EXCEPT TAKE KENTUCKY OUT. I MEAN, IT REALLY WAS WELL BEFORE WE TOOK IN MISSOURI AND OKLAHOMA AND ALL IN TEXAS, BUT SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE WAS RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THERE. AND THEY TOOK COMPARABLE ENTITIES, SAME NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. SAME SIDE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY MATCH IT UP AND THEY SAY, OKAY, WHAT'S THAT COST? [00:20:07] AND WHAT'S THAT TRENDING TOWARDS? AND THEN THEY LOOK AT THE, THE CLAIMS WE HAVE FOR THE YEAR AND COME BACK WITH A NUMBER AND SAY, OH, YOU NEED TO PAY THIS. AND THEN WE GO, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO PAY THAT. AND THEN YOU START TO BACK AND FORTH. WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND BUDGET IS TELL MCGRIFF THAT WE WANT HARDER NUMBERS. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO UNITEDHEALTH AND SAY, WE WANT HARDER NUMBERS ON. WHAT THE SPOUSAL COSTS WOULD BE. AND BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE MORE DATA THAN FOR THE YEAR ON THE EMPLOYEE PART TO SEE IF THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE. AND GOING BACK TO THE REBID THING I CAN JUST GUARANTEE YOU IF YOU GO OUT AND REBID IT, EVEN THE COMPANY WE HAVE NOW IS GOING TO COME BACK HIGHER BECAUSE YOU LOSE THE HISTORY THAT YOU HAVE WITH THAT COMPANY. DO YOU. DO YOU AGREE? I MEAN, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT FIELD SO. THAT'S GOING TO END UP COSTING YOU. NOW, IF UNITEDHEALTH CAME BACK WITH A NUMBER THAT WE ABSOLUTELY COULDN'T LIVE WITH, AND THAT PUTS, THAT PUTS REBID BACK OUT ON THE TABLE. AND YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A COMPANY THAT MIGHT COME IN AND SAY, YES, WE CAN DO IT FOR LESS THAT FIRST YEAR. THAT'S TRUE THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS. WE HAVE ANOTHER. THANK YOU OKAY. THANK YOU JUSTICE STOWERS. JUSTICE MEDLOCK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR A COUPLE OF THINGS UP. BACK TO WHAT JUSTICE STOWERS SAID AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE THERE'S 1,150 POLLS THAT WERE SENT OUT AND ONLY 293 RESPONDED. WHY? 251 RESPONDED. 251. 251 RESPONDED. AND THEN TWO. AND ALL OF THOSE WERE YESES. WELL NO. 202 SAID YES. SO ONLY 202 OUT OF 1,150 ARE INTERESTED IT SOUNDS LIKE. CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT I'M. BASED ON. WELL [LAUGHTER] I'M BETTING NOT. BASED ON BASED ON THIS, YOU HAD A 21% RESPONSE TO THE TO THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE DONE POLLING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOOD OR BAD. JUST LIKE VOTING I MEAN, I SO OF THE 251 THAT RESPONDED, 80% OF THOSE OR 202 PEOPLE SAID YES. SO 202 OUT OF 1,151. I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS IT. AND MAYBE I'M SEEING THIS WRONG, BUT I'M, I'M KIND OF, I'M KIND OF. WE CAN'T HIRE SOMEBODY BECAUSE WE DON'T OFFER SPOUSAL INSURANCE. THAT KIND OF DEAL. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WORKFORCE. I DON'T THAT'S GENERALLY NOT MY RESPONSE I GET FROM PEOPLE IS MORE ABOUT THE PAY IS WHAT I GET THAN THE SPOUSAL INSURANCE. BUT I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND WHERE IF I AM THE MAYBE SOLE BREADWINNER OR I'M THE, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF JOB YOUR SPOUSE HAS, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE SPOUSAL INSURANCE WOULD BE A BIG DEAL. OKAY, WELL, THAT I THINK THAT HELPED CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. I MEAN, I'VE EVEN LOOKED AT DROPPING MY INSURANCE HERE AND GOING ON MY WIFE'S. I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT THAT. SO I MEAN, I CAN SEE AND WITH IN OUR CASE, IT'S CHEAPER FOR THE KIDS TO BE ON HER POLICY THAN IT IS TO BE ON MINE. AND SO THAT BRINGS UP, I'M CURIOUS OF THOSE 1,150, HOW MANY I WOULD I KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW MANY ARE WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS. WELL, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW. THAT MAKES THIS WHERE WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK WITH, WITH MCGRIFF AND [00:25:06] AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE END OF THE YEAR WHERE THEY HAVE MORE OF OUR HISTORY, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO PLAY INTO IT, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO PAY INTO THE BASE AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE ON EMPLOYEES. I'M HOPING THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US BETTER NUMBERS ON WHAT TO EXPECT. AND ALSO BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN THAT SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE. THEY'LL USE SIMILAR COMPARISONS FROM OTHER PLACES. SO AT THE TOP OF THIS WHERE IT SAYS ELIGIBLE SPOUSES 437? THEY, THEY BASE THAT OFF OF, IF YOU LOOK DOWN HERE, THAT'S GOT A LITTLE ASTERISK BY IT. THAT'S BASED ON OUR GROUP LIFE AND, AND VOLUNTARY LIFE POLICIES. SO WHAT THEY SAID IS THEY COULD GO IN AND LOOK AND SAY, OH, YOU, YOU'VE GOT A, YOU'VE GOT A WIFE THAT YOU CARRY THIS VOLUNTEER LIFE POLICY ON OR YOU OR YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THAT KIND OF DEAL, BECAUSE THAT'S RELATIVELY CHEAP. SO THAT WOULD, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BASING THAT ON. AND THEY HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING TO GO BY. OKAY. WHICH IS PROBABLY BETTER THAN MY THING WAS SAYING, OKAY, HALF THESE PEOPLE AROUND HERE ARE MARRIED. 25% OF THEM ACTUALLY PROBABLY LIKE THEIR SPOUSE. SO LET'S SEE IF THEY WANT TO OFFER THEM INSURANCE OR NOT. SO YOU KNOW. OKAY. THANK YOU, I YIELD. THANK YOU JUSTICE MEDLOCK. JUSTICE MCCOY YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, HUTCH. IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD OVER THE YEARS, WHEN I WAS FIRST ON BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND I'VE CONTINUED TO HEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN, IS, IS THAT ADDING SPOUSAL ADDING SPOUSES TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE COUNTY PLAN IS EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT WE WOULD PAY FOR THE EMPLOYEE OR. WHAT WHAT HAPPENS WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES IS FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, BY LAW, WE, WE HAVE TO OFFER KIDS, WELL, INSURANCE COMPANIES LIKE KIDS, BECAUSE WHEN A KID GOES TO THE DOCTOR, THEY HAVE AN EARACHE, THEY HAVE A SORE THROAT. THEY HAVE THAT, THAT FEVER THAT'S JUST HIGH ENOUGH TO WHERE I CAN'T GO TO SCHOOL, YOU KNOW? SO THEY LIKE THAT AND YOU'RE GETTING THEY'RE GETTING THEIR IMMUNIZATIONS, THEY'RE GETTING ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO INSURANCE COMPANIES LIKE, LIKE KIDS FOR THE MOST PART. BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THEM. WHAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY LOOKS AT ON SPOUSES. AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE WITH EVERYBODY, BUT THEY'RE GOING, THERE MUST BE A REASON YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE. YOU MUST HAVE A PREEXISTING, YOU MUST HAVE A SOMETHING GOING ON THAT YOU CAN'T GET INSURANCE SOMEPLACE ELSE. AND SO YOU'RE ON YOUR SPOUSE'S NOT SAYING THAT'S FAIR. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT'S HOW INSURANCE COMPANIES LOOK AT THAT WHEN THEY MEASURE THAT COST. SO WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE RISK OF WHAT THIS COULD BE, YEAH, IT'S GOING TO COST YOU MORE. OKAY. SO THE ANSWER IS I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION. BUT THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES IS THAT THEY'RE EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE. EXPONENTIALLY, I DON'T KNOW, MORE EXPENSIVE DEFINITELY. YEAH. I'LL PROBABLY HAVE MORE COMMENTS. AND I'VE READ IT A LOT AND I KEEP CALLING THEM MR. STOWERS BECAUSE HE WORKS IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. BUT OVER HERE ON THE FAR RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS EMPLOYEE IN ONE COLUMN SAYS SPOUSE ON THE OTHER, AND YOU GO DOWN, IT'S A SPOUSE VERSUS EMPLOYEE COST. YOU SEE A 23.9% DIFFERENCE. THAT'S A PROJECTION. YEP. AND EARLIER YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS THE LAST TIME WE DID HAVE SPOUSAL COVERAGE. IT WAS ABOUT 19. AND IT COST THE COUNTY A MILLION DOLLARS? A MILLION DOLLARS. SOME TEN YEARS AGO? YEAH. SOME. YEAH. TIME GETS AWAY. THAT WAS ALSO THE SAME TIME RIGHT AFTER THAT I BELIEVE IS WHERE WE WENT TO PAID INSURANCE FOR A LITTLE WHILE BECAUSE WE GOT HIT WITH A LOT OF CLAIMS ALL AT ONCE. WE HAD A LOT OF, SERIOUS ILLNESSES. THAT COST REINSURANCE HAD TO KICK IN ON COST IN THE MILLIONS ON SOME OF THESE PEOPLE. AND THAT THREW US INTO PAID INSURANCE SITUATION. THEN WE FINALLY GOT OUR FEET BACK UNDER US WHERE WE COULD BE SELF-INSURED. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY COMMENTS WHEN WE REVISIT THIS AGAIN, BUT YOU HAD MENTIONED IF WE DID REVISIT THIS, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T WAIT TILL NOVEMBER, THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING. SO THIS WHAT MONTH WOULD BE IDEAL TO REVISIT THIS? WELL, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY DIFFERENT NUMBERS WITH THIS UNTIL THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE BETTER YOU ARE BECAUSE THE MORE HISTORY YOU HAVE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. [00:30:04] NOW THE INSURANCE COMPANY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE. THE HISTORY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NOW, TO BE CLEAR, IS WITH OUR EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE HISTORY WITH THE OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE IN THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE. YEAH. I JUST LIKE SAYING SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THEY COMPARE US TO. BUT IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON, WE WOULD NEED TO DO IT. WHAT MONTH WOULD WE NEED TO START HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS AGAIN? CLOSE TO BUDGET. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOW, NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE MONEY YOU'RE DEALING WITH. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE BEST NUMBER YOU CAN GET FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN GET TO BUDGET, HAVE OUR BUDGET MEETINGS. AND I MEAN, OPEN ENROLLMENT ENDS I THINK MID NOVEMBER. SO WE'D HAVE TO GET ALL THIS. WE'D HAVE TO GET SPOUSAL BENEFIT COVERAGE FIGURED OUT BEFORE THEN. I MEAN, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, OPEN ENROLLMENT WAS SOMETIME AROUND MID NOVEMBER, THE DEADLINE. I'LL CHECK. BUT IF WE CHANGE THE POLICY TO THIS DEGREE WHERE WE OFFER THAT, THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE OPEN ENROLLMENT FOR, FOR THIS. WELL, OKAY, I APPRECIATE I SHARE MY COLLEAGUE JUSTICE STOWERS CONCERNS AS WELL. I'LL FIND OUT FOR SURE. BUT I THINK WHEN YOU MAKE A CHANGE LIKE THAT, YOUR OPEN ENROLLMENT, THEN IS AMENDED OR, YOU KNOW, I GUESS A BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE IS HOW MUCH TIME WOULD WE NEED TO TURN ALL THAT OVER? THAT WHOLE TRANSACTION? IF WE. FROM START TO DISCUSSING IT TO ADOPTING OR ADDING SPOUSAL BENEFITS, HOW MANY WEEKS DOES THAT TAKE? I'LL ASK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, I YIELD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCCOY JUSTICE STOWERS. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU MA'AM. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THE CONVERSATION ON SPOUSAL COVERAGE UNTIL THE FALL BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETINGS. SECOND IF THERE BE NONE. JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? MS. DAVIS. YES MR. KEITH. YES ROBINSON. YES. MR. MCCOY. YES YES UNANIMOUS MOVING ON. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, I'M GOING TO. SAY WE DISCUSSED THE SALARY STUDY NEXT. THAT'S FINE. NOT TO BACKTRACK, BUT JUSTICE PERSON WAS AT AN AAC MEETING OVER THE WEEKEND REPRESENTING THE QUORUM COURT. ON BEHALF OF PAUL, WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT. SO WE KIND OF JUMPED OFF OF THAT REAL QUICK, BUT IF MR. PERSON WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT HE LEARNED FROM THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SALARY STUDY, IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BODY. FINE WITH. FINE WITH ME. GOOD EVENING. AS MENTIONED, I WENT TO THE AAC GOVERNING GOVERNMENT BODY MEETING AT THE ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTY BUILDING. AND SENATOR DISMANG CAME ALONG WITH GABE HALBERSTAM. I MAY I MAY BE BUTCHERING THAT NAME. CORRECT [LAUGHTER] AND SPOKE ABOUT ISSUE 3 AS THE SHORT FORM NAME. SPOKE ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF IT. MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EACH COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT OR GIVE WAY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO BE CREATED WITHIN THE COUNTY. AND ALSO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE INCENTIVES WHICH WE SPOKE ABOUT THE TAXES EARLIER. AND THIS COMES FROM WHAT SENATOR DISMANG SAID WAS OPPORTUNITY THAT HAS ESCAPED THE STATE OF ARKANSAS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DIFFERENT BUSINESSES, DIFFERENT ENTITIES WHO WANTED TO COME TO ARKANSAS BUT FOUND MORE INCENTIVES IN BORDER STATES, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS BETWEEN ARKANSAS, MISSOURI. ARKANSAS, MISSOURI, ARKANSAS AND TEXAS, WHERE THE TWO WERE THE EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS WITHIN THOSE MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THERE WAS SOME OPPORTUNITY THAT LEFT THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND WENT TO WENT OUTSIDE THE STATE BECAUSE OF THE TAX INCENTIVES. AND SO HIS STANCE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PLAY CATCH UP. [00:35:02] WE'RE TRYING TO PLAY CATCH UP TO THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE I BELIEVE ARKANSAS AND ARIZONA ARE THE ONLY TWO STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE THIS. HOWEVER, FELLOW JP THROUGHOUT THE STATE HAD QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EXACT QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE. AND THAT IS THE TAX INCENTIVE STRUCTURE. SO THERE'S A LOT MORE INFORMATION TO BE READ AND STUDIED REGARDING THIS. DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING TO BE DECIDED WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. AGAIN, THIS IS ISSUE 3. WE'LL HAVE TO IT HAS TO GO BEFORE THE PEOPLE. SO NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S AN OVERARCHING VIEWPOINT OF ISSUE 3, BUT IT WAS A VERY, VERY INFORMATIVE MEETING. SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO ATTEND. JUSTICE STOWERS, I THINK HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES, SIR. IS THIS A REFERENCE TO SENATE BILL 647? YES. YEAH, THEY CALL IT ISSUE 3. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE SAME THING. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. JUST AS JUSTICE MEDLOCK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU. THAT'S EXACTLY KIND OF WHAT I WAS WONDERING AS WELL, SO I JUST. THIS IS INTERESTING TO HEAR THIS DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT WE MISSED OUT ON PEOPLE COMING TO ARKANSAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T OFFER THEM WHAT ANOTHER STATE DID. AND ARKANSAS AND ARIZONA ARE THE ONLY TWO STATES THAT DOES NOT HAVE THIS IN PLACE? THAT IS. FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO BE DEVELOPED. SO IT, IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY READ THE SAME AS THIS ONE? CORRECT. YES. IT MAY NOT READ IT. IT MAY NOT READ WORD FOR WORD. THE, THE TAX, HOW YOU CAN SET UP YOUR OWN. CORRECT. ENTITY OR, AND CALL YOURSELF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND SET YOUR OWN TAX RATE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. I CANNOT ATTEST TO A STATE LIKE KENTUCKY OR WHAT THEIR VERBIAGE MAY SAY, BUT THEY DO HAVE SOME TYPE OF INCENTIVE FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. WHAT THOSE INCENTIVES ARE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO ATTEST TO THAT. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS THE, THE PERSPECTIVE OF SENATOR DISMANG, WHO IS TRYING TO PUSH THIS ISSUE FORWARD IS THAT FOR ARKANSAS, THE INCENTIVES SHOULD BE WHAT YOU SEE, NOT SAYING RIGHT, WRONG OR BAD, GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT, BUT. WELL, I FEEL LIKE WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS IN PLACE TAX BACK TYPE INCENTIVES AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THE PARTICULAR ONES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE OFFER. I KNOW WE'VE HAD IT ACROSS OUR TABLE HERE WHERE WE'VE GOT BUSINESSES WHEN THEY HIRED SO MANY MORE EMPLOYEES AND DID SO. IT'S THAT STATE TIF AND I WILL LET YOU ALL GOING TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF IT. BUT AS FAR AS ISSUE 3, THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT COMPARES TO OTHER STATES, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE ISSUE 3 OR THIS SENATE. SO DID YOU HEAR ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NEGATIVE PART? ABSOLUTELY. IT WAS IT SOUNDED JUST LIKE WE HEARD TODAY. YOU KNOW, OUR SCHOOLS DEPEND ON THIS REVENUE. OUR COUNTY ROADS, COUNTY SCHOOLS, CITY SCHOOLS, COUNTY, COUNTY SCHOOLS DEPEND ON THIS. IT'S GOING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF OUR COFFERS. AND THE, THE HINDRANCE AND THE BURDEN WILL BE ON THE COUNTY. NOW JUST A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. I ASKED THE QUESTION, WELL, SHOULDN'T. OR WOULD IT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THERE. THERE BE SOME TYPE OF SHARED ENCUMBRANCE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE STATE. SO THE STATE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME AS WELL. AND IT WAS SAID THAT, WELL, IF YOU WANT THE STATE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE STATE'S GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, ADDITIONAL INPUT ON WHAT YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WILL LOOK LIKE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP THAT WOULD LOOK OR IF IT'S WORTH IT. SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY BE, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. IN ORDER TO, IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE SOME TYPE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY THERE. SO I APPRECIATE THE INPUT. IT'S JUST VERY, [LAUGHTER] TO SAY IT BLUNTLY, IT'S CONFUSING. WELL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE EACH OF YOU TO READ IT THOROUGHLY. AND ALSO READ THE FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IT AS WELL. [00:40:01] THANK YOU, I YIELD. THANK YOU, JUSTICE MEDLOCK. JUSTICE KEITH YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. JUSTICE PERSON JUST CURIOUS, HAS THE ASSOCIATION TAKEN A STAND FOR AGAINST? THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN A STAND FOR, AGAINST. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUSTICE KEITH. JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU MA'AM. MR. HUTCHENS DOES THIS SOMEHOW CORRELATE OR RELATE TO THE PERSONNEL REQUEST THAT THAT ARE BEFORE US THIS EVENING? OR EXCUSE ME. TO THE SALARY STUDY. IS WHAT I MEANT TO SAY. NO, I WAS JUST WONDERING YOU KNOW, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS, IF THERE WAS. I MEAN, NO, I, I JUST WANTED YOU AWARE. OKAY, THIS, THIS IS, THIS HAS BEEN OUT THERE. AND LIKE HE SAID, THERE'S I'M ASSUMING SENATOR DISMANG THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE HE WROTE IT, SPONSORED IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER COUNTIES FEEL. PART OF MY JOB IS TO SHOW YOU WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A HOLE YOU'RE ABOUT TO STEP IN, AND I DON'T THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT OUT THERE. SO THIS IS MORE THIS IS MORE OF AN FYI TO LET Y'ALL KNOW WHAT'S COMING DOWN EXACTLY. LET YOU LET YOU KNOW WHAT'S ON THE MENU. CORRECT. THIS COULD HAVE A BIG IMPACT OR IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WORST CASE SCENARIO, THERE'S NO IMPACT. I MEAN, BEST CASE SCENARIO, THERE'S NO IMPACT. BUT I DON'T SEE BY READING THROUGH THAT. AND LIKE JUSTICE PERSON SAID, READ THE DFNA'S FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT. THEY THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT. THIS HAS TO BE ONE BECAUSE. AND I BELIEVE I, I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR, SO I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH THIS ON THIS ITEM. THAT GIVEN SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTIES AND IRREGULARITIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUR ARMS WRAPPED AROUND RIGHT NOW. AND THEN KNOWING THAT OUR REVENUES COULD BE IMPACTED IN THE FUTURE. I'M ONE OF 15 AND I ONLY HAVE EIGHT MONTHS LEFT, BUT I'M GOING TO BE VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT ADDING EXPENDITURES TO OUR BUDGETS, PARTICULARLY ANYTHING IN THE GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE TO MR. HUTCHENS' POINT, THIS COULD BE A NOTHING BURGER. IT COULD ALSO HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR REVENUES. I UNDERSTAND, AND AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE EACH OF YOU TO READ IT, AS WELL AS THE FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, SO WE CAN ALL BE AWARE OF WHAT'S WHAT MAY BE COMING DOWN. AND MR. PERSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GOING TO THAT MEETING AND FOR BRINGING THIS INFORMATION BACK TO US. ABSOLUTELY. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS. I. I YIELD. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DID. I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS WILL BE ABLE TO SORT OF REGULATE THEMSELVES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. DID SOMEBODY ASK THAT? NO. OKAY. JUSTICE CAPPS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. [LAUGHTER]. I HAD A QUESTION ON A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WE'VE MOVED PAST BEFORE WE CONTINUE TO MOVE DOWN. IS THAT OKAY? IT'S ABOUT THE RFQ AND THE PORTAL TO ITEMS HUTCH TOUCHED ON AND MOVED PAST. SURE. GO AHEAD. THE RFQ IS THERE. CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED? WE ASKED THEM WE PROPOSED THEM TO. GO BACK AND AUDIT IN IN DETAIL. I'VE GOT THE WORDAGE ON IT. 22, 23, 24. 22, 23, 24, AND 25. AND IT'S GOING TO BE EVERY LINE ITEM WITHIN THE COUNTY? YEAH. IT'S GOING TO BE ALL, ALL DEPARTMENTS, ALL BUDGETS AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE PORTAL YOU DESCRIBED, WHICH I KNOW IS A GIGANTIC JOB. SO WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS WORKING ON THAT FOR US. WILL THERE BE ANY ACCESSIBILITY FOR SUMMARIES WITHIN THE PORTAL? WHERE I KNOW IF YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE NUMBERS ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, IT'S EASY FOR YOU TO FIND THE INFORMATION YOU NEED. NO, THAT'S WHY. WELL, NO, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT'S WHERE I SAID THEY'LL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE LEARNING GOING, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME NOTES, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE EVERY REPORT WE SEE. AND SO IF YOU PUT A DATE RANGE IN, YOU SAY, I WANT TO SEE THE EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR EITHER THIS WHOLE FUND OR THIS ONE DEPARTMENT, AND I WANT TO SEE IT FROM 1/1. 1/1/2024 TO 12/31/2024. [00:45:04] THEN IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU THE WHOLE YEAR. OR YOU CAN SAY, I WANT TO SEE IT FROM 1/1/25 TO 3/31/2025. IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT QUARTER. THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO GO SEE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE. WILL THERE BE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OR SOME SORT OF ANALYSIS? NO, IT'S IT'S JUST THE SAME REPORTS WE LOOK AT. OKAY. THANK YOU, I YIELD. THANK YOU JUSTICE CAPPS. NOW MOVING ON TO THE SALARY STUDY. OKAY. SO. THE SALARY STUDY WAS DONE AND THERE WAS SORT OF TWO COMPONENTS TO IT. ONE THERE WAS A SALARY STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS WAS ONE COMPONENT. THE SECOND COMPONENT WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF IT. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WHEN IT WAS KIND OF FIRST PRESENTED, IT WAS SORT OF AN EITHER OR. YOU GOT THE SALARY SCALE AND YOU GOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY, AND IT WAS SORT OF MARRIED TOGETHER. BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOW IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE KIND OF OPERATING IN SORT OF A LIMBO PHASE BECAUSE WE HAVE A SALARY SCALE BASED OFF THE JOHANSEN STUDY, WHICH WAS DONE 2016. BUT THEY'RE NO LONGER A COMPANY. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY'RE NO LONGER DEFUNCT. WE DON'T CONTRACT WITH THEM. SO IN ORDER TO HAVE A SALARY SCALE AND STRUCTURE, YOU STILL NEED TO ADOPT THE SALARY STRUCTURE SIDE OF THAT PROPOSAL, JUST LIKE YOU DID WITH JOHANSEN, YOU COULDN'T AFFORD TO MEET THE QUARTILES. YOU COULD ONLY AFFORD WHAT YOU'RE BUDGETED TO AT THIS POINT. BUT AT LEAST HAVING THE SALARY STRUCTURE IN PLACE, YOU HAVE ONE SALARY STRUCTURE. YOU CAN COST YOUR NEW POSITIONS AND YOU CAN START MOVING TOWARDS WHERE IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO BE AS FAR AS WITHIN THE MARKET RATE. SO BY ADOPTING THE SALARY STRUCTURE, YOU COULD GIVE YOURSELF SOME, WELL, GUIDANCE AND STRUCTURE AS TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE AS FAR AS BEING COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET RATE AND START WORKING TOWARDS IT LIKE YOU DID WITH JOHANSEN. WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ADOPTED JOHANSEN, THEY WERE ALL OVER THE MAP. YOU HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE 75% OF MARKET. YOU HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE 90% OF MARKET. AND THE ORIGINAL GOAL WAS TO KIND OF BRING EVERYBODY UP TO ONE, ONE POINT. AND I THINK YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO DO THAT WITH TACKLING THE NEW SALARY SCALE AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T AFFORD TO GET TO WHAT WAS CONSIDERED THE MARKET QUARTILE. SO BY ADOPTING THE SALARY STUDY, YOU'RE NOT ADDING ANY NEW MONEY. YOU'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING, HERE'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE, AND THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD WORK TOWARDS ADOPTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY DOWN THE ROAD IS GOING TO IS GOING TO BE MORE OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT MANAGING THAT. AND I DID SEND AN EMAIL OUT TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. JUST SORT OF, HEY, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS ON THIS? I KNOW THERE WERE SOME, SOME HEARTBURN OVER THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS TRYING TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT THAT'S DIGESTIBLE TO THE COLLECTIVE THAT THEY CAN AGREE ON THAT THIS IS FAIR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO MANAGE THE RESOURCES THAT YOU GIVE THEM AND THEY ARE INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED. SO THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME SAY IN HOW THIS IS ALL STRUCTURED. AND I THINK THAT MAYBE IN THE FIRST GO AROUND, THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE FEELING. SO I THINK THEY ARE WORKING WITH HR AND MCGRATH TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCES IN HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE WOULD BE DONE. AND IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT THE SALARY SCALE, MAYBE A COUPLE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, WE COULD GET TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF IT AND HAMMER IT OUT, WHICH AGAIN, IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID WITH JOHANSEN. YOU ADOPTED THE SCALE IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND ABOUT THREE MONTHS LATER, THEY CAME WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE KIND OF MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL OF HOW YOU WOULD WORK THROUGH THE JOHANSEN STUDY. SO IF YOU DO ADOPT THE SCALE, YOU COULD DO IT IN HERE, JUST LIKE YOU DID WITH JOHANSEN. AND THAT'S YOUR GUIDANCE AS TO WHERE YOU WANT TO BE. JUSTICE STOWERS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU MA'AM. SO JUSTIN, I GUESS THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FOR YOU. AND THAT IS WITH MCGRATH. THEY HAVE. WE CONSIDER THE MCGRATH STUDY SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT ALL OF THOSE WERE, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY TONIGHT IS THAT THE EXECUTIVES, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, IS STILL GETTING TOGETHER AND DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AS, AS FAR AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF IT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I MEAN, I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T, AND IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE SCALE, AS FAR AS WHERE THEY WHERE THEY SIT. I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH OF THAT. MINE ARE SAYING THAT MOST OF THE HEARTBURN CAME OVER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION. I REMEMBER THE SCALE INCREASING OUR SCALE EXPONENTIALLY FOR THE MOST PART. [00:50:01] AND THAT WAS WHY THERE WAS WE COULDN'T AFFORD IT. WE COULDN'T PAY FOR IT. THAT WE CAN'T PAY FOR. I THINK SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE MCGRATH STUDY AND PROBABLY EIGHT MONTHS. YEAH. THAT IT WOULD BE VERY. WELL WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL SINCE IT'S BEEN ABOUT A ABOUT A YEAR SINCE SHE CAME IN HERE AND GAVE HER REPORT THAT IF WE BROUGHT HER BACK, MAYBE VIA ZOOM TO REVISIT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SALARY SCALE, WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL RATHER THAN MAKING A OFF THE CUFF DECISION TONIGHT. NO, AND I AGREE, AND IT'S I THINK THE POINT IS, IS THAT. START MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, IT GOT IT WAS A DISCUSSION A YEAR AGO AND THEN IT JUST SORT OF FELL OFF THE TABLE. AND NOW WE HAVE TWO SALARY SCALES THAT WE'RE KIND OF WORKING OFF OF. AND IF YOU WANT TO COST POSITIONS AND CREATE NEW POSITIONS, WHAT ARE YOU WHAT ARE YOU CREATING THEM OFF OF? BECAUSE JOHANSEN WE KNOW JOHANSEN IS OFF MARKET. WE KNOW A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TOO. WE KNOW WE HAVE THE RFP OUT THERE FOR, FOR THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL AUDIT. WE KNOW THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS A HIRING FREEZE ON AT THIS POINT. HE'S MADE SOME MY UNDERSTANDING SPECIFIC, VERY SCALPEL LIKE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT HAS HELD TO THAT AND GIVEN WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW AND MORE QUESTIONS THAN THERE SEEMS TO BE ANSWERS. I CAN'T WITH GOOD FAITH. I BELIEVE WE'VE, WE'VE GOT 20 SOME POSITIONS THAT ARE EITHER UPGRADES OR NEW POSITIONS BEFORE US THIS EVENING. GIVEN WHERE WE'RE AT IN THIS PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY AND WAITING FOR AN AUDIT AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, I ONE OF EIGHT ON THIS COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, BUT I CANNOT WITH GOOD FAITH VOTE TO APPROVE INCREASING OUR EXPENSES UNTIL WE HAVE A BETTER PICTURE AND A CLEARER PICTURE AS TO WHERE WE SET. I. WHAT. SO DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM MCGRATH AND START REVISITING A STRUCTURED SALARY SCALE, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO COST YOU MONEY TO ADOPT IT? YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK HE'S THINKING THAT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MONEY AND WE'RE NOT REFERRING TO MONEY. WE'RE JUST REFERRING TO ADOPTING THE STRUCTURE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO HAVE A ZOOM FIRST TO TALK WITH HER BEFORE WE DO. AND I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A YEAR. AND MAYBE SHE CAN BRING BACK INTO LIGHT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHE DISCUSSED AS FAR AS WHERE YOU ARE IN, IN THE MARKET SCALE AND EXPLAIN AGAIN, THE QUARTILES, BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAN WHAT WE HAD IN THE JOHANSEN. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH THESE. THE FALL THAT THAT WE COULD DEAL WITH THAT. ATTABOY. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THE PERSONNEL REQUESTS THAT ARE BEFORE US THIS EVENING UNTIL OUR FALL BUDGET HEARINGS. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND, TO POSTPONE PERSONNEL REQUEST. THAT IS ON THE FLOOR. WE HAVE LIGHTS ON. IF IT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE CAN HEAR FROM YOU. JUSTICE. SO, JUSTICE KEITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. YEAH, I THINK I THINK THIS IS STILL IN LINE BECAUSE I GUESS THIS IS FOR JUSTIN OR MAYBE EVEN HUTCH. DO WE KNOW IF OTHER COUNTIES ACTUALLY HAVE SALARY? I MEAN, THE STEADY SALARY STUDIES THAT, THAT THEY WORK OFF OF? I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DID JOHANSEN THAT WASHINGTON COUNTY AND BENTON COUNTY WERE USING JOHANSEN SPECIFICALLY. SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF FOR COUNTIES TO HAVE SALARY STUDIES DONE. BUT IT'S NOT MANDATORY? OTHER COUNTIES. SO IF IT'S NOT MANDATORY, HOW DO YOU THINK THEY SET THEIR, THEIR SCALES? WHAT DO THEY? DO THEY USE? OR THEY JUST? THEY'RE PRETTY, PRETTY BEHIND US. SO, I MEAN, IT'S WHAT YOU GUYS DID FOR THE TIME PERIOD AFTER COLTER WAS ADOPTED AND JOHANSEN, YOU HAD A SET SCALE AND THEN YOU JUST KIND OF ADDED 2% HERE, 2% THERE BUT AS A RESULT OF THAT, WHEN YOU DID HAVE THE SALARY STUDY DONE, YOU REALIZED THAT SOME PEOPLE WERE WAY OFF MARKET, AND THOSE WERE GENERALLY POSITIONS THAT WERE ALREADY ON THE LOWER END OF THE PAY SCALE TO START WITH. [00:55:06] SO WHEN YOU DID THAT, THE FIRST THING YOU DID AUTOMATICALLY WAS, I THINK YOU BROUGHT EVERYBODY UP TO AT LEAST 80% AND NOT EVERYBODY GOT A RAISE. AND NOT EVERYBODY GOT A RAISE EVERY TIME THROUGH JOHANSEN, BECAUSE YOU WERE CHASING A PERCENTAGE OF THE MARKET. SO YOU STARTED WITH 80%. IT WAS 85%. IF YOU WERE OVER 85%, YOU WERE KIND OF LEFT OUT. IF YOU WERE 84%, YOU GOT A 1%. SO YOU WEREN'T DOING KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD RAISES THAT DIDN'T REALLY, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL ABOUT 2021. RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY. WHEN WE HIT MARKET AND THEN JUST STARTED CHASING MARKET WITH 5%, 4%, I THINK PROBABLY 25% INCREASE IN SALARY, FROM LIKE 2020 TO 2024. RIGHT. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR CITIES AS WELL. NOT ALL CITIES WOULD HAVE SALARY STUDIES. AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION WELL BEFORE I SAID THAT, WHAT DID DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE MCGRATH SALARY STUDY? YOU DON'T REMEMBER? WE DIDN'T WE DID NOT DO AN APPROPRIATION FOR IT. AND I THINK THAT WE HAD MONEY APPROPRIATED FOR JOHANSEN. RIGHT. SO THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION THAT WAS REQUESTED FOR. AND. SATISFACTION BASED ON A SALARY STUDY, AN ORGANIZATION OR A MUNICIPALITY WITH A SALARY STUDY, AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT DOES NOT PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES, ACCORDING TO A SALARY STUDY? I'M JUST. I MEAN, I WOULD THINK AS AN EMPLOYEE, I WOULD FEEL BETTER KNOWING THAT I HAD A COUNTY THAT WAS LOOKING AT BEING COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET RATE, CHASING THAT MARKET RATE AND MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M COMPENSATED FOR THE WORK THAT I DO AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE A COUNTY THAT'S JUST SORT OF THROWING DARTS IN THE DARK, TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. AND I GET THAT. BUT I ALSO WOULD CONSIDER THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A COUNTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE THIS STUDY COULD ACTUALLY ALSO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AT OR ABOVE MARKET. AND THAT'S JUST ME THINKING OUT LOUD. [LAUGHTER] I MEAN, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I MEAN, LIKE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE IT. OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S A SCALE AND A FRAMEWORK AND A STRUCTURE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE HIRING. THE EMPLOYEES ARE, ARE BEING COMPENSATED AT WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, A STUDIED AND EVALUATED MARKET RATE. RIGHT. AND I MENTIONED IT BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT, ARE WE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES? BECAUSE PULASKI COUNTY IS UNIQUE. WE HAVE UNIQUE EMPLOYEES, UNIQUE POSITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IF I GO TO A COUNTY LIKE BENTONVILLE OR [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY, WHATEVER COUNTY, HOW DOES IT ACTUALLY COMPARE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN PULASKI COUNTY? SO. AND I THINK WITH LIKE THE STUDY, THEY SHOW THE COUNTIES THAT THEY WERE COMPARING TO. OKAY AND I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DID THIS, THE FIRST GO ROUND WITH JOHANSEN, THAT IT WAS THE SAME TYPE OF QUESTION IS, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN COMMON WITH BENTON COUNTY? FROM MY PERSPECTIVE? I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR SALARY STRUCTURE, WHAT BENTON COUNTY IS. BECAUSE THEY'RE FACTORING IN THINGS LIKE COST OF LIVING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO I WOULD THINK THAT BY LOOKING AT THOSE COUNTIES THAT IT WOULD HELP US AS FAR AS YOU KNOW. HEY, THAT'S GREAT. YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD WE'RE COMPARING WITH THEM. AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE A [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT THAT PULASKI COUNTY HAS ACCESS TO. SO AND I DON'T AGAIN, THAT'S A DISCUSSION AND A QUESTION THAT IS FOR MS. MCGRATH. BUT I THINK IN THE STUDY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU ALL IT SHOWS THE COUNTIES THAT THEY USE AS COMPARABLES. YEAH. AND, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT SAYING THAT A SALARY STUDY IS INAPPROPRIATE. [LAUGHTER]. I'M JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION. I YIELD. [LAUGHTER]. AND A GOOD ONE. AND A GOOD ONE. THANK YOU, JUSTICE KEITH. JUSTICE CAPPS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. MY COMMENT IS ABOUT THE MCGRATH FEEDBACK, SO I'LL YIELD. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MOTION BEFORE US. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. WELL, ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO POSTPONE? OR TABLE PERSONNEL REQUEST. POSTPONED SORRY. POSTPONED. PERSONNEL REQUEST IF THERE BE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. JUSTIN, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? SO THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE PERSONNEL REQUESTS UNTIL THE FALL BUDGET HEARINGS. CORRECT? MS. MEDLOCK. MR. STOWERS. YES. MR. MCCOY. [01:00:01] YES. MR. ROBINSON. YES. MS. MASSEY. AYE. MR. KEITH. YES. MS. CAPPS AND MS. DAVIS. SO ALL PERSONNEL REQUESTS WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL OUR FALL BUDGET HEARING. JUSTICE CAPPS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU. ASK YOUR QUESTION. WHEN MS. MCGRATH RETURNS WITH HER REPORTS AND UPDATES, COULD WE ASK HER TO REPORT ON THE CONVERSATION SHE HAD WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES AND HOW SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES MAY HAVE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THANK YOU I YIELD. I MEAN, NEXT 30 DAYS MAYBE. SO WHAT I WILL DO, IF IT'S AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BODY, I WILL TALK TO HR TO SET UP A TIME AND HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT 30, 45 DAYS WHERE SHE CAN COME IN HERE AND MAYBE JUST KIND OF DO A REFRESHER AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE IN THE SCALE. IT'S BEEN A YEAR. I MEAN, WE, WE KNEW WHERE WE WERE A YEAR AGO. HOW, HOW FAR OFF ARE WE NOW? SO I WILL DO THAT AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION AND CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. JUSTICE KEITH HAS A QUESTION. I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT'S HAD IT'S BEEN WHAT, A YEAR? ALMOST A YEAR? WHAT IF THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL FEE? OR IS THAT IN THE CONTRACTED PRICE THAT WE'VE ALREADY PAID? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I YIELD. [LAUGHTER]. WE CAN ASK THEM. OKAY. ARE AT THE END OF OUR AGENDA. I'M NOT SURE THERE MAY BE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING OTHER THINGS. OH. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVE SECOND WE'RE NOW DOWN TO PUBLIC COMMENT. NO COMMENT AT THIS TIME. SO WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.