Transcript — Vigo County Budget Committee, 2026-08-24

Machine transcription of the recording of the Vigo County Budget Committee meeting on 2026-08-24, aligned to the video timeline. This is not the official record — the clerk's minutes are, and this is unreviewed automatic speech recognition that mis-hears names and numbers. Check anything that matters against the recording.

Each line is stamped with its position in the recording, both as a clock time and as [t=SECONDS]. Those are the same seconds the archive's source links use: open the recording and add &t=<seconds> to jump to any line.

Speakers were separated automatically and named from the meeting's speaker roster where the evidence supported it; an unnamed voice is shown as Speaker <n>, which is a machine label and not a person's name.

Transcript

0:00:00 [t=0] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
0:18:00 [t=1080] Speaker 3 (chair): Big County Budget Committee is now in session. We are discussing the employees, full-time employees, and calculating what we spend annually for full-time employees. It's pretty boring, but we're doing it anyway. Okay. So the auditor is now calculating the number of full-time employees we have. So look here.
0:18:36 [t=1116] Speaker 7: Okay.
0:18:37 [t=1117] Speaker 11: In some instances, let's take a longevity. This is 26 times that they're getting paid this stipend. stipend so we'll just take one of these people here if we were to take that number
0:18:56 [t=1136] Speaker 12: and multiply it times 26 they would they would technically they would come out worse off
0:19:10 [t=1150] Speaker 9: some people would yes
0:19:11 [t=1151] Speaker 15: so probably what you have to do is you probably have to look to see what the largest stipend is
0:19:20 [t=1160] Speaker 18: yeah
0:19:20 [t=1160] Speaker 23: but this this may be um there's one at 643 Oh, that's a big one.
0:19:41 [t=1181] Speaker 24: Yeah.
0:19:43 [t=1183] Speaker 25: So we may not be able to approach that direction. Yeah.
0:19:49 [t=1189] Speaker 6: Yeah, this is not an accurate way to do it, actually.
0:19:57 [t=1197] Speaker 22: Unless we disregard.
0:20:03 [t=1203] Speaker 30: longevity we disregard
0:20:10 [t=1210] Speaker 33: no I'm not saying disregard it as in do away I'm calculating we don't touch that
0:20:20 [t=1220] Speaker 38: yeah so you did away with longevity
0:20:26 [t=1226] Speaker 40: All right.
0:20:33 [t=1233] Speaker 42: This is going to be a tough question.
0:20:38 [t=1238] Steve (councillor): It may take you some time.
0:20:45 [t=1245] Steve (councillor): What stipends are there that are not longevity related, not clothing allowance related, not cell phone related? looking for special like special purpose stipends that are kind of one-offs Sheriff's Department okay what what do you have there oh okay so many of theirs look like their clothing allowance group homes would be one of them
0:21:21 [t=1281] Speaker 52 (staff): Sheriff's Department has what they're an instructor, what their grade is.
0:21:33 [t=1293] Speaker 55 (staff): It's on third page from the back.
0:21:38 [t=1298] Steve (councillor): I see something called a high-tech crime unit also. I don't know what that is.
0:21:42 [t=1302] Speaker 57: That is actually a grant.
0:21:43 [t=1303] Steve (councillor): That's a grant, okay.
0:21:46 [t=1306] Speaker 56: You said the third page from the back?
0:21:48 [t=1308] Speaker 58: and also the back of the room before
0:22:18 [t=1338] Thank you.
0:22:48 [t=1368] Speaker 68: Do we need these to be having them break this out for us with those special things and then work on it?
0:22:59 [t=1379] Speaker 70: Did you see $750? Was that the price you were seeing on that one?
0:23:05 [t=1385] Speaker 74: Well, no, because there's some that are 26 times a year that are like a $16,000 stipend.
0:23:14 [t=1394] Steve (councillor): for specific purposes longevity right so some of the longevities are up there
0:23:44 [t=1424] Speaker 68: Don't you think there's got to be a better way to do this?
0:23:53 [t=1433] Speaker 80: Mm-hmm.
0:23:54 [t=1434] Speaker 68: Well, okay, let's figure it out.
0:23:56 [t=1436] Speaker 85: I mean longevity needs to be sorted out. Sure.
0:24:20 [t=1460] Speaker 56: Yeah, I mean I think.
0:24:21 [t=1461] Speaker 85: Set aside.
0:24:22 [t=1462] Speaker 56: Right, set aside along with clothing allowances set aside.
0:24:25 [t=1465] Speaker 87: Clothing allowance.
0:24:25 [t=1465] Speaker 88: cell phone allowance within reason probably set aside.
0:24:32 [t=1472] Speaker 68: And that will winnow the thing down to a much. So that's what I was trying to do
0:24:38 [t=1478] Speaker 90: here is I'm crossing them out. Well, how about if we just
0:24:41 [t=1481] Speaker 68: have the auditor's office go through and clear those things out for us and then the next budget meeting we'll have a list that's clean.
0:24:50 [t=1490] Speaker 3 (chair): Okay. Because they are the genii's of the outfit. That's plural for genius. Is that doable for you folks? Can you go through this list and sort out the obvious things like clothing allowance, cell phones, and so forth?
0:25:15 [t=1515] Judy (staff): I think if you look at it, the first page it says clothing allowance. Well, you're not looking at that. And then the high-tech crime, that's a grant. your prosecutor specialized that's something to look at there because it tells you in there she's got them grouped payroll has them grouped by what stipends they are your level 2, level 3 that's something that's given to the assessors in both offices for obtaining their level 2 and level 3 and then all these others say longevity. You're not looking at that.
0:25:59 [t=1559] Speaker 100: Retention stipend is.
0:26:01 [t=1561] Speaker 101: All right. So here, there's this one.
0:26:07 [t=1567] Speaker 102: Okay.
0:26:07 [t=1567] Speaker 105: There's that one. All right, then you have high felony.
0:26:12 [t=1572] Steve (councillor): All right, how about we'll go through these one at a time and you can help explain them. So the first page I tore off, we understand that one. Okay. I'm now on the second page, the front side. I think we understand all that. Second page, back side. High felony. This is for a high-tech crime stipend.
0:26:37 [t=1597] No, the prosecutor. Look underneath.
0:26:39 [t=1599] Steve (councillor): Oh, look underneath. Okay. Prosecutor. All right.
0:26:46 [t=1606] Judy (staff): That's a skill that, if I'm not mistaken, I think they came up with for the level. of the crime that they get specialized
0:26:57 [t=1617] Speaker 117: pay. Then you have a title D stipend. Then you have the group home stipend. Then you have the reassessment stipend.
0:27:17 [t=1637] Speaker 119: They have paid for their level. They have obtained level 2 or level 3.
0:27:21 [t=1641] Speaker 74: Okay. Longevity. We understand that one. So far that's that. Longevity on the next page. Self-explanatory. Same thing again. Tossing that page. Longevity again. Longevity again. Longevity again.
0:27:48 [t=1668] Speaker 124: And the back side. Same thing. Same thing.
0:27:54 [t=1674] Speaker 126: Then you get to the dispatcher. Then you're going to run into your phone stipend list.
0:28:00 [t=1680] Speaker 74: Okay. So longevity, still longevity, though. Okay. So toss that. Longevity.
0:28:10 [t=1690] Speaker 129: I'm just going to share up there with dispatcher.
0:28:21 [t=1701] Speaker 134: okay
0:28:39 [t=1719] Speaker 136: retention stipend
0:28:42 [t=1722] Judy (staff): sorry that is something that they did for the jailers in order to try to keep them they have to to work consecutively and be here for like six months before they get it.
0:28:56 [t=1736] Speaker 55 (staff): Before they earn it? Yeah, before they earn it because they were having such a hard time of getting jailers so that's something a few years ago that they implemented.
0:29:03 [t=1743] Speaker 139: Okay.
0:29:04 [t=1744] Speaker 55 (staff): Building security also gets it too, Devin informed me.
0:29:12 [t=1752] Speaker 141: Also gets what?
0:29:13 [t=1753] Speaker 55 (staff): The retention stipend.
0:29:15 [t=1755] Okay.
0:29:17 [t=1757] Speaker 55 (staff): Then after the jail and building security, you get to the sheriff's department with their stipends.
0:29:25 [t=1765] Speaker 144: So that's paid twice, but not until after they've been here six months. Okay.
0:29:36 [t=1776] Speaker 149: Evening shift, instructors, okay.
0:29:45 [t=1785] Speaker 74: Now I'm at a place where it says City Court, second to the back page, I think. Or maybe it's...
0:30:10 [t=1810] Speaker 153: And second to the back page.
0:30:15 [t=1815] Judy (staff): I'm not certain on those, but those might be the ones that go to city court.
0:30:28 [t=1828] Speaker 158: Is that done? I don't…
0:30:30 [t=1830] Speaker 145 (staff): I'm going to have to… Autumn's watching, so Autumn can get us an answer on that.
0:30:36 [t=1836] Speaker 159: Okay. So probably…
0:30:38 [t=1838] Judy (staff): Taylor Trinkle, she's a grant. walks in he gets a minimal amount for the what's the deal on this pre-trial grant so far i've narrowed
0:30:49 [t=1849] Speaker 164: down to that that's that's the only one i can find that really stands out so 4d no this one is the only one that i said yeah there's two so that's the only one i I have found that stands out that's different and separate from everything else.
0:31:17 [t=1877] Speaker 171: Title IV-D stipend?
0:31:18 [t=1878] Speaker 173: No. Group homes. So it's below it. It's below it.
0:31:23 [t=1883] Speaker 174: Oh, I thought you were saying this one. Those are the ones that you approved this year. No, I'm aware of that.
0:31:28 [t=1888] Speaker 111: I'm aware of that. And then we just recently approved it again.
0:31:33 [t=1893] Steve (councillor): Can we just talk openly? Can I just say what I would like to see?
0:31:38 [t=1898] Speaker 175: We'll say whatever you want to say.
0:31:39 [t=1899] Steve (councillor): All right.
0:31:41 [t=1901] Steve (councillor): The goal here is to look at doing away with the stipends that are not necessary and instead applying a flat raise potentially across the board to all county employees.
0:32:04 [t=1924] Speaker 177: Not there yet. We're getting there.
0:32:08 [t=1928] Steve (councillor): but but the thought process would be rather than to do it by a percentage
0:32:16 [t=1936] Steve (councillor): every county employee would get the exact same raise so that somebody who is at a lower grade is actually getting a larger percentage to help them with their cost of living and a person who is at a higher grade, although it's a lower percentage, it's the same raise to help offset so that everybody,
0:32:42 [t=1962] Steve (councillor): because right now we have some level fives that are not making enough money to live. And even with a raise, I don't know that that's going to help, but it's to look at that and see that there are people who are making that much less we thought perhaps by doing a flat raise and of course we've been talking about doing no raises right so we thought about applying a flat raise across the board to all countywide employees with the exception of elected officials And that would help, hopefully, some of those lower grades that are not making enough money.
0:33:37 [t=2017] Steve (councillor): But it also helps the higher grades because they'd be getting a raise where before we were talking about not doing a raise.
0:33:47 [t=2027] Speaker 183: Roll that by again. Say that again.
0:33:49 [t=2029] Steve (councillor): All right, so if we were to do away with stipends, with the one-offs, which I was only able to find one. Now, I could be wrong. We'll ask the auditor's office to see if they can show us more.
0:34:07 [t=2047] Steve (councillor): But not touching longevity, not touching clothing allowances, things that are something where it applies equally to everybody.
0:34:16 [t=2056] Steve (councillor): the thought was instead of doing stipends we create a raise and instead of doing it by a percentage it is a flat number and impacts everybody the same so my raise because i'm a hundred thousand dollar employee isn't who who who doesn't need the raise as much as the person who is making 35 000 a year it helps that 35 000 employee a whole lot more and gets us to where we are a little bit closer percentage wise in payroll so that there's not so much of a distance between these?
0:35:16 [t=2116] Speaker 145 (staff): Not to be disrespectful or anything at all, but have you thought that
0:35:21 [t=2121] Judy (staff): the grades that were graded by Baker Tilly, that those positions are not as task-oriented as what the higher ones are?
0:35:39 [t=2139] Right.
0:35:39 [t=2139] Speaker 192: Judy makes a valid point. I mean, we have to be sensitive to that because that affects our entire.
0:35:46 [t=2146] Speaker 194: It also gets to the point where.
0:35:49 [t=2149] Speaker 195: It negates.
0:35:50 [t=2150] Speaker 194: Like it did last year, we had some employees that would have been making similar to what elected officials. That's correct.
0:36:00 [t=2160] Speaker 198: That is exactly right.
0:36:01 [t=2161] Steve (councillor): So it would be less likely in this scenario to have that than if you did it by a percentage.
0:36:06 [t=2166] Steve (councillor): Because if you did it by a percentage, the higher paid employees would be getting a higher amount of money,
0:36:16 [t=2176] Steve (councillor): and they would get closer to an elected official.
0:36:23 [t=2183] Speaker 3 (chair): But that's because you're not giving the elected official away.
0:36:25 [t=2185] Steve (councillor): But also, I'm going to say this. This is no offense to you or any other elected official. Why are we so opposed to a good employee making more than us? I'm not saying, I know you're not. I didn't mean to suggest that you were concerned. I know you're looking out for everybody. So you're looking out for all elected officials. Absolutely. And it might be discouraging for people to run if they know that they could.
0:36:47 [t=2207] Speaker 205: No, not just that. It's just, it's about being fair.
0:36:52 [t=2212] Larry (councillor): It's about being fair.
0:36:53 [t=2213] Right.
0:36:53 [t=2213] Speaker 210: It's right.
0:36:56 [t=2216] Larry (councillor): And you're right. I do care about what people make. Yeah.
0:37:00 [t=2220] Speaker 192: And I do too, Larry. I think you've got to be considerate of everybody.
0:37:05 [t=2225] Larry (councillor): I'm not, you know, keep me out of the loop here, but out of the equation, should I say.
0:37:12 [t=2232] Speaker 215: But, yeah, that's a difficult...
0:37:18 [t=2238] Speaker 144: Just trying to come up with ideas on how to help people financially without hurting the county too much in the process.
0:37:25 [t=2245] Speaker 194: I think that if you eliminated fours and fives is that right fours and fives am I
0:37:31 [t=2251] Speaker 141: saying that right just for which we did there are no more fours okay five is I
0:37:40 [t=2260] Steve (councillor): think was around 30 35,000 maybe I can't remember
0:37:55 [t=2275] 38, 9, 56, and what are those 35?
0:37:57 [t=2277] Speaker 225: So call it 39.
0:38:00 [t=2280] Speaker 217: And so you're saying that eliminating all stipends?
0:38:06 [t=2286] Speaker 42: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No? No. We were looking to see what stipends there
0:38:13 [t=2293] Steve (councillor): are that stick out that seem to be just like a one-off. So but the truth is, and looking at this list, I only found one, and that was group homes. So it's not going to have the impact that I thought. I honestly thought there were more stipends out there
0:38:32 [t=2312] Steve (councillor): and that this could have a larger impact on the county financially and go to a raise instead.
0:38:49 [t=2329] Speaker 192: I agree with you, Larry. I think that, you know, everybody's impacted by inflation.
0:38:55 [t=2335] Speaker 3 (chair): I mean, you know, we live at the level that we live. You know, it affects across the board. Okay.
0:39:04 [t=2344] Speaker 233: Judy, when we get this raise at the beginning with bacon-chilling,
0:39:09 [t=2349] Speaker 237: was everything brought up to the cost of living from where we studied it?
0:39:14 [t=2354] Speaker 238: Yes. No. No. No? No. I thought it was last year.
0:39:19 [t=2359] Speaker 119: No.
0:39:20 [t=2360] Judy (staff): Yeah, Kevin, that's why I told you guys to reach out to Kevin Gardner because he keeps an up-to-date record. And I know he had said before that we were at least two behind.
0:39:34 [t=2374] Speaker 240: We're two raises behind, correct.
0:39:35 [t=2375] Judy (staff): I believe it might be more. I don't know. I just, when Kevin spoke at one of the meetings, I remember that.
0:39:42 [t=2382] Yeah.
0:39:43 [t=2383] Judy (staff): So he could speak on it more. That's why I suggested at the last budget meeting that maybe you get the info from him.
0:39:49 [t=2389] Speaker 243: There are 693 full-time employees.
0:40:19 [t=2419] Speaker 57: If Kevin's here, he'd probably come over and come in. I'm texting him right now.
0:40:35 [t=2435] Speaker 250: That's a good number.
0:40:49 [t=2449] Speaker 3 (chair): You know, I think when we try to, you know, well, don't give a raise to these people and don't give a raise to those people. I mean, it gets winky dink and it's unfair to people. Either be fair and give a raise or don't give a raise. I mean, that's the way I feel.
0:41:06 [t=2466] Speaker 262: It affects you, it affects Larry, it affects Brad, and it's not fair.
0:41:13 [t=2473] Speaker 264: So are you suggesting if we're giving a raise, we give it even to elected officials?
0:41:17 [t=2477] Speaker 262: Well, they, you know, they... A cost of living raise is a cost of living raise. It's a cost of living raise. Who do you...
0:41:25 [t=2485] Speaker 268: It's the same thing as your aunt, your wife, your wife, by the way.
0:41:28 [t=2488] Yeah.
0:41:29 [t=2489] Speaker 272: I mean, I just think you have to be fair. Well, if you don't, what you're doing is you've got people that are up here, and you have people that are down here. There again, your middle class people are getting hosed if you do it that way, in my opinion. in my opinion but i'm nobody well you're not nobody but i mean you've got to decide how
0:41:52 [t=2512] Speaker 267: how are you going to do it you're going to do it you're going to i mean we could we could lower the
0:41:58 [t=2518] Speaker 3 (chair): upper class too and you know i mean you have to do if you're giving across the board you give it
0:42:03 [t=2523] Steve (councillor): across the board period all right so i am going to if if there are any raises I'm going to request that they are done separately this year, elected officials versus employees. Because last year I was forced to vote in favor of elected officials because it was all grouped together and I do not want to be put in that position again. So I'm asking if we are doing that, I would like for them to be separate to vote on.
0:42:39 [t=2559] Steve (councillor): I'm not voting for us to have a raise.
0:42:43 [t=2563] Speaker 279: So what is your, so you're not voting for elected officials?
0:42:49 [t=2569] Steve (councillor): I will not vote for elected officials to get a raise. I think we're all.
0:42:52 [t=2572] Speaker 280: Not even a cost of living?
0:42:53 [t=2573] Steve (councillor): No, I will not personally, no. Okay. Now, that doesn't mean you don't have four votes on here. You probably still have four votes on the council. I'm just not going to be one of those votes. would I vote for people that are working at this full time and coming to work every day
0:43:11 [t=2591] Steve (councillor): to have a raise that I could be convinced of but how do you separate that well I mean for starters
0:43:20 [t=2600] Speaker 144: most of us elected officials have the ability to not be here all the time and we have other incomes
0:43:29 [t=2609] Steve (councillor): with an employee, their 35 hours a week is generally working for the county and sometimes more than 35 hours a week. So in my mind, we all volunteered to run for office. We accepted it to run for that office at the rate that was advertised. I'm just, I'm not going to vote to give us a raise. but if but if they want to you've you've got two other people here that that can and then if it goes to the council you've got four people i'm sure that would do the same again i just don't want to be put in a position where i'm voting to give myself a raise or quite frankly there are
0:44:17 [t=2657] Steve (councillor): some salaries in our county that are pretty high and giving them whatever the percentage of raise is is, I'm just going to say it's disgusting, the amount that some people would get if they got the same percentage of raise. And I'm not convinced that some people are doing that much extra work. I think we put titles and we assume that some people are better than the rest of everybody else and we want to pay them these high rates. I don't believe it.
0:44:55 [t=2695] Speaker 90: So that's where I stand.
0:44:59 [t=2699] Speaker 93: Would we want to have Kevin come up and give us some numbers? Yes. Kevin Gardner? I have a number that I give it.
0:45:12 [t=2712] Speaker 293: I haven't prepared anything.
0:45:14 [t=2714] Speaker 47: I haven't prepared anything. You unprepared is generally more effective and more impactful than those of us that have
0:45:20 [t=2720] prepared.
0:45:21 [t=2721] Speaker 3 (chair): We're talking about our numbers that we have in our treasury and if we give raises, if we don't give raises and so forth, and the looming possibilities that we're facing and so forth.
0:45:39 [t=2739] Judy (staff): They asked if we were currently up to the study, and I told them that you would know better than anyone because you keep a pretty good eye on that. Yes, and I believe that we were at least two. raises behind from last time that you spoke before them so you would be the most knowledgeable
0:45:59 [t=2759] Speaker 300: when you did the last is that on camden i'm sorry yep it's on okay when you did the last
0:46:08 [t=2768] Kevin Gardner (consultant): last year and took everyone to they were pulling at the midpoint plus three actually it was a midpoint minus three. Because you were still short one cost of living rate. So let's say you stay with that. If you don't do a cost of living rate this year, then you will be behind at least six percent based off of where the study got. So if that's what you were wanting to know. So I guess ultimately it just comes to where you want the people at. You guys work very hard to get them to figure out. So if you were trying to get them to equate to some type of market, which is what they were doing,
0:47:03 [t=2823] Kevin Gardner (consultant): then every time you don't get a cost of living, you'll get farther away from that. if that makes sense. And Steve does what we're saying. I agree with you 100% that we have many positions that are overpaid. Whether it's elected official or staff, we've got positions that are overpaid. We've got positions that are drastically overpaid. And I have pushed for this for I know three years now of there being some sort of committee that analyzes every department to see where it's going. We've got enough intelligence in this building, people know what people do,
0:47:53 [t=2873] Kevin Gardner (consultant): that you can have a committee that can say, yes, this office is overstaffed, yes, this office is overstaffed, or yes, this person equal to these other offices is that they could pay or that you hire to all the pay. That's never happened. Again, I still think it needs to happen, and I think until it does, there are always going to be issues in the dark. But my only problem with not doing a grade to elected official 5% because we're similar to a department head other than we have to run for an election, they get appointed.
0:48:33 [t=2913] Kevin Gardner (consultant): you give them the rating you don't give them the elected official that's running their department so basically you said they're worth less than the department yes as elected officials we don't follow the same guidelines we don't have to be here there are a lot of us that are i know there's a lot of us that aren't but at some point if you keep raising the staff and the other workers at some point You run your own business, Steve, just like how you do. You would not pay your staff more than you do.
0:49:14 [t=2954] On paper, you might.
0:49:17 [t=2957] Speaker 311: I was going to say, I'll open my books up to you.
0:49:20 [t=2960] Kevin Gardner (consultant): I don't have the books, but in reality, you're not going to run a business to where you're paying the people anymore.
0:49:30 [t=2970] Speaker 314: It just wouldn't make any sense.
0:49:36 [t=2976] Speaker 316: Now again, I still, sorry, I thought this thing was on because I talk so loud anyway. But again, I do agree, there needs to be, we don't need to pay for any more studies, but there needs to be a study by office, by department to determine where it should be. Staffing and pay. I don't know that it ever happened, but it needs to happen. And it can be done in-house with volunteers where we're not paying another dime for a study.
0:50:10 [t=3010] Steve (councillor): So I think one thing that, and I'm sure it's part of it's covered by state statute, but if it's legal, I think just like the prosecutor has the ability to decide if they want to be full time or part time and choose between which salary they want, I think other elected positions should have that same ability so that if you want to be a part time assessor versus a full time assessor or full time versus part-time auditor then you're starting to get the salaries more appropriate to the position that we're going for we we are considered part-time so we make less
0:51:06 [t=3066] Larry (councillor): if I may yeah absolutely so let's say you do have that part-time auditor position mm-hmm so that auditor moves on next one comes in he's a full-time how
0:51:20 [t=3080] Speaker 326: do you assess that the same way she same way as you do with prosecutor's office
0:51:24 [t=3084] Speaker 327: no no not pay grades okay it's two different pay amounts just the way the prosecutor is so you choose you get to elect at the beginning if you would like
0:51:36 [t=3096] Steve (councillor): to be full-time or part-time and then once you make that election your pay will be based on that and the number of hours that you put in will be based on that as well so that it gives us the ability to say hey I want to be a part time or full-time elected official
0:51:55 [t=3115] Speaker 3 (chair): I'd like to just say I think that's a crock of baloney because when you elect somebody to do a job they ought to show up and do the job and then you're
0:52:04 [t=3124] Speaker 52 (staff): running into this Steve so if you have a part-time say Kevin becomes a part-time assessor who takes up that slack in the amount of work that he does he does a
0:52:14 [t=3134] Speaker 335: lot of work there I don't disagree but we we but that's a law but we do have
0:52:24 [t=3144] Steve (councillor): instances where that takes place and so when you when you hear me say I'm not forgiving and then you've got some elected officials that their salary is Because in my opinion, it is beyond gross at this point. And so to give a percentage of raise versus a flat raise, for starters, to me is getting the gap even further and further apart to where if I'm making $100,000 a year and I get a 5% increase, that's $5,000. But if I'm a $35,000 a year person or a $40,000 a year person, that's $1,000. So we're growing that gap even more and more and more to where it's truly not fair and
0:53:24 [t=3204] Steve (councillor): some employees can't afford to live.
0:53:27 [t=3207] Speaker 192: Let me just say, Kevin mentioned that it would be a good idea to have a panel to look at the salaries. As a matter of fact, Brad will remember this some years back. We did have a group got together and they selected folks from the personnel committee. Counsel, you know, and so forth, and they got it all together. And that's how it got so jacked up. And that's how the commissioner's salaries got so high and so forth. And, you know, it doesn't mean it's going to get better.
0:53:59 [t=3239] Speaker 276: It could get worse.
0:54:00 [t=3240] Speaker 316: I actually believe that in the handbook, it says that the commissioners do have a three-person panel or committee. I don't think it exists, but the handbook does say there is one. I just think it needs to be expanded to where it's not just two or three people. It needs to be somewhere around seven or nine. And it needs to be different people throughout the building that are always part of that. Steve I do agree with you on the straight percentage because you are correct I mean by doing that percentage it does create a larger and larger gap
0:54:37 [t=3277] Speaker 316: so I don't know if how you fix that is with some sort of a step down percentage
0:54:43 [t=3283] Steve (councillor): or something if you just do if you're gonna do it first off we we have said since we started this that we were gonna do raises this year and now we're entertaining the idea and so whatever raise anyone gets is a raise that we weren't getting two months ago when we started this conversation so my thought was if you pick a flat number whatever that number is you pick a flat number and you apply it to every county employee now the person who's making thirty eight thousand dollars or thirty nine thousand dollars a year is going to
0:55:17 [t=3317] Steve (councillor): fill that impact on their lives a whole lot more than the person's making a hundred thousand dollars a year and the and the person who's making a hundred thousand dollars a year that raises it going to impact their lifestyle the way it will someone who's making now in in in a non-governmental position I'm for supply and demand you do what you can let the market dictate what's going to
0:55:44 [t=3344] Speaker 111: happen but in a with with tax dollars I believe that we should be as fair as
0:55:52 [t=3352] Speaker 316: possible to our employees I agree and I also wanted to say I'm not promoting for a race for elected officials I know I don't get the voting trying to do some type of fairness you can't treat one different than another sure sure absolutely I agree with the percentage I mean because the gap would just continue to get bigger and bigger and bigger oh thanks
0:56:16 [t=3376] Steve (councillor): anyway this is price something that we can continue the conversation on again as we get more research in but or if you're ready to do something you can you can do
0:56:29 [t=3389] Speaker 354: something let's wait okay all right well that was this next next meeting I think
0:56:37 [t=3397] Speaker 276: I think we should ask around the building about it, too.
0:56:41 [t=3401] Speaker 3 (chair): But I think that elected officials, they're not living on the high side.
0:56:47 [t=3407] Speaker 192: Most of them are not. And that's for sure.
0:56:51 [t=3411] Speaker 194: I'm just going to say this openly.
0:56:56 [t=3416] Larry (councillor): I think we should worry more about our employees than we should those that have.
0:57:04 [t=3424] Speaker 3 (chair): By the same token, I mean, that's how elected officials, you know, their salaries fall behind the upper payers, too.
0:57:12 [t=3432] Larry (councillor): That's going to be up to you guys, but I would, and I'm not being noble here, I'm just saying.
0:57:18 [t=3438] Speaker 267: But I'll tell you what, Larry, we have some money, and we shouldn't let people get behind, and the salaries fall behind, because in the past it has.
0:57:27 [t=3447] Speaker 3 (chair): And, you know, Brad knows that's true, you know. I mean, I think we need to keep up when we can.
0:57:33 [t=3453] Speaker 192: and otherwise you know we fall in the you know as you're not gonna get rich that's for dang sure if you're gonna be working for Vigo County government nobody well some people get rich but that didn't happen on my watch
0:57:50 [t=3470] Speaker 185: so if if you're going to do if you're going to do elected officials and you
0:58:00 [t=3480] Steve (councillor): did the exact same amount that you did look there's not that many elected officials anyway so it's not like it's a big impact on the county so but if you're going to do the elected officials and you did it at the exact same number that you did the employees the only thing I ask is that we separate it it's not that I don't want to see the elected officials get it it's that I have made a commitment to the public I will not vote for a raise that I am included in and so I I won't I just won't do that
0:58:28 [t=3508] Speaker 370: so moving along okay
0:58:33 [t=3513] Speaker 373: okay what we got next you guys what do you want to talk about what's the auditor's office have next
0:58:46 [t=3526] Speaker 376: um you don't have it in front of you yet but i do have two funds that we still needed to approve it is 1217 which is the co-elected official training with the auditor's
0:58:58 [t=3538] Speaker 377: office and then fund 1237 which is the opioid fund because we did advertise to 50 out of that and County General so this is just so that you guys can either give it a favorable or unfavorable recommendation
0:59:13 [t=3553] Steve (councillor): Also, while we're waiting for you to bring that up here, I spoke to Travis Norris, and
0:59:26 [t=3566] Steve (councillor): he did indicate that he probably just assumed he'd keep the budget as he had it proposed and that he may want to make changes going forward in the future. But if that happens, he'll come back to us. So if you recall, we tabled it when it was put up on the screen. He didn't have any changes. And we tabled it because he and I had had a conversation and he was gone. Yeah.
1:00:04 [t=3604] Speaker 145 (staff): Looks like you're going to have to, you did the two, threes, and fours. looks like it's going to be the ones that need to be voted on for the coroner?
1:00:13 [t=3613] Speaker 385: Correct. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.
1:00:38 [t=3638] Speaker 389: What are we looking at here again? I'm sorry.
1:00:41 [t=3641] Speaker 145 (staff): This is a county elected officials training. Yes. And this is a fund that we take in fees that go into this fund.
1:00:53 [t=3653] Judy (staff): And that is where the county elected officials can use when they go to conferences. Instead of hitting county general all the time, there's $25,000 that we take out of here.
1:01:05 [t=3665] Judy (staff): for the there's only certain elected officials that can use it that's this one certain offices
1:01:21 [t=3681] Speaker 400: that's what we put in to be appropriated to be spent before you yeah
1:01:26 [t=3686] Speaker 264: which elected officials have access to that
1:01:31 [t=3691] Speaker 119: um surveyor auditor treasurer recorder clerk assessor
1:01:45 [t=3705] Speaker 405: the assessor all right make a motion to approve all the favor say aye aye motion passes thank you
1:01:53 [t=3713] Speaker 389: all right the next one that we're looking at here
1:02:08 [t=3728] Judy (staff): opioid funding that's where we went ahead and advertised judge ready's 250 000 advertised it out of county general court's budget and also advertised it in the opioid
1:02:21 [t=3741] Speaker 409: Okay, so.
1:02:22 [t=3742] Judy (staff): And then you guys left it up to the commissioners to decide what they wanted to do. But if it's not advertised, you can't do it. So that's why they advertised it.
1:02:30 [t=3750] Steve (councillor): So I think what we want to do is advertise that opioid only, and then the commissioners get to make that decision?
1:02:38 [t=3758] Speaker 411: If you, okay, if you, it's been advertised in both. We're done. Oh, okay. You're done with that. Okay. So the decision will be made.
1:02:47 [t=3767] Judy (staff): Where do you want to pay it from? And then the full council can decide what.
1:02:53 [t=3773] Speaker 30: Okay, in the last budget meeting, I thought we had said we were going to let the commissioners make the decision on where to apply opioid funds.
1:03:00 [t=3780] Speaker 145 (staff): Right, but we have to advertise it. If they say no, they don't want to pay for Judge Ready out of here, then we wouldn't
1:03:09 [t=3789] Judy (staff): be able to do it out of County General. She would have to come sometime in 27 and ask for that. That's why it was advertised in both, because that's what was requested. So what we'll do now is what you have said, the changes, we will go back through now. And like everything that was supposed to be out of public safety, and it was advertised in the sheriff's budget and lit public safety, we will take out the sheriff's budget to reflect what you three have done. But at any point, if the full council wants to say, no, we would rather it come out of County General, we can move it back.
1:03:46 [t=3826] Judy (staff): If we hadn't advertised it out of both, we would be locked into one fund. So what's going to get printed next is going to be upon your recommendations.
1:04:02 [t=3842] Speaker 415: Is that what you're looking for? A motion for us to take it out of opioids? Is that what you're looking for us to say?
1:04:09 [t=3849] Speaker 55 (staff): Yes. I mean, yeah. You guys can do your recommendation.
1:04:16 [t=3856] Speaker 424: And that's all they need, just recommendation.
1:04:18 [t=3858] Speaker 427: All right, so, yes?
1:04:20 [t=3860] Speaker 424: Sure, get it.
1:04:25 [t=3865] Speaker 430: This is Charles Johnson, Judge Vito County Superior Court Division I, also Chief Judge.
1:04:30 [t=3870] Charles Johnson (judge): Since you are discussing opioid funds, I'm not here specifically just concerning Judge Ready's program, I was hoping maybe we could reopen discussion as far as the rise in the case management position for Mental Health Treatment Court. I believe at the last budget meeting that was recommended to not go into general as our request. And I just had some additional information I thought might be appropriate if we would allow me some time and maybe reconsider opening that up and possibly making that recommendation. Is the budget committee okay with that, I guess, to start off with? Sure.
1:05:05 [t=3905] Charles Johnson (judge): Okay, thank you. So as the committee is aware, we did add those three positions that were being paid for by opioid only and we requested this year that they be placed into our general budget and then they be reimbursed with the opioid funds. Currently, we are working on a memorandum of understanding with the city as well as the county to get an understanding of what that actual amount will be reimbursed towards those positions as far as our request in general. With the city, I did have a chance to talk with Mike Wright this morning. They are still moving forward with that.
1:05:46 [t=3946] Charles Johnson (judge): It's my understanding after talking with Mayor Sackbun at the last meeting that the city is recommending $100,000 each year for the next three years that would go towards helping fund these three positions. would cover roughly 34% of the request that was added into the general fund. The remaining balance that the county would be on the pay on the hook for would then be $174,493.97, which is roughly about 64% of the request. And that would just be if it was out general without any additional We are still working with the commissioners as far as getting the opioid funds, hopefully
1:06:30 [t=3990] Charles Johnson (judge): pay for the rest of that as well. That's still in process. We don't necessarily have a number one way or the other, but it's my understanding they still are supportive of this, just not we haven't quite gotten to where we need on the number. I know the budget committee also at the last meeting was able to recommend the new public defender's position and some of the discussion was concerning reimbursement. If only the city in part goes in, it would be roughly about 36 percent, which is almost the same amount of reimbursement that the public defender's office position is getting from the state.
1:07:09 [t=4029] Charles Johnson (judge): So it would be about the same reimbursement one way or the other on both those positions. Additionally, the courts have been in support of the public defenders, and I'm not saying in any way that they shouldn't get that position or anything like that. I'm just saying that the courts have also taken on some additional responsibilities with that grant that the Pove Defender's Office has taken. I think you guys are all aware that the City Court cases now are all filed in Division 5. Right now, last year, Division 5 had a utilization number, which is roughly what the state thinks
1:07:44 [t=4064] Charles Johnson (judge): that the court should have as far as caseload. The perfect number is one. Right now, Division 5 is at 1.32. Last year before they took the misdemeanors on, they were only at 1.09. So that's jumped up 0.23, so almost roughly a fourth of a quart additional that they're taking on, which is recommended from the state. Overall, Vito County still is number three in the severity of need for the state of Indiana as well. If, in a perfect world, what we would have would be two additional judicial officers that would be able to fund the, to be able to act to work where the state wants this technically
1:08:25 [t=4105] Charles Johnson (judge): to be working at, which would be at a point, at a one. Obviously if that was to happen, there would be more additional costs and we're not asking for any of that this time, but I just want to make sure everyone's aware of where the courts are as far as that. With the RISE and the case managers for a mental health treatment court, specifically the RISE individuals, they help facilitate the grants of the Public Defender's Office as well. Part of their duties now are filling out petitions for appointment of counsel, which are required for the grant for the Public Defender's Office.
1:08:59 [t=4139] Charles Johnson (judge): With the high caseload in Division 5, that's something they take care of as well. So they come in, fill out the paperwork so that the defendant's information is properly provided and sent forward for the grant so we can send her to stay in compliance with the requirements for the grant as well. Overall, their duties to also help keep the individuals out of jail. I know we've got an ongoing jail overcrowding problem and unfortunately with the uncertainty with where we are, the community corrections and the possibility of losing a probation offer as well.
1:09:35 [t=4175] Charles Johnson (judge): That'll likely raise the jail count numbers due to the loss of alternatives to just incarceration. With all that said, I just wanted to request that the court reconsider the request of the general fund. I do think we all have the reimbursement, which at a minimum for the next three years with the city, it would be $100,000. And that's the memorandum of understanding is being worked on right now between Dave Frederick and Michael Wright to get that taken care of. The county number I know is still up in the air, and I'm sure the budget committee would prefer a more exact number as far as that.
1:10:12 [t=4212] Charles Johnson (judge): But even then, like I said, if it was just the city, it'd still be a 36% reimbursement, which would be comparable, which was with the Pelot Defender's Office position as receiving as well. I'm welcome to answer any questions, and I just request that that might be reconsidered.
1:10:27 [t=4227] Speaker 439: Can I ask you, do you think the city's going to be able to swing that?
1:10:31 [t=4231] Charles Johnson (judge): That's my understanding from Mayor Sacklin, is that he felt committed that three years at $100,000, he'd still be in a good position.
1:10:39 [t=4239] Speaker 439: He'd be out picking up aluminum cans this weekend.
1:10:41 [t=4241] Charles Johnson (judge): Would that just be the opioid funds from the city that Debbie used to pay for?
1:10:46 [t=4246] Steve (councillor): I've got a couple things on this too, if you don't mind.
1:10:48 [t=4248] Steve (councillor): So I think one of the challenges we had here was with Gretchen's program, she didn't just finance the 37 percent through the state. She actually did away with a whole other piece of her budget to offset it. So she fully funded that new position. We're not funding any of it. Okay. The second thing is we're in a bad position because there are several departments here that have some asked for new positions, some wanted to ask for new positions, but chose not to because we had said up front that we weren't going to create or pick up positions.
1:11:30 [t=4290] Steve (councillor): And so it's hard for us to say we're going to treat this department different than this one. And Gretchen was an exception because she literally found a way to fully fund her position. And then, of course, the sheriffs, because of the situation over with West Terre Haute, they lost their police agency or turned it into a town marshal. Now, having said that, we did try to come up with a solution so that the judges potentially still get what they need by turning over the opioid fund to the commissioners. So now you can still get that, the portion that you're asking funded, you could still
1:12:07 [t=4327] Steve (councillor): get it funded. it would just be through the commissioners through the opioid fund versus through us and the general that way i think they're pretty passionate about the same thing that you're passionate about and my guess is they'll probably want to hear exactly what you just said especially with the city offsetting the uh 37 or whatever it was a hundred thousand dollars a year so that to me that was our our way of saying hey let's let's find a way that they can still move forward with these programs by turning over the opioid fund and so literally we're not
1:12:43 [t=4363] Steve (councillor): gonna have much say on that anymore that's gonna be the commissioners that are gonna be able to say yes we think this is a good program let's move
1:12:49 [t=4369] Charles Johnson (judge): forward I understand and I appreciate that I guess one point would just be that the hope would be used to be these three positions would be a hundred percent funded too so one just be the city but then this the county which is hopefully would then cover the remaining balance. That would be so each of these three positions would be entirely covered with reimbursement for the opioid fund. And I guess I also would point out, too, these aren't necessarily new positions. Two, one has been in case manager was created last year, so that's the funding for an additional.
1:13:21 [t=4401] Charles Johnson (judge): And the RISE case managers were from a grant from two years ago. They were cut down due to the loss of those funds in the opioids. So there was one from three to two, but they also have been in place for two years as well. I guess just the request to would be why we're running on the general is just that it gives us some stability as far as the program. We're aware that it's going to go. I know that puts the county as the backstop on these. But we do believe that with the opioid funds, we'll be able to get these funded and at least continue moving forward to get them taken care of.
1:13:57 [t=4437] Charles Johnson (judge): The hope would be obviously the crest will be if the But if it's not approved, we will go and request that the OE Poets funds be paid through the commissioner's office as we did last year. But it would still be my understanding that the council would have to vote on that as well, like last year, where even though the committee does, the commissioners do make that recommendation, we did have to come in front of the council to make that request to get those funded.
1:14:25 [t=4465] Steve (councillor): I mean, my humble opinion is I'm good either way, but if we are going to do that I think you have to open up to the entire county to start over and let them also come back and ask for their new positions we cannot treat different departments differently and I with all due respect I absolutely want to help you and I thought we found a solution to help the judges
1:14:47 [t=4487] Speaker 453: but if I think that's the intention was to run it through the commissioners we
1:14:54 [t=4494] Steve (councillor): thought we were we thought we were helping you in doing that if we are going to do this my humble opinion is we don't treat one department different
1:15:02 [t=4502] Speaker 454: than another department we start over and we treat them all the same
1:15:13 [t=4513] Charles Johnson (judge): but I'm happy to follow the commissioners and it I know you'd already voted on this so this is just my opportunity to try and give some additional information so if that is what it is that you know we respect that and I'll continue to move forward well I appreciate that but so I guess then with that so I will speak with the commissioners and we'll hopefully be able to get that worked out
1:15:35 [t=4535] Speaker 93: as well but thank you all we're still sitting if you have to come back thank
1:15:40 [t=4540] Speaker 185: you thank you all right so we were talking about the 254 ready so
1:15:52 [t=4552] Speaker 367: to take okay so there's a motion to take it out opioid all second yeah okay all
1:15:58 [t=4558] Speaker 466: in favor say aye aye motion approved and moving along
1:16:06 [t=4566] Speaker 469: what we got next
1:16:14 [t=4574] Speaker 472: the coroner salary about 50 minutes
1:16:20 [t=4580] Speaker 474: The corners level one or grade one we call them level ones.
1:16:25 [t=4585] Speaker 137: The one series.
1:16:28 [t=4588] Speaker 476: So is that up on screen by chance?
1:16:50 [t=4610] Speaker 30: what's that yeah there's money in it in opioid and they've got more coming in so
1:16:56 [t=4616] Speaker 52 (staff): we got $27,000 the first of this month that's the only payment that we've gotten from the opioids but they're they have the undistributed the non-restricted the non-restricted
1:17:15 [t=4635] Speaker 145 (staff): The non-restricted has over $200,000 that's not been touched.
1:17:20 [t=4640] Speaker 485: How much?
1:17:21 [t=4641] Speaker 486: Over $200,000.
1:17:24 [t=4644] Steve (councillor): Can you explain the restricted versus non-restricted and how much is in each one and what you could use each one for, if you know that answer?
1:17:34 [t=4654] Speaker 487: Sorry.
1:17:34 [t=4654] Larry (councillor): the non-restricted has a more broad description as where the restriction restricted account
1:17:47 [t=4667] Speaker 489: can only be used for certain things such as things that related relate to preventative causes for people on opioid, substance abuse, that kind of stuff. Okay.
1:18:07 [t=4687] Speaker 490: So I guess I was under the impression that it could all only be used for things that involved opioid addiction to some degree.
1:18:13 [t=4693] Speaker 489: The non is there's more of a broad, and I have sent that to you before. It's been a while.
1:18:20 [t=4700] Speaker 264: Yeah.
1:18:21 [t=4701] Speaker 489: But I can find that and send that to you again.
1:18:23 [t=4703] Speaker 264: And how much is in each of those accounts? Ballpark?
1:18:33 [t=4713] Speaker 497: There. I actually did a spreadsheet for you.
1:18:40 [t=4720] Speaker 499: Sorry.
1:18:53 [t=4733] Speaker 503: Thank you.
1:19:23 [t=4763] Speaker 507: printed them all out
1:19:53 [t=4793] Judy (staff): I believe when I did it, it would be if all the appropriations were used.
1:20:01 [t=4801] Speaker 42: And I know the one.
1:20:03 [t=4803] Judy (staff): Here it is.
1:20:04 [t=4804] Speaker 42: The one was going to have like 200 and some at the end of the year, but the other I'm not familiar with.
1:20:08 [t=4808] Judy (staff): If all the appropriations are used that were appropriated in 2026 and no additional income came in, there would be roughly $243,000 left in that fund. And then I do know that there's like, oh, here it is right here. There's $218,712 in the non-restricted.
1:20:29 [t=4829] Speaker 144: All right, so they've got roughly $400,000 right there to play with.
1:20:33 [t=4833] Speaker 145 (staff): And possibly more. And possibly more. If we're getting another payment.
1:20:37 [t=4837] Speaker 411: Like I said, I know $27,000, I think, $26,000, $27,000 came in earlier this month. Sure.
1:20:47 [t=4847] Speaker 521: All right. What's next on our agenda?
1:20:52 [t=4852] Speaker 487: Oh the corner yeah and is that on our screen or not on our screen it is okay and there were no major changes here correct
1:21:10 [t=4870] Speaker 442: I'll make a motion to accept as it sets
1:21:16 [t=4876] Speaker 526: all in favor say aye aye Budget is approved.
1:21:32 [t=4892] Speaker 52 (staff): We didn't do anything with the lit funds. I don't know if you guys took your homework home and looked at them, what was paid out
1:21:41 [t=4901] Speaker 145 (staff): of them, what the balances would be at the end of 26, all that that was handed out to you.
1:21:46 [t=4906] Thank you.
1:22:16 [t=4936] Speaker 88: Do we still have a handful of ones that we need to still approve as well? I think it's just a lift on that board. That's it?
1:22:27 [t=4947] I do. I do. I do.
1:22:30 [t=4950] Speaker 533: Not that one I don't. I got tied up at FedEx.
1:22:32 [t=4952] Probably not.
1:22:33 [t=4953] Speaker 327: I got tied up at trying to find FedEx well ago and had to bring the wrong vehicle here.
1:22:46 [t=4966] Thank you.
1:23:16 [t=4996] Speaker 377: Steve, I don't believe that we didn't do a favorable or unfavorable recommendation for any of the departments that had a grade change.
1:23:39 [t=5019] Speaker 544: Because you guys were talking about the policy that you want to put in place?
1:23:43 [t=5023] Speaker 543: I still don't have a good I still don't have a good recommendation yet do either of you
1:23:50 [t=5030] Speaker 88: okay we may still have to pause on that for just a little bit a little bit longer on I know I'm sorry
1:23:58 [t=5038] Speaker 141: Will you review those real quick, which ones they were?
1:24:12 [t=5052] Speaker 376: I have the auditor's office because there was a grade change and a stipend request.
1:24:18 [t=5058] Speaker 377: I have the clerk for a grade change. We were going to come back to the community corrections. because they have benefits paid out of there.
1:24:34 [t=5074] Speaker 551: The corner. The corner we just did.
1:24:42 [t=5082] Speaker 554: We just did the corner then.
1:24:49 [t=5089] Speaker 551: The surveyor.
1:24:51 [t=5091] Speaker 557: He did a new job description with a title change, with a grade change.
1:24:58 [t=5098] Speaker 560: I think we were going to look into the treasurers as well.
1:25:07 [t=5107] Speaker 562: I don't recall that one. What was that?
1:25:09 [t=5109] Speaker 563: Something, I think that was just on our end. We needed to take a look at that.
1:25:12 [t=5112] Speaker 562: Okay. Okay.
1:25:28 [t=5128] Thank you.
1:25:58 [t=5158] Speaker 572: Morgan, can you pull up the treasurers and county general for a second?
1:26:16 [t=5176] Speaker 575: I'll just have her pull to the treasurer for a second so you can see.
1:26:19 [t=5179] Speaker 51: If you remember right, there was some stuff that looked funky up there the other day. Oh, yeah. So we were going back.
1:26:32 [t=5192] Speaker 578: There were several of these that just didn't match. But we approved that on 8-19. Sorry? It's okay. Yeah.
1:26:38 [t=5198] Speaker 582: I'm going back through real quick just to make sure there's a lot of stuff there in
1:26:47 [t=5207] Steve (councillor): there. didn't match before that do match now we can probably run those through right quick
1:27:18 [t=5238] Steve (councillor): So with what we don't have on here is the last time you showed us, you showed us what it was last year. Do we need to see that along with it?
1:27:40 [t=5260] Thank you.
1:28:10 [t=5290] Speaker 517: So it went from 423 to...
1:28:17 [t=5297] Speaker 595: It went down. It was that...
1:28:33 [t=5313] Speaker 596: You can stand closer.
1:28:40 [t=5320] Speaker 225: So should this have gone down? And are we concerned about that?
1:28:55 [t=5335] Speaker 332: No, it's fine. The reason why we didn't approve it yet is because there's a position in there.
1:29:03 [t=5343] Speaker 599: Oh, that's very fine.
1:29:07 [t=5347] Speaker 600: Oh, no, it's fine. we've already proved it
1:29:13 [t=5353] Steve (councillor): okay so they're but they're there they're ones are going down by four thousand dollars roughly or three thousand dollars and change we're okay with that
1:29:32 [t=5372] Speaker 614: okay but it's still accountable okay as long as you guys are comfortable with it I make a motion to approve oh I thought that's why this was up here was to 819
1:29:44 [t=5384] Speaker 274: we went back Devin and I had gotten your answers and we copy that so are there
1:29:51 [t=5391] Speaker 517: are there others that were that fell into this category that we've not approved right because I felt like okay all right
1:30:08 [t=5408] Speaker 618: We need to look at highway 1176.
1:30:34 [t=5434] Speaker 620: That's a big one, isn't it?
1:30:38 [t=5438] Speaker 52 (staff): We had to go back and look at highway and this is good.
1:30:45 [t=5445] Speaker 625: What's that?
1:30:46 [t=5446] Speaker 191: It's not approved but how does it look to you? The highway is ready to go.
1:30:54 [t=5454] Speaker 52 (staff): For the salaries for the ones. We went back and we saw stuff Steve was pointing out and we just wanted to be sure. Let's take a look.
1:31:05 [t=5465] Not about 20,000.
1:31:11 [t=5471] Speaker 634: Can I see in the future? No, we're just going to...
1:31:21 [t=5481] Oh.
1:31:22 [t=5482] Speaker 640: Okay, we're just going to... How was that? Okay, so we're just going to...
1:31:33 [t=5493] Speaker 633: It looks pretty decent.
1:32:03 [t=5523] Judy (staff): and if you notice it'll be location 532 531 and 530 they all each have payroll
1:32:29 [t=5549] Speaker 145 (staff): in each of those.
1:32:35 [t=5555] Speaker 294: And they're all down a little bit. Is that cool?
1:32:38 [t=5558] Speaker 600: That's what we went back and looked.
1:32:39 [t=5559] Speaker 294: Okay.
1:32:44 [t=5564] Speaker 79: That went down to insurance. We're done.
1:32:48 [t=5568] Speaker 644: Insurance always goes up, doesn't it?
1:32:54 [t=5574] Speaker 646: Well, suit you?
1:32:58 [t=5578] Speaker 476: I think so. Nancy, you have any questions? I'll make a motion to accept.
1:33:05 [t=5585] Speaker 649: Second. Second. More with favor say. Aye. Aye. It is approved.
1:33:16 [t=5596] Speaker 599: Next one's infraction deferral that we went to look at. Morgan's getting ready to pull that up.
1:33:23 [t=5603] Speaker 653: 2501.
1:33:30 [t=5610] Speaker 400: And this one was correct.
1:33:38 [t=5618] Speaker 657: It is correct, you say?
1:33:40 [t=5620] Speaker 400: Yes.
1:33:50 [t=5630] Speaker 660: I'll make a motion to approve.
1:33:53 [t=5633] Speaker 191: where the travel expenses went up they going to go while you you already approved that one
1:33:59 [t=5639] Speaker 664: you approved that on 813. I mean it must be okay all in favor say aye the budget is approved the next one's going to be fund 1161
1:34:11 [t=5651] Speaker 137: one and this is where they raise the grade fours to grade five two of them in there
1:34:27 [t=5667] Speaker 145 (staff): Joni's Public Health they had fours in there raised them to a five
1:34:34 [t=5674] Speaker 668: thank you for pointing that out
1:34:41 [t=5681] Speaker 294: And somehow it's still less.
1:34:58 [t=5698] Speaker 675 (staff): It's because we took those people to midpoint, so this fund also had stipends last year. So when you took everybody to midpoint, you got rid of the stipends.
1:35:09 [t=5709] Speaker 557: So that's why you're seeing a decrease.
1:35:12 [t=5712] Speaker 678: got it okay motion to approve all the papers say aye aye and then i think we had races i think we
1:35:23 [t=5723] Speaker 119: had reassessment 1224.
1:35:41 [t=5741] Speaker 274: And the reason why that looked all funky is because you have
1:36:05 [t=5765] Speaker 145 (staff): two departments that used that for payroll and it wasn't all separated up
1:36:13 [t=5773] Speaker 497: so we made sure that that was good
1:36:18 [t=5778] Speaker 42: so you've now turned it into two different departments
1:36:24 [t=5784] Speaker 482: 8 is the county assessor and 13 is the Harrison assessor
1:36:32 [t=5792] Speaker 689: we also separated out the part-time salaries as well from the full from the payroll salary so you'll see a slight decrease in that line item but it makes up for the part-time salaries okay
1:36:45 [t=5805] Speaker 191: and why did that happen how why did you do it this way
1:36:52 [t=5812] Speaker 145 (staff): so they'll know what they're spending out of their own location okay
1:36:59 [t=5819] Speaker 698: it kind of helps them
1:37:01 [t=5821] Speaker 145 (staff): there is but not in salaries we've already done the two threes and fours this is just salaries
1:37:10 [t=5830] Speaker 699: because they're doing their own digital claims now it kind of helps them keep track of how much part-time and overtime they have that way they're not calling the auditor's office it kind of eliminates us as the middle man okay got it
1:37:29 [t=5849] Speaker 105: So the salary on the top line along with the 08 payroll and the 13 part-time.
1:37:51 [t=5871] Speaker 703: 226 226 okay
1:38:03 [t=5883] Speaker 689: so this is just harrison that uses reassessment for payroll fika per group insurance those are
1:38:15 [t=5895] Speaker 487: your series ones for them so there was no i guess on this one there was no 26 number to compare to
1:38:21 [t=5901] Speaker 706: Because last year it was grouped together.
1:38:23 [t=5903] Speaker 487: So that was in that 429,000 that we saw before? Yes. Copy that. That's what I was asking. Okay.
1:38:29 [t=5909] Speaker 689: Yeah. But we went back to the 144,000, and those numbers are reflected correctly. Okay.
1:38:40 [t=5920] Speaker 713: All right.
1:38:40 [t=5920] Speaker 689: So you have Harrison, and then you have the assessors. The auditor also uses it, but not for Series 1s.
1:38:51 [t=5931] Speaker 191: And then when those are combined, they all fit on that one page. Got it. Because it's all the same fund.
1:38:58 [t=5938] Speaker 664: Can you do the...
1:39:00 [t=5940] Speaker 716: Make a motion to approve.
1:39:03 [t=5943] Speaker 678: Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
1:39:21 [t=5961] Speaker 723: So I guess that just leaves all your grade changes and then any stipend requests.
1:39:45 [t=5985] Speaker 599: didn't approve any of those so they're still open
1:39:51 [t=5991] Speaker 730: whatever you guys want okay okay
1:39:57 [t=5997] Speaker 731: all right
1:40:06 [t=6006] Speaker 191: ladies we're going to call it a day and leave that for later let's make a list
1:40:14 [t=6014] Speaker 740: of what we still need to do good idea that's great
1:40:27 [t=6027] Judy (staff): so we need to do the lit funds and then with this paperwork that we gave it gives you the estimated balance at the end of this year if no additional appropriations were made in those funds after 731 that's your estimated balance okay and that's for all your lit funds and I also did County General okay so we need you need to look at those and see
1:40:59 [t=6059] Steve (councillor): and refresh my memory I I thought the last time we met we had decided anything that we could take out a lit we were going to do that and we did that but
1:41:08 [t=6068] Judy (staff): But then again, Samantha, what is that 0.2%? Because like on lit correctional rehab is 0.2%.
1:41:18 [t=6078] Speaker 55 (staff): That's why I said you probably need to talk to counsel about some of those things. Or not counsel.
1:41:31 [t=6091] Speaker 100: Yeah, your counselor.
1:41:32 [t=6092] Judy (staff): Different counsel. It's spelled differently, yes. Yes. But you have everything at your fingertips for those of what is paid currently out of each of those funds.
1:41:44 [t=6104] Judy (staff): You know, like lit public safety, we eat into that every year because that's where over $2 million of it goes back to county general to reimburse jailers.
1:41:56 [t=6116] Speaker 752: I am looking back.
1:41:57 [t=6117] Judy (staff): That's where we paid the first tower payments in 26, where it came out of that also. We were cutting into it, and if you look at the, it says a lit, and it's got listed out, I give you a little synopsis there about we are cutting into it each year, because the sheriff's stuff comes out of there also, some of the sheriff's stuff.
1:42:27 [t=6147] Speaker 487: I'm trying to remember if I spoke with Samantha or if I had emails or text messages with her,
1:42:34 [t=6154] Steve (councillor): but she did address and I I thought
1:42:45 [t=6165] Speaker 614: you do have something there okay what do you have
1:42:52 [t=6172] Speaker 760: she spoke with general counsel for State Board of Accounts he said the two-tenths of one percent as noted in the statute cannot be used for anything not tied to a facility whether correctional or rehabilitative the cc lit funds have to be used for facility purposes i told him it is for staff who perform dual diagnosis work trying to get into facility standard however he said that unless it is a specific facility they cannot be used public safety lit funds can be used statute with this highlights attached
1:43:35 [t=6215] Speaker 763: so when she prints it she's got the ordinance on here
1:43:50 [t=6230] Speaker 764: a county fiscal body may adopt an ordinance to impose a tax rate for correctional facilities and rehabilitations facilities in the county. And it gives the particulars of how that's done. I can forward that to you again if you'd like.
1:44:12 [t=6252] Speaker 373: Yeah, send that to each of us if you would be kind enough.
1:44:15 [t=6255] Speaker 764: Absolutely.
1:44:21 [t=6261] Speaker 47: I don't have any service in here.
1:44:27 [t=6267] Speaker 42: So if I'm understanding you correctly, the answer is no, we cannot use, we need to go through general, it sounds like, for that. But even at that.
1:44:57 [t=6297] Speaker 759: Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.
1:45:18 [t=6318] Speaker 773: All right, so Community Corrections. What's up?
1:45:53 [t=6353] Speaker 569: Thank you.
1:46:23 [t=6383] Speaker 788: buddy but you're worth it nope i'll be on the beach that's right oh well see how she is well
1:46:29 [t=6389] Speaker 503: now that's not gonna work have fun without me that's that's that's why we yeah yeah when do
1:46:36 [t=6396] Speaker 801: you leave judy when do you leave thursday thursday morning yeah so tomorrow's your only other day
1:46:50 [t=6410] Speaker 388: I can't do tomorrow when do you get back Judy
1:46:56 [t=6416] Speaker 806: after the first reading of the budget after the first reading of the budget all right so
1:47:12 [t=6432] Judy (staff): actually had it scheduled for last week to go and then my husband got the wrong dates and he works at the airport so he was all hands on deck so he's been working 18 hours at the airport so
1:47:24 [t=6444] Steve (councillor): we switched it um i need some education here on first reading of the budget
1:47:33 [t=6453] Steve (councillor): is that where we just read the parts that we have done or is there are we expected to have
1:47:40 [t=6460] Judy (staff): a lot of times what they'll do is your committee chairperson or someone on the committee can say this is what we our recommendation and we give the
1:47:53 [t=6473] Judy (staff): highlights of what you've done like if you said no positions and the grant positions are going away and we're not going to fund them out of County General we recommended a position for the sheriff's department when you kind of tell the highlight okay so we're just getting some highlights to the others
1:48:11 [t=6491] Judy (staff): and then they will have a copy. It's not going to be a book, but it's going to be a copy of everything that you suggested to be changed. So they'll get that. And then they have time to mull that over and see what they like about it, what they don't like about it.
1:48:36 [t=6516] Speaker 814: More like what they don't like about it.
1:48:37 [t=6517] Judy (staff): Or what maybe an elected official or department head went to them and said, hey, this was taken out, we'd like to have it back in,
1:48:45 [t=6525] Speaker 816: and then they can make that recommendation to you to put it back in or do a vote.
1:48:51 [t=6531] Judy (staff): Or do a vote.
1:48:55 [t=6535] Speaker 617: All right.
1:48:56 [t=6536] Judy (staff): But you do a vote in October. October. October. And whatever is finalized that night, these girls have ten days to get it in to Gateway. So that's why they're going to get a copy of what you recommended on the 1st and highly suggested that they look over all that.
1:49:19 [t=6559] Speaker 820: Right.
1:49:19 [t=6559] Speaker 823: So we're not in the vote we were last year.
1:49:22 [t=6562] Speaker 194: And also I'm going to be giving elected officials, department heads,
1:49:28 [t=6568] Larry (councillor): a copy of this so they can look at it, ask to discuss that with you if need be.
1:49:35 [t=6575] Speaker 824: Okay.
1:49:35 [t=6575] Steve (councillor): Okay, so the week of the 14th, let's go back just a little bit further.
1:49:47 [t=6587] Steve (councillor): When do we have to have everything finalized by and have it in so that we can vote in October?
1:49:53 [t=6593] Judy (staff): everything's already in to gateway just morgan it'll have to go they'll have to go back in and change your recommendations
1:50:09 [t=6609] Speaker 831: okay so i let me they'll get it then you'll get a copy of that when is our drop dead deadline
1:50:18 [t=6618] Steve (councillor): for the October because we're wanting to vote on this in October so when is our do we have all the way up till the October meeting we could still be making changes that that is acceptable
1:50:34 [t=6634] Speaker 327: two weeks so that's what I'm asking so we have to advertise two weeks prior or
1:50:40 [t=6640] Speaker 839: yes I don't know if I have to read advertise the budget though because
1:50:44 [t=6644] Speaker 675 (staff): it's already advertised now it's you're correct your series ones was inflated by five percent your two threes and fours was inflated by ten percent just in case you guys decided to do mm-hmm whatever so now I mean we just we're gonna have to go back and change all of those numbers because like you guys aren't making decisions on you know like a cost of living or anything like that so as of right now it's not gonna reflect that it's I mean so certain things you know you guys can discuss that september 1st meeting and i don't know if the
1:51:18 [t=6678] Speaker 675 (staff): council is supposed to vote that night can they vote like to put something that in that night
1:51:24 [t=6684] Speaker 272: or is it they can make their i mean you open it up they can that's my question because i don't know how that works i think the changes are made when you vote
1:51:35 [t=6695] Speaker 267: in october that's when all the changes will go into effect it's not a budget until we vote
1:51:41 [t=6701] Speaker 272: that it's a budget yes you guys can make those changes at the october meeting but then then again what you know some of these decisions you haven't made right you're still making
1:51:51 [t=6711] Judy (staff): you're okay you're putting a lot of pressure on people to get them in i understand all right so
1:51:58 [t=6718] Steve (councillor): so my but my just so i understand we don't need to advertise because we've already advertised we have until the october meeting to finish finish i would say by the end of september it would be
1:52:11 [t=6731] Speaker 675 (staff): nice for me and morgan i agree i agree no no i agree i agree i'm just trying to sort it in my
1:52:18 [t=6738] Speaker 860: head okay all right because i still have to make a council packet on top of your budget stuff so
1:52:23 [t=6743] Speaker 837: for me all right so here's what i'm going to recommend you are gone until
1:52:28 [t=6748] Steve (councillor): after labor day the 8th is our meeting september meeting but you don't need me
1:52:35 [t=6755] Speaker 864: we always need you no not necessarily i mean you guys are supposed to be making the decision
1:52:41 [t=6761] Speaker 867: yeah based off of samantha's recommendations and i think i fully equipped you well either
1:52:45 [t=6765] Speaker 487: way the 7th is labor day anyway so it's not like we're going to meet that day uh do you
1:52:51 [t=6771] Speaker 872: all want to shoot for the 14th fine how about you guys 14th all right so so what
1:53:10 [t=6790] Steve (councillor): if we were to yeah probably 10 a.m. or 9 a.m. whatever doesn't really matter
1:53:14 [t=6794] Speaker 881: and if it's not it'll be afternoon yeah and after it's fine too yeah whatever's
1:53:19 [t=6799] Steve (councillor): available all right and then do we also want to shoot for the 16th that way yes that'll be we'll talk on the 14th which is a Monday on the 16th two days later that's given us time to go home do a little research come back reconvene and hopefully take some final votes do you think we need more than two more days or
1:53:45 [t=6825] Speaker 885: think we're good we think anybody we take we schedule it if we don't need it
1:53:50 [t=6830] Speaker 887: we won't use it I'm actually off on that week but I'll change my vacation no no
1:53:57 [t=6837] Speaker 890: no no no no no you don't need to do that this is too important no you're gone
1:54:02 [t=6842] Speaker 144: we'll just have a party you well first off can Morgan run it without you absolutely why don't just go go on vacation seriously it's not a big deal
1:54:11 [t=6851] Speaker 894: I'll be here then we'll switch it we literally have that very next time is of
1:54:18 [t=6858] Speaker 220: essence so I don't disagree but we have that very next week we could do the
1:54:22 [t=6862] Speaker 895: exact same thing Monday Wednesday I'd rather do it earlier than later yeah I
1:54:27 [t=6867] Speaker 896: can I can whatever you decide we're going to that's when we're going to do
1:54:30 [t=6870] Speaker 100: it and you'd be welcome to be gone I was just gonna be doing your work anyway so have that we still need to you need to make your decisions on the lit funds what can be paid out of it because like EMA was going to be moved to let public
1:54:47 [t=6887] Judy (staff): safety you know is it going to be able to sustain that you know for this next
1:54:51 [t=6891] Speaker 264: year what all do we have for you are for lit funds EMA
1:54:58 [t=6898] Judy (staff): well that's lit public safety yes but that's something else that got put in there for the you know your tower payments too late to get them for anything that's going to have to be additional appropriation next year because it wasn't advertised anywhere because we didn't have answers.
1:55:14 [t=6914] Speaker 466: Would you guys be kind enough to make us a list of what we have to get in there?
1:55:18 [t=6918] Speaker 272: That would be really good so we won't get brain dead. Your grade changes in positions.
1:55:24 [t=6924] Speaker 904: Okay.
1:55:26 [t=6926] Speaker 52 (staff): And I think that's all. Oh, that's no big deal. That's okay. Okay. I think those are the main things that still need to be addressed.
1:55:34 [t=6934] Speaker 191: Okay.
1:55:36 [t=6936] Speaker 906: We got this.
1:55:37 [t=6937] Steve (councillor): we can do this. Alright so the 14th and the 16th you guys let us know what times and if those dates are available and if so we'll put them on our calendars. Now
1:55:46 [t=6946] Judy (staff): would you like me the stuff that I handed out to you and I get Brad today about the lit funds that I did at the first of the year and sent out telling you what's paid out of each fund and the estimated where we would be at the end of the year and I think else is then would you like me to send that to all of the council members so they have that in their back pocket to look at be pretty good hey one
1:56:11 [t=6971] Steve (councillor): other thing I would like to look at again if somebody will put it in their notes I personally would like to revisit the stipends for the group homes
1:56:26 [t=6986] Speaker 490: so especially if we're going up doing a raise
1:56:35 [t=6995] Speaker 3 (chair): Okay, have we got what we need accomplished accomplished?
1:56:45 [t=7005] Speaker 192: The Beagle County Budget Committee will stand in recess until further notice.
1:56:55 [t=7015] Speaker 914: Thank you.
1:56:57 [t=7017] That's okay.
1:57:05 [t=7025] Speaker 918: Thank you.
1:57:35 [t=7055] Thank you.
1:58:05 [t=7085] Speaker 925: Did I know? I don't know. He wasn't here.
1:58:35 [t=7115] Thank you.
1:59:05 [t=7145] Speaker 934: Thank you.
1:59:35 [t=7175] Okay.
2:00:05 [t=7205] Thank you. just
2:00:47 [t=7247] Speaker 938: is
2:01:05 [t=7265] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.