[Call to Order, Roll Call, Affidavit of Posting, A Moment of Silent Prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance]
[00:00:44]
WHO ARE YOU WAITING FOR? ME? WE'RE READY.
IT'S 5:00 PM WE'LL CALL THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO ORDER.
THIS MEETING WAS NOTICED APPROPRIATELY, APPROPRIATELY BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO ALL THE LOCAL MEDIA OUTLETS WILL RISE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON OUR DOCKET TONIGHT, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE EXECUTIVE,
[Discussion or Possible Action]
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ITEM C UP TO THE HEAD OF THE LINE.SO, UM, I THINK AARON'S GONNA START THIS OFF.
DO WE NEED MAKE A MOTION? I DON'T THINK, DO WE NEED A MOTION AS WE GO ON EACH ONE? WE'LL EITHER ENDORSE OR JUST PASS 'EM ON TO THE BOARD.
[c. Discussion on Potential Amendment to 2025 Resolution 44: 2026-2027 Budget Appropriations ]
THE BUDGET RESOLUTION THAT YOU SAW, UH, LAST MEETING, OF COURSE YOU PASSED THAT UNANIMOUSLY, BUT NOW WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER, UH, AMENDMENTS.UM, WE DID HAVE THREE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND, AND THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
UH, EACH OF THOSE AMENDMENTS HAS SORT OF ITS OWN UNIQUE IMPACT ON THE TAX RATE AND THE TAX LEVY, UM, THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.
UM, SORT OF THE SEPARATE IMPACT FOR EACH OF THOSE, RATHER THAN INCLUDING THE IMPACT IN TOTALITY.
UM, OF COURSE ADOPTING ONE COULD CHANGE THE AMOUNTS IN THE OTHER.
AND WE'LL DO TONIGHT AS WE GO THROUGH THOSE.
UM, I'VE GOT SOME, SOME WAYS TO HELP WALK US THROUGH THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENS.
BUT, UM, I'M, I'M HERE TONIGHT JUST TO KIND OF HELP DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING, UM, AND, AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE BUDGET THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN AND CONSIDERED.
UM, SO ONE OTHER KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING TYPE ITEM IN, IN THE EVENT THAT THE BUDGET IS AMENDED AND A COUNTY EXECUTIVE VETO MAY MIGHT OCCUR, UM, THE BOARD MIGHT NEED TO IDENTIFY A TIME TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING TO KIND OF CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S AN OVERRIDE OR IF THERE'S SOME OTHER CONVERSATION, UM, OR, OR VOTE THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF PUT THAT OUT THERE, UM, FOR A, A PROCESS.
UH, JUST A POINT FOR THE PROCESS HERE.
UM, WE WOULD YOUR QUESTION, YES.
UH, IN THE CASE OF, UH, UH, COUNTY EXECUTIVE VETO, UH, WOULD THAT STILL BE, IF THE BOARD DOES HAVE A OVERRIDING VOTE IN THE INITIAL VOTE, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? SO IF 80, 90%, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE EVERYBODY UNANIMOUSLY VOTES FOR SOMETHING, COULD HE IN THEORY THEN STILL VETO IT? WOULD IT WITHSTAND, WOULD WE STILL NEED ANOTHER MEETING? I BELIEVE WE'D STILL NEED ANOTHER MEETING, CORRECT? YEAH, IF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, UH, DOES ANY VETOING WHATSOEVER OF THE, OF ANY PORTION OF THE BUDGET, THAT'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE FULL COUNTY BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION, A POSSIBLE OVERRIDE OR NOT.
UH, THE QUESTION BECOMES AT THAT POINT WHETHER OR NOT, UH, MR. DAH HAS IDENTIFIED ANY DEADLINES AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THAT BUDGET.
THAT'LL PROBABLY GUIDE OUR TIMELINE FOR A SPECIAL MEETING.
UM, SO I GUESS NOW'S A GOOD TIME TO DIVE INTO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
[00:05:01]
SO WE WE'RE TAKING THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE RECEIVED.UM, FIRST IS, UH, AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SUPERVISOR SCHWAB.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY $80,000 TO FUND PAY INCREASES FOR THE SPECIAL DEPUTIES.
UM, THOSE ARE, THEY, THEY MOSTLY WORK IN LIKE COURTHOUSE SECURITY, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, THE SHERIFF RECENTLY IDENTIFIED THIS AS A PRIORITY.
UM, THIS ACTION WOULD ALLOW THESE CONVERSATIONS TO CONTINUE.
YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY APPROVING A, A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR A PAY INCREASE FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PAY RANGE CHANGE, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE APPROVING THE DOLLARS TO ALLOW US TO DO IT.
UM, A PORTION OF THAT $80,000, UH, WOULD BE OFFSET BY INCREASING, UH, A REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR, SO OUR ESTIMATE FOR SHARED REVENUE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, UM, WE HAD TO MAKE AN, MAKE AN ESTIMATE AT ONE POINT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THEN SENDS US WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET.
AND SO WE WERE OFF BY ABOUT $40,000 TO THE GOOD.
SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD THAT BACK IN AS WELL.
SO IN THE END, THAT MEANS THAT IT WOULD TAKE THE OVERALL TAX LEVY IN 2026.
UH, IT WOULD TAKE IT FROM A $100,000 CUT AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO A $60,000 CUT IN IN 2026.
UM, THOSE WERE THE NOTES THAT I HAD IN TERMS OF THE TECHNICAL IMPACTS ON THIS.
UM, BUT I, I'M NOT SURE IF, IF SUPERVISOR SCHWAB OR ANYONE ELSE HAD ANY COMMENTS, SO THIS COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS.
UM, THEY'LL ALL BE PASSED ON TO THE FULL BOARD, BUT IF WE PARTICULARLY ENDORSE ANY OF THEM, WE CAN DO SO.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION, BUT MINE KIND OF ENCOMPASSES ON THEM, ASSUMING ALL OF THEM WOULD PASS, OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE SPLIT UP, BUT IF ALL OF THEM PASSED, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT TOTAL LEVY WOULD CHANGE BY AS FAR AS THE, LIKE THE MILL RATE? UM, AND, AND I KNOW THERE WAS ONLY, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT AFFECTED THE FIRST YEAR.
THE REST OF THEM AFFECTED THE SECOND YEAR.
IF I READ THAT CORRECT, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD OF IT, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD BE A DOLLAR 1.354 INSTEAD OF 1.331.
I THINK IF I ADD 'EM ALL UP, IF THEY ALL WOULD PASS.
UM, GIMME ONE SECOND TO PULL, PULL THIS UP.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M DOING THE MATH PROPER.
UM, SUPERVISOR, SUPERVISOR BOSER, DO YOU HAVE THAT SPREADSHEET HANDY THAT WE DO YOU WANT A COPY OF IT? YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT.
I JUST DON'T, DON'T, JUST DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.
THINKING NUMBER HE'S ASKING FOR IS THANK YOU.
SO 3 4 4 ESSENTIALLY IT, IT, UM, IT WOULD, SO IT GOES FROM 1.3, THREE ONE TO 1.344 IS THE TAX RATE CHANGE IN 2027.
AND THAT'S ALL IF ALL OF THEM WOULD PASS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
I BELIEVE ALSO IN A DISCUSSION WE HAD, AARON, THERE'S, WE GET TO THE MAXIMUM WE CAN INCREASE THE LEVY.
IS THAT FOR 2027 WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY COOKED IN SO TO SPEAK? SO, CORRECT.
DO YOU WANNA EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, I DO HAVE THAT IN MY NOTES FOR WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT REALLY WHEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HEAR SOON ABOUT THE 2 20, 27 AMENDMENTS, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE LEVY NEED IN 27 ON TOP OF WHAT WE ALREADY, UM, PROPOSED AS AN INCREASED LEVY NEED.
IF HISTORICAL AVERAGES HOLD TRUE, I THINK THAT IS STILL, UM, THAT LEVY INCREASE WOULD STILL BE ACHIEVABLE UNDER NET NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT IT WILL BE VERY CLOSE AND WE WON'T KNOW EXACTLY FOR SURE UNTIL AUGUST OF NEXT YEAR.
UM, IF, IF WE'RE, IF IT IS, IF NET NEW CONSTRUCTION IS LESS THAN WHAT WE NEED IT TO BE, WE WOULD NEED TO EXERCISE A CLAWBACK OR SOMETHING TO MAKE THAT
[00:10:01]
LEVY INCREASE HAPPEN.I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THE PACKET SAYS IT'S WITHIN NET NEW CONSTRUCTION AND IT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE, BUT THAT'S AGAIN, USING AVERAGES.
IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, IT MIGHT NOT BE.
THAT'S FOR ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
YEAH, AND TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, WHAT IS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE PAY RAISE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT PER PERSON? OH, UM, IT'S DIFFERENT BY PERSON.
THE, THE CURRENT RATE IS APPROXIMATELY 2394.
UM, THE NEW RATE, UM, AGAIN, IT, IT VARIES, BUT, BUT FOR THE SWORN SPECIAL DEPUTIES, 31 92, SO 2394 TO 31 92, AND THEY'RE ALL PAID A DIFFERENT RATE BASED ON THEIR LENGTH OF SERVICE AND SO ON THIS PROPOSAL, AGAIN, WOULD, THIS WOULD BRING THEM TO THE STARTING PAY FOR A A DEPUTY.
UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE SPECIAL DEPUTIES TODAY, THEY'RE LESS THAN STARTING PAY FOR A, FOR A REGULAR DEPUTY.
AND THEN THE LOGICAL NEXT QUESTION IS, WHEN'S THE LAST TIME THEY GOT A RAISE? UM, MAYBE THE SHERIFF WOULD, SO MANY YEARS AGO WE TIED IT INTO THE FULL TIME VALUE, I WANNA SAY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO.
IT WAS, IT WAS AS WE WERE BRINGING THE NEW, WE WERE UPDATING THE, THE COMPENSATION PLAN ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO AND, AND IT WAS UPDATED AT THAT TIME.
WE INDEXED THAT PAY RANGE TO THE, THE DEPUTY PAY RANGE AT THAT TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? UM, OH, GO AHEAD.
I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP FIRST BEFORE.
UM, AS A BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION, I DID NOT OFFER THIS AMENDMENT EARLIER BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE, UM, LAST PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING WHEN WE WERE LAST REVIEWING THE BUDGET, WE WERE STILL LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL SAVINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND HAVE SINCE COME TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE SAVINGS WERE NOT ACHIEVABLE.
AND SO IT BECAME IMPORTANT TO MAKE THIS INCREASE VIA THIS MEASURE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT, UM, WHILE WE TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, THAT WE ALSO DON'T TAX ANY MORE THAN WE NEED TO.
AND SO IT WAS IMPORTANT AND, AND IT WORKED OUT WELL THAT THIS HAPPENED TO FALL INTO OR LESS THAN THE EXISTING LEVY.
AND SO IT WAS SUBMITTED AS IT IS AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
I'M GLAD HE WENT FIRST BECAUSE HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION ALREADY.
IT'S ALREADY KIND OF IN THE BUDGET, SO, OKAY.
SO DO WE GENERALLY ENDORSE THIS TO MOVE IT ONTO THE BOARD? I WOULD SAY YES.
WELL, THEY'RE ALL GOING ONTO THE BOARD, IT'S JUST SURE.
OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NE NEXT.
UM, THE NEXT TWO AMENDMENTS WERE PROPOSED BY SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUNDRY.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IN THE PACKET, UM, IS A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY 150,000 IN 2027, UH, FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
SO WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS ONE.
UM, YOU'LL RECALL, UM, THAT THE 150,000 WAS REMOVED DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.
UM, THE, THE CJCC AND, AND A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS HAVE BEEN SORT OF TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE FOR A WHILE NOW.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS ALSO WORKING ON POSSIBLE WAYS TO IDENTIFY SOME LEVY SAVINGS FOR 2027, UM, THAT COULD MAKE UP THIS DIFFERENCE.
UM, AND THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS ESTABLISHED, UM, IN THE WAY WITHOUT THE
[00:15:01]
150,000 AS A WAY TO SORT OF, UH, CHALLENGE US TO, TO FIND THESE SAVINGS.UM, AND THEN WE CAN USE THOSE SAVINGS TO BACKFILL THIS REDUCTION IN THE, IN THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
UM, SO INSTEAD OF THAT APPROACH, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BACKFILL THOSE EXPENSES THAT WERE, THAT WERE TAKEN OUT.
UM, SO THIS WOULD INCREASE THE LEVY NEED BY $150,000 IN 2027.
SO IT WOULD TAKE THAT $275,000 LEVEE INCREASE THAT WE, THAT WAS ALREADY PROPOSED AND ADD $150,000 TO IT.
UM, THOSE WERE THE EXTENT OF THE NOTES THAT I HAD ON HOW THAT THIS WOULD TECHNICALLY IMPACT THE BUDGET.
BUT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU'VE GOT THEM
UH, AND, AND I HONESTLY NOT SURE, UM, BOTH THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AND THIS AMENDMENT, ARE THEY IN FACT COVERING THE SAME THING OR ARE THEY DIFFERENT? WHAT'S THE DEAL? I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE.
UM, THEY, THE PREVIOUS ONE COVERED THE SPECIAL DEPUTIES.
THIS ONE WOULD COVER COURTHOUSE SECURITY AS IT, UM, AFFECTS THE ACTUAL PERSONNEL IN THE COURTROOM.
AND THE SPECIAL DEPUTIES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM? YES.
AT THE FRONT, FRONT DESK WITH THE METAL DETECTORS AND SO ON.
AS WAS DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC SAFETY A COUPLE TIMES NOW, UM, THE CJCC HAS GOT A BULLET LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON TO POSSIBLY, UM, GAIN EFFICIENCIES IN THE NEXT TIMEFRAME.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO ANOTHER COUPLE THINGS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS WORKING ON.
SO FOR ME, I AM PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE GONNA FIND $160,000 BEFORE WE DO A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT A YEAR FROM NOW.
SO I DON'T WANT TO TIE US INTO TAXING MORE UNTIL WE HAVE TO.
YOU WANT TO, YOU WANT TO PLAY OUT, UH, THE WAY IT'S GONNA GO.
I, YOU KNOW, ARBITRARILY AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LOOK AT IT AS BEING ARBITRARY.
WE'RE GONNA JUST GO AHEAD AND TAX IT AND NOT DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO ACTUALLY FIND THE CUTS WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
UM, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE STAY THE COURSE THAT WE'VE STAYED AND MY WHOLE TIME ON THE, UH, ON THE BOARD WHERE WE'VE LIVED WITHIN OUR MEANS, WE'VE TRIED TO UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS RATHER THAN RAISED THE LEVY.
AND, AND I'M NOT AGAINST IT IF, IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT IN THE END, BUT I BELIEVE DUE DILIGENCE MUST BE DONE FIRST.
ANYONE ELSE? THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
I DON'T SEE A WAY WE REALLY CUT COURTHOUSE SECURITY A YEAR FROM NOW, BUT BEFORE WE TAX FOR IT, I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A WHERE ELSE ALTERNATIVE WAY TO PAY FOR IT.
UM, I, I, FOR THE PERSON THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND I DON'T, UM, I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT COURTHOUSE SECURITY OR ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY OR ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTITUENTS OR THE COUNTY OR, OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I THINK ALL WE'RE SAYING AT THIS POINT IS WE DON'T NEED TO DO THIS NOW.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS A, AND SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE THIS, BUT I GREW UP ON A FARM AND IT'S KINDA LIKE IF YOU NEED TO BUTCHER A COW TO FEED YOUR FAMILY, YOU BUTCHER THE COW, YOU BUTCHER THE PIG, YOU DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO, TO FEED YOUR FAMILY.
YOU DON'T BUTCHER A BUNCH OF 'EM AHEAD OF TIME.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE WE DON'T NEED TO DO THIS NOW.
WE CAN WAIT UNTIL AN APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN WE'RE CERTAIN WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WILL BE IN A YEAR FROM NOW.
[00:20:02]
THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M ANY LESS COMMITTED TO COURTHOUSE SECURITY.IT JUST MEANS I DON'T NEED TO SUPPORT THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND I WOULD REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT COMING INTO FISCAL YEAR 2025, WE DID ADJUST THE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, SO CERTAINLY GOING INTO 2027, WE HAVE THAT CAPABILITY, WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT, WE'VE GOTTA TRACK A PRESS A PRECEDENT FOR IT.
SO, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT, UH, RAISING THOSE TAXES AT THIS POINT.
SUPERVISOR SHARAM, IF I COULD ADD TO THAT TOO AND BY THEN WE'LL HAVE A BETTER GAUGE OF WHERE THE ECONOMY'S AT AND WHAT OUR TAXES ARE COMING IN, RIGHT.
SO WE WOULD KNOW IF WE'D HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER THIS ANYWAY AT THAT POINT.
AND WE COULD DO AN AMENDMENT ON THE SECOND YEAR THEN, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WE, WE DO A FULL MID BIENNIUM REVIEW.
SO DO WE GENERALLY ENDORSE OR DO NOT, DO NOT.
SEE WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE THERE.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO ON TO, ALRIGHT, THE LAST PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THE THIRD AND FINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
UH, THIS ONE IS A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY 162,000 IN 2027 TO FUND AN ADDITIONAL DETECTIVE IN THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THIS ONE I BELIEVE WE'VE TOUCHED ON BEFORE AS WELL, PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR SURE.
UM, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY OUT THERE, UH, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE BUDGET.
UM, WHEN WE SAW THE, UM, THE FISCAL, THE FISCAL ISSUES WE WERE FACING AND THE MOUNTAIN OF PRIORITIES THAT WE HAD, UM, THIS ONE ENDED UP COMING OUT OF THE BUDGET.
UM, BUT THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO, TO PUT IT BACK IN.
UM, SO THIS WOULD INCREASE THAT LEVY NEED IN 2027 BY $162,000.
UM, SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD BRING THAT $275,000 THAT WAS PROPOSED TO INCREASE IN 27, IT WOULD INCREASE THAT BY AN ADDITIONAL 1 62.
I'M JUST READING MY, I HAD ALREADY MADE MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE LEVEE LIMIT, SO I I DON'T NEED TO REH REHASH THAT PIECE OF IT.
UM, SO THAT WOULD END MY, MY COMMENTS ON THE TECHNICAL CHANGES.
UM, FOR THIS ONE THANK YOU COMMENTS SUPERVISOR SHARUN AS BEFORE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT OFF TILL THE SECOND YEAR AGAIN AND REASSESS OR IS IT BETTER TO PUT IT IN NOW? UM, EITHER OR GIVEN THAT IT'S IN 2027 ONLY, THAT DOES GIVE YOU THAT OPTION.
UM, BUT AS IT'S PROPOSED HERE, IT'S TO, TO ADD THAT AND ADOPT IT, THE BUDGET WITH IT IN THERE.
SO THIS IS 4 20 27, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
WE COULD ALMOST TAKE THE SAME APPROACH ON THIS ONE AS WE DID ON AMENDMENT ONE.
I WOULD TEND TO CONCUR WITH THAT, UM, WITHOUT STATING WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED THE POSITION, UM, PRE-FUNDING IT, IF YOU WILL, WITHIN THIS BUDGET.
UH, ESPECIALLY IN THIS TIME WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.
WE, WE ARE REALLY A LITTLE BIT UNCERTAIN AS WHAT YEAR TWO MIGHT BRING, UM, WITH THIS BUDGET.
UH, AND I WOULDN'T WANNA PLACE ANY EXTRA BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER AT THIS TIME, BUT WOULD CONSIDER REEVALUATING THIS IN 2027 ONCE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DATA.
I WOULD SAY WE REASSESS IT AND I MEAN I'M NOT AGAINST THESE EITHER, BUT IF THEY'RE FOR THE SECOND YEAR, WE CAN ALWAYS PUSH 'EM OFF AND REEVALUATE AND BRING 'EM BACK TO THE TABLE AND I WOULD BE FORM IT IF IT'S NEEDED.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? SO WE GENERALLY DO NOT ENDORSE THIS ONE OR I DO NOT.
AT THIS TIME, YEAH, LIKE YOU SAID, IT DOESN'T SAY, WE DON'T NEED THE DETECTIVE TO SAY, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND THE MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE.
UM, THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO WHAT WAS ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE INITIAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
[00:25:01]
ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED A MILLION AND A HALF FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GOLF COURSE.UH, THIS WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR SUPERVISOR
[a. 2025 Resolution 45 – Initial Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Not to Exceed $1,500,000 General Obligation Promissory Notes, Series 2025B and Declaring Official Intent to Reimburse Project Expenditures from Proceeds of Borrowing ]
KEL, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB.UM, ANY DISCUSSION? ARE YOU HAVE COMMENTS, MS. LUDOVIC? I DO NOT.
MARGIE IS HERE TOO FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO A ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD LEADING UP TO THIS POINT.
AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT, UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE AGREED WE ALREADY WERE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP, UH, WITH, YOU KNOW, IN THE FULL BOARD THAT WE AGREED THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS REMODEL.
AND THIS IN FACT COMES IN A LITTLE BIT LESS, IF I'M CORRECT, THAN WHAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED.
MS. LUDOVIC, I THINK IT IS LESS, UM, CONSIDERING WE ADDED, UH, VARIOUS ELEMENTS TO THE PROJECT SCOPE AS WE WENT ALONG.
UM, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING MORE WORK OUT THERE.
UM, SPECIFICALLY THE COUPLE THINGS THAT CAME IN AT THE END THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD OF IS, UM, SOME SMALLER THINGS LIKE REPLACING THE GARAGE, THE BELOW LEVEL GARAGE DOOR.
UM, THERE IS A BASEMENT, SO THERE'S KIND OF SOME LAND RENOVATIONS IN TERMS OF EXCAVATING, UM, AND THEN SOME CARD ACCESS, UH, CHANGES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S OVERALL CARD ACCESS AND FACILITY KIND OF LOCKING PROGRAMS. UM, AS WELL AS THERE WAS A FIRE ALARM ISSUE THAT WE WERE HAVING OUT THERE THAT UPON FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS WE KIND OF WRAPPED IN TO TAKE CARE OF.
SO THERE WERE, THERE'S BEEN SOME THINGS AS THE PROJECT SCOPE DEVELOPED, UM, WHERE WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO AND TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THE FACILITY NEEDS OUT THERE.
UM, IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN THOSE FULL DOCUMENTS OR COMING IN AND SETTING UP A TIME TO LOOK THROUGH THE SPECIFICITY OF THE BID AWARD, UM, WE'D BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND WALK THROUGH THAT WITH ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE OR ON THE COUNTY BOARD OR LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE.
UM, NOW, UM, WE ALSO DO, THIS PROJECT HAS A PRETTY QUICK TIMELINE.
SO THERE ACTUALLY IS A RIBBON CUTTING ALREADY SCHEDULED IN JUNE.
SO WE WILL BE SENDING THAT OUT SOON.
SO YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROJECT THEN AND WE'LL GET THAT OUT TO PEOPLE SO THEY CAN PLAN, UM, AS SOON AS WE, UM, HAVE THOSE DETAILS.
AND I WOULD REMIND THE COMMITTEE, UH, AS WELL AS THOSE, UH, IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT MAY BE WATCHING, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY PAID FOR FROM FUNDS FROM THE GOLF COURSE THAT IS EARNED AT THE GOLF COURSE.
IT DOES NOT COME OUT OF TAXPAYER LEVY.
UM, SO THIS IS, UH, JUST FROM PROFITS MADE AT THE GOLF COURSE, WHICH ALSO DOES SUPPORT OUR OTHER PARKS AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR LOAN IS FOR THE GOLF COURSE AND WILL BE PAID BACK BY THE PROFITS AND PROCEEDS FROM THE GOLF COURSE.
AND MS. LUDOVIC, I BELIEVE I HEARD BEFORE THAT THIS IS ALSO INCLUDES, UH, REPLACING THE ROOF ON THE 27-YEAR-OLD BUILDING.
THE ROOF, THE EXTERIOR DOORS, SOME OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS THAT ARE REMAINING.
UM, SO IT'S IMPROVEMENTS, THE TRASH ENCLOSURES.
YES, SO IT'S A LOT OF, IT'S A 25-YEAR-OLD FACILITY.
SO ESSENTIALLY SOME OF THAT, THOSE BIGGER TICKET THINGS THAT ARE JUST BEING REPLACED.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? NO.
WE'LL CARRY THIS ON TO THE FULL BOARD.
AND FINALLY, RESOLUTION 46, THE LABOR AGREEMENT WITH
[b. 2025 Resolution 46 – 2026-2027 Washington County Deputy Sheriff’s Association Employees Labor Agreement]
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MOTION BY SUPERVISOR SHARUN, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR TIES.SO YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL RECEIVED A COMMITTEE REPORT.
UM, TRIED TO DETAIL THE, THE INFORMATION THERE.
WHAT THE COMMITTEE REPORT'S ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU THAT BASICALLY MOVES THIS, THIS, UM, CONTRACT FOR APPROVAL TO THE COUNTY BOARD.
UM, QUICK SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE STUFF THAT, THAT IS WITHIN THAT, THAT COMMITTEE REPORT AND THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT.
UM, IT IS A TWO YEAR CONTRACT.
IT BASICALLY ALLOWS A 3% INCREASE IN 26 AND 27.
A COUPLE OF THE BIG THINGS, UM, IT WOULD ESTABLISH PAID TIME OFF FOR OUR, OUR DEPUTIES, UM, THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF OUR WORKFORCE BY DOING THAT.
IT WOULD ALSO THEN, UM, IN 2027, IN 2026, REALLY ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO ACCRUE ANY MORE VACATION AND SICK TIME, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE USED THROUGH THE, THE YEAR OF 2026.
[00:30:01]
UM, IT DOES INCREASE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE AS WELL AS SPECIAL TEAMS PAY.UM, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT, THAT, UH, WE HAVE AN INCREASED FOR A WINDOW OF TIME, SO MAKES US MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OTHER CONTRACTS ARE IN DOING OUR REVIEW.
UM, ALSO TO BE LIKE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE THIS IS WITHIN THE BUDGET FOR 26 AND 27, SO THIS ISN'T ANY ADDITIONAL SPENDING BEYOND.
SO, UM, THE COMMITTEE THAT REPRESENTED THE COUNTY BELIEVES IT'S A GOOD CONTRACT AND AGAIN, WOULD RECOMMEND YOUR SUPPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? PRETTY SIMPLE.
YEAH, I BELIEVE THE SHERIFF SHOULD BE RIGHTLY PROUD OF HIS DEPARTMENT.
I THINK PUBLIC SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COUNTY AND TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
ANY OPPOSED? WE'LL CARRY IT ON TO THE FULL BOARD.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 19TH, NEXT WEDNESDAY AT 4:00 PM
[a. November 19, 2025]
THIS MEETING'S ADJOURNED.