>> CARRIES. WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT INTO OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP TUESDAY, [00:00:04] AUGUST 12, 10:00 AM AT, WHAT'S THE TIME? >> 11:10. >> 11:10. CAN I GET A MOTION TO SKIP INVOCATION AND PLEDGE? >> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? NO. ANY CITIZENS COMMENTS? [F.1 To discuss current and future Caldwell County budgetary needs in anticipation of the upcoming FY 2025-2026 budgeting process. ] WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO WORKSHOP, ITEM F1, DISCUSS CURRENT AND FUTURE CALDWELL COUNTY BUDGETARY NEEDS IN ANTICIPATION OF UPCOMING FY 25/26. BUDGETING PROCESS. DANNY, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK CHANGES. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GO. >> YES, THERE ARE A COUPLE UPDATES. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ADDED FUNDING FOR PRETTY MUCH UP PUTTING THE EVAC SHELTER. THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT'S GOING TO BE IN 0016520. IN BETWEEN THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT AND NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT, I'M GOING TO CREATE A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT JUST FOR THE EVAC SHELTER. ONCE I DO THAT, I WILL MOVE THOSE FUNDS FROM 6520 OVER TO THE NEW CODE, BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO PUT IT IN THERE SO THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THE FUND BALANCE AND SEE HOW WE'RE LOOKING. I ALSO ADDED EVERYTHING FOR THE BOND. THAT'S ALL AN ESTIMATE. I SPOKE WITH MARIA BEFORE WE BROKE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'M GOING TO SEND HER THOSE NUMBERS AND JUST LET ME KNOW. SHE TOLD ME SHE WOULD GIVE ME ANY REVISIONS FOR NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT TO HAVE THOSE IN THERE AS WELL. WE ALSO DECIDED FOR ENGINEER SUBDIVISION SERVICES. I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT MONEY THAT WE USE FOR THAT FROM 6510 NON-DEPARTMENTAL OVER TO 6600, WHICH IS YOUR SUBDIVISION AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. NO INCREASE ON THAT. I'M JUST MOVING THE MONEY FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO THE OTHER. THEN I HAVE ALSO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAST BUDGET WORKSHOP AND THIS BUDGET WORKSHOP, I'VE ADDED ALL THE RETIREMENT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR THE COUNTY. RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING ABOUT 300,000 OVER BUDGET, WHICH IS GOOD. >> NOTHING. WE'RE USUALLY THREE MILLION [OVERLAPPING] TO WORK. >> USUALLY IT'S LIKE 1.5, 2.5 MILLION. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE DOING GOOD >> COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON ANY ITEM IN THE BUDGET THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED? >> THERE IS ONE JUDGE I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT OR JUST MAYBE AN EXPLANATION. LET ME GET OVER HERE. I CAN'T TELL YOU. IT'S PAGE 12, THE ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE. WE TOOK THAT AND PUT IT ONTO THE CONSTABLES, BUT WE'RE STILL SHOWING A 300 AND. >> WE HAVEN'T MOVED IT YET. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MOVE IT BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING TO SEE. >> I KNEW SOME OF THAT WAS INVESTIGATED FOR THE DA [INAUDIBLE]. >> SOME OF IT IS. SOME OF IT THEY'RE GOING TO STAY WITH THEM. IT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT THOUGH COMPARED TO THAT NUMBER. THEN THE REST OF THAT'S GOING TO MOVE EITHER IN THE CONSTABLES BUDGETS TO COVER, ESPECIALLY THE TWO THAT GOT ANOTHER POSITION. THEN THERE WILL STILL BE FUNDS LEFT OVER, AND THEN AT THE NEXT WORKSHOP, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE. WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO WORK THROUGH THAT PART. [LAUGHTER] STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT. >> I JUST SAW THAT AND I WAS LIKE. >> NO, IT'S GOOD. I NEED THE REMINDERS. IT'S HARD TRYING TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING. >> IT'S A LOT AND EVERY DAY WE THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S NEW THAT WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED YET. WE'RE SLOWLY, BUT SURELY. THAT'S WHY I THANK GOD WE HAVE ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET ALL THIS SQUARED AWAY. >> I KNOW THERE'S ONE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER THAT JUST GOT HIRED OR IS ABOUT TO START, ARE WE PUTTING THAT UNDER ANYBODY OR IS THAT GOING TO BE UNDER THE COMMISSIONER OR THE JUDGE? >> ONE IS GOING UNDER THE CONSTABLE 4. WELL, YOU GOT A CODE [OVERLAPPING]. THAT'S GOING UNDER DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES. THEN WE HIRED TWO MORE CONSTABLE DEPUTIES. >> WHO'S OVER DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES? I MEAN OVER NICOLE. >> COMMISSIONER THERIOT. >> CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? >> SURE. >> ALSO I BELIEVE THERE WAS THE DISCUSSION OF HAVING AN INTERN THROUGH THAT AND PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE IN CODE ENFORCEMENT OR THROUGH PLANNING. THAT WAS A PART TIMER AT 1,250 A MONTH. I THINK THAT WAS IN [OVERLAPPING]. >> I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT. >> I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ABOUT AN INTERN. >> THAT'S OKAY. BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER, DOESN'T MEAN THAT. [LAUGHTER] [00:05:06] >> THANK YOU. >> [OVERLAPPING] THEY NEED TO GO. >> I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT INTERN AND THIS CAN BE IF WE NEED TO SCHEDULE A SEPARATE BUDGET MEETING, INTERN FOR ME IS NON-PAID. IF YOU'RE WANTING TO GET A PART TIMER OR A FULL TIMER, EITHER WE NEED A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE OR YOU NEED TO DECIDE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PART TIMER OR FULL TIMER. THE PAID INTERN THING, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT FOR THE COUNTY. I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE IF IT'S A NON-PAID INTERN, A PART TIME EMPLOYEE AT A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT OR A FULL TIMER. HOWEVER, WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THAT, BUT I WOULD NOT DO A PAID INTERN JUST BECAUSE OF PAYROLL REASONS. WE'RE GETTING INTO EITHER DO WE DO IT PAYROLL OR DO WE DO IT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE? ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT NEEDING MAYBE A CONTRACTED EMPLOYEE. >> THAT PROBABLY WILL BE THE BEST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S 20 HOURS. >> BUT WE CAN DO A PART TIME EMPLOYEE FOR UP TO 30. IT'S SEMANTICS, BUT THERE'S A REASON FOR IT. >> IT CAN BE OFFLINE SEPARATE MEETING, BUT JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. >> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT FOR SURE. >> I'M GOING TO GO. >> GO GET SWORN IN. WE NEED YOU TO GET SWORN IN. DON'T BE LATE. YOU PROBABLY ALREADY ARE. ONE THING, COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS REALLY GOING TO BE A BUDGETARY ITEM. WELL, IT PROBABLY WILL BE GOING IN THE NEXT BUDGET, BUT IT COULD ALSO START THIS BUDGET. I TALKED TO [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS ISSUE WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER. WE'RE NOW UP TO PAYING $400,000 A YEAR TO THEM. IN THIS NEXT UPCOMING BUDGET, AND THAT'S STARTING TO GET EXPENSIVE. I ASKED [INAUDIBLE] TO GIVE US AN ESTIMATE AND A SCOPE OF WORK. IT'S A VERY EXTENSIVE SCOPE OF WORK AND A VERY EXTENSIVE STUDY ON THE ANIMAL SHELTER, WHAT'S BEING DONE THERE CURRENTLY, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE. WHAT WILL THAT COST. I SENT IT TO COMMISSIONER THERIOT JUST THIS MORNING SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN IT, BUT TO COMMISSIONER THERIOT, TO CHIEF WILLIAMSON AND DANNY. I MAY BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO PUT THAT IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR. IT'S AROUND 100 AND SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS. BUT WE JUST KEEP THROWING MONEY AT THIS THING. EVERY YEAR, IT GOES UP. LAST THREE YEARS HAS GONE UP CLOSE TO $100,000, AND WE STILL HAVE THE SAME BACKUP PROBLEM. IT JUST GROWS. I THINK IT'D BE WORTH IT. I SUGGESTED TO CHIEF WILLIAMSON. I KNOW THEY DID A STUDY SOMETIME BACK, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT, NOTHING. I'D LIKE TO SEE A STUDY DONE WHERE THE COUNTY PAYS HALF AND THE CITY PAYS HALF. THEN WE ACTUALLY TAKE THAT STUDY AND WHAT WE LEARN FROM IT AND DO SOMETHING WITH IT INSTEAD OF JUST CONTINUING TO UP THE ANTI $80,000-100,000 A YEAR TO JUST PASS DOGS THROUGH THE SHELTER. IF IT WASN'T FOR TAKING ME HOME, WE'D BE EUTHANIZING THE HECK OUT OF DOGS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THEY DO A MONTH, BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DOGS. >> I PULLED 800,000 OUT LAST YEAR. >> THAT'S 800 THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EUTHANIZED OTHERWISE. THERE'S JUST SO MUCH THEY CAN DO AND WE CONTINUE TO HAVE A PROBLEM. THERE'S NOT A CONSISTENT SPAY/NEUTER PROGRAM. THERE'S JUST SO MANY THINGS THAT PREVENTIVE THAT AREN'T BEING DONE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT COUNTY AND CITY CAN WORK TOGETHER AND START DOING A BETTER JOB OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM INSTEAD OF UP FRONT AND LESSENING THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S A PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTY. WE HAVE ABOUT 80% OF THE DOGS THAT GO IN THAT SHELTER COME FROM OUT IN THE COUNTY. NOW, GRANTED, I'VE SAID THIS A MILLION TIMES, BUT NOBODY DUMPS THEIR DOG AT CITY PARK. [LAUGHTER] THEY GO UP TO THE COUNTY TO DUMP THEIR DOG, RIGHT WE'RE ALSO GENERATING A HECK OF A LOT OF DOGS OUT IN THE COUNTY ON OUR OWN. IF WE HAD SOME SPAY/NEUTER PROGRAM, THAT WOULD HELP A LOT THAT PEOPLE COULD COME AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. BUT WE'RE JUST WITHOUT DOING THAT STUDY AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST, [00:10:06] AND ALL I CAN GET IS A BUDGET FROM THE CITY. IT WAS HARD TO GET THAT BUDGET, BUT WE NOW HAVE IT. I LOOK AT IT AND THERE ARE PLACES THAT COSTS COULD BE CUT. FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE TWO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS IN THE WHOLE COUNTY, THEY HAVE THREE FOR THE CITY OF LOCKHART. THAT SEEMS EXCESSIVE. BUT WITHOUT HAVING SOMEBODY A THIRD PARTY THAT'S NOT EMOTIONALLY INVESTED IN THIS, I THINK WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET ANYWHERE. I'LL PROBABLY BE DROPPING THAT INTO THE BUDGET AND USING THAT NUMBER. I MAY PUT A LITTLE BIT IN THERE WITH IT SO THAT IF WE DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE SOME MONEY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OR AT THE VERY LEAST, THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'LL BE SHORTLY BRINGING A POLICY TO COURT FOR THE FUND BALANCE, THE 24 MILLION SO THAT EXCESS AMOUNT IS EARMARKED FOR EMERGENCY, HURRICANE, FLOOD, FIRE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AND THE REST IS EARMARKED FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. IT MAY BE THAT WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS MONEY AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WE HAVE IT THERE TO USE. THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WE HAVE FACING THE COUNTY IS, WHAT DO WE DO WITH ALL THESE DOGS AND CATS? >> RELATED TO THAT, DO YOU FORESEE A NEED OR A BENEFIT FOR A FACILITIES PLAN GOING FORWARD TRYING TO SEE WHAT OUR GROWTH NEEDS ARE GOING TO BE? >> YEAH. WE'VE ALREADY STARTED WORKING ON IT HONESTLY, COMMISSIONER. LIKE I SAID, WE NO LONGER HAVE A JURY ROOM BECAUSE WE HAVE KEPT PURCHASING IN THERE TO FREE UP SPACE. FOR DEVON, THERE'S EQUIPMENT. WE'RE JUST CONSTANTLY DOING THIS TETRIS GAME, SO WE'RE FULL. WE HAVE MARMON MOK GOING THROUGH THEIR ARCHITECTURE FIRM. YOU GUYS APPROVED, I CAN'T REMEMBER, IT WAS LIKE $45,000 OR SOMETHING TO HAVE THEM GO THROUGH EACH DEPARTMENT, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN DOING, INTERVIEWING EACH DEPARTMENT, FINDING OUT WHAT NEEDS ARE AND LOOKING AT GIVING US A COST ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT MIGHT COST TO BUILD A BUILDING OVER ON THAT SPACE WE HAVE LEFT AT THE JUSTICE CENTER. BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS A NEEDS ANALYSIS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY'RE DONE DOING ALL THE INTERVIEWS OR NOT, BUT ONCE THEY HAVE ALL THAT BACK, THEN THEY'LL COME BACK WITH A SUGGESTION ON WHAT THAT BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND I'M CERTAIN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE SAME ROUTINE THAT WE DID WITH THE EVACUATION CENTER WHERE WE GET THIS MASSIVE BEAUTIFUL BUILDING AND WE SAY, NO, WE NEED A BOX THAT'S DECENT THAT WE CAN PUT PEOPLE IN. BUT WE ARE ALMOST COMPLETELY OUT OF ROOM. WE'RE GETTING A BID TO ADD ONTO THE BACK OF UNIT ROADS TO MAKE SOME SPACE OVER THERE. BUT WE WILL MOVE ONE PERSON AND FREE UP AN OFFICE AND IN A MONTH THAT OFFICE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT BY SOMEBODY ELSE AND WE'RE RIGHT BACK IN THE SAME BOAT. WE'RE JUST FULL. >> TXDOT TALKED AT ALL ANYMORE ABOUT THEIR OLD FACILITY? >> NO. I ASKED THEM AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD BACK. THEN THE CITY OF LOCKHART ALSO ASKED THEM ABOUT IT AND THEY HAVE NOT HEARD BACK. >> I MENTIONED IT TO DIANE AND SHE SEEMED TO THINK THEY WERE OPEN TO IT. >> THEY WERE, BUT THEY NEVER. JUST LIKE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENTS, TXDOT IS WHERE ALL THINGS GO TO DIE. [LAUGHTER] >> I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH WITH STEVE LEWIS AT THE CITY. THEY HAD INQUIRED ABOUT IT AS WELL, AS YOU ALL STATED, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S WHAT INFORMATION IS FACTUAL AND WHAT'S NOT, BUT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN AT LEAST ON THERE, AND WHAT HE WAS WILLING TO DISCLOSE TO ME WAS THAT THERE WERE SOME NOT INSIGNIFICANT REPAIR WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO THAT FACILITY. >> THERE'S CRACKS. >> YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE WALL. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD. >> THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE APPREHENSIVE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S NOT INSURMOUNTABLE, BUT WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE WISE TO GET A ASSESSMENT OF IT DONE. >> LAND IS LAND. >> IF YOU COULD GET IT AND THEN SCRAPE ALL THAT OFF AND THEN BUILD SOMETHING THERE, THAT'D BE PROBABLY THE WAY TO GO AND JUST CALL THE BUILDING A DEMO PROJECT. YOU GUYS ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO GIVE IT A WORLD. [00:15:04] I'VE NOT HAD ANY LUCK GETTING ANY INFORMATION OUT OF THEM. >> THE LAST THING I HAD WAS WE HAD HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SALARY FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE AND WHAT TO DO ON THAT. I KNOW YOU HAD SOME RESERVATIONS, JUDGE, ABOUT THAT? >> I SEE YOUR POINT ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE SHERIFF X, THEN THE JUDGE SHOULD MAKE X SO THAT SOMEBODY COMES ALONG BEHIND ME, THEY MAKE X. I SEE THAT POINT. I DON'T NEED TO MAKE THAT EXTRA MONEY PERSONALLY. I'D BE HAPPY JUST GETTING THE SAME RAISE AS YOU GUYS GET. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK IF YOU WANT TO PUT THE $120,000 IN, I ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF NOT TAKING IT ALL, BUT IT'S IN THE BUDGET, AND THAT MAY BE A WAY TO GO AND I JUST SAY, SET MY PAYROLL AT WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE WITH THE RAISE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS GETTING. BUT IT'S IN THE BUDGET. IF I GET RUN OVER BY THE BEER TRUCK, WHOEVER Y'ALL APPOINT GETS THAT MONEY. THERE'S SOME THINGS WE CAN DO TO HAVE IT AS MUCH LIKE WHO WE WERE PUTTING THE $25,000 STIPEND IN, BUT NOBODY EVER TOOK IT. IT'S THE SAME THING. BUT I'M OKAY WITH PUTTING IT IN THERE. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I'M OKAY WITH TAKING THE WHOLE THING. >> I JUST THINK THAT GOING FORWARD, THAT POSITION HAS EVOLVED AND IT'S NO LONGER JUST A PART TIME POSITION FOR NOT REQUIRING US A SPECIAL SKILL SET. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC GOING FORWARD THAT WE WANT THAT PERSON WHO'S A COUNTY JUDGE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR SPENDING 50, 60 HOURS HERE EVERY WEEK AND BEING A PERSON WHO IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, THEY WOULD HAVE A SALARY THAT WOULD STILL PROBABLY NOT COMPETE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BUT STILL PROBABLY OFFER A LIVING. >> I GUESS EVEN THE SALARY I GET WITH THE RAISE THAT THE REST OF THE COURT IS GOING TO GET, THERE'S NO GUARANTEES THAT YOU GET A GREAT PERSON IN THAT JOB DURING AN ELECTION THAT HAS THE BUSINESS ACUMEN TO DO IT, AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAKING $120,000 A YEAR. >> IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S AN INTERVIEW PROCESS. >> NO. THEY GET INTERVIEWED BY THE ELECTORATE AND IF THEY GET IN, THEY GET IN. AS VOLATILE AS EVERYTHING IS NOW, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SLAM DUNK ELECTION ANYMORE. THOSE DON'T EXIST. WHEN YOU RUN EVERY TIME, YOU'RE RE-INTERVIEWING FOR YOUR JOB, AND HOPEFULLY PEOPLE THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB, IF THEY DIDN'T, THEY'LL VOTE YOU OUT. >> IF THE SALARY WAS THERE, SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE REALLY QUALIFIED CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, YEAH, I CAN LIVE OFF THAT FOR FOUR YEARS. >> YEAH, I THINK SO. WHAT I WOULD HOPE IS IT WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT'S TOWARDS THE END OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE CAREER THAT'S IN MY HEAD, THE IDEAL CANDIDATES, THAT'S LOOKING TO TO KEEP WORKING AND TAKE THAT EXPERIENCE THAT THEY GOT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND APPLY IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY. TO ME, THAT'D BE THE IDEAL CANDIDATE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY NOT FOR THE WEAK OR FAINT OF HEART, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A THICK HIDE. IT'S HARD TO FIND A THICK HIDED PERSON THAT'S WILLING TO DO IT EVEN FOR $120,000 A YEAR OR SO. BUT I GUARANTEE I'LL HAVE A PRIMARY OPPONENT AND A GENERAL ELECTION OPPONENT. SOMEBODY OUT THERE IS GOING TO GO FOR IT. I DON'T MIND HAVING IT IN THE BUDGET SO THAT IF THEY BEAT ME AND THEY WANT $120,000, IT'S THERE FOR THEM. I I DON'T MIND THAT AT ALL. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GET PAID WHATEVER I WANT TO GET PAID UP TO THAT. >> I SEE BOTH SIDES AND I'M OPEN TO [OVERLAPPING]. >> I'M OPEN TO PUTTING IT IN. I JUST WOULD ASK YOU GUYS TO ALLOW ME THE DISCRETION NOT TO TAKE THE WHOLE $120,000 IF I DECIDE NOT TO. [00:20:04] I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS. >> FOR MY OPINION, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PUTTING IT IN AT THE MATCHING RATE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE RIGHT NOW. I AGREE. I SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT. I UNDERSTAND AT SOME POINT, I THINK EACH OF US JUST HAS TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER WE'RE VOTING ON THE COMPENSATION FOR THE POSITION AND WHO FILLS THAT POSITION IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE UP FOR GRABS. >> THAT'S FOR THE VOTERS, 100% TO THEM. >> I BELIEVE IT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW. IS IT IN THERE AT THE MATCHING RATE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE? >> I THINK IT IS. I THINK WE WENT AHEAD AND PUT THAT AMOUNT IN THERE. >> THE LAST TIME I SAW IT, IT WAS THAT WAY, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF IT CHANGED. >> I JUST DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO FEEL LIKE I'M GOING AGAINST YOUR WISHES IF I DECIDED TO TAKE WHATEVER. >> NO, I RESPECT THAT. >> I MAKE NOW TIMES 5%. IT'LL STILL BE IN THE BUDGET. I JUST DON'T TAKE THE BALANCE IF I DECIDE TO DO THAT. >> I WOULD RESPECT THE DECISION. >> BUT, JUDGE, IT STILL WOULD BE YOUR DISCRETION IF YOU WANT 10% OF THE $120,000. >> I COULD TAKE NONE OF IT, SO COULD YOU WITH YOUR SALARY. [LAUGHTER]. >> THAT'S MARRIED TO WHAT I'M ASKING. >> RIGHT NOW, I THINK MY SALARY'S LIKE $93,000 I THINK. IF I TOOK THE SAME, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 5% FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. IF I TOOK THAT, THEN IT WOULD BE $98,000 NOT $120,000. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT IN THAT BALLPARK. I'M CERTAIN THAT I HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S JUST HOW I FEEL. >> I SEE BOTH SIDES. I GO BACK TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND I JUST LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL AND WHAT WAS GIVEN THE 8% TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND OF COURSE, WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH THE SHERIFF'S PAY RAISE OR PAY, AND THEN I JUST GO BACK TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE GUYS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE 2-3 YEARS ON THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT CAN GET A 3% CAN GET A 5% OR NOTHING JUST BECAUSE THAT PROPOSAL AND WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH THE JUDGE'S AGAINST THE SHERIFF. >> THEY GOT 8%. >> NO, THEY GOT 8% BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PROPOSAL OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHERE THAT MONEY WAS DISTRIBUTED, [OVERLAPPING]. >> THE LOWEST PAID THAT PUMPED UP 8%. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL, THERE'S SOME GUYS IN THERE FROM 1-2 YEARS THAT THEIR SALARY STAYED THE SAME. BUT I'M OKAY. IT'S AT THE JUDGE'S DISCRETION OF WHAT HE WANTS TO GET PAID JUST LIKE IT IS ALL OF OURS, JUST LIKE THE SHERIFF. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> MR. THOMAS? >> I'M OKAY WITH IT. >> WELL, WE'LL LEAVE IT IN THERE AND THEN I'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. >> THERE'S ONE MORE QUESTION THAT I HAVE. NOT ABOUT THAT. YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE COURTS AGO ABOUT IT? >> YEAH. WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE COME BACK WITH THREE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS IN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PAY. >> FOR BLUE LAYER OR? >> NO, THIS WILL GET SOMEBODY WE HIRED TO WORK FOR US. THEY GAVE US THREE RANGES LIKE A FAIRLY NOT EXPERIENCED PERSON AND THEN UNIFIED CONTINUES TO HELP US. IF OUR GOAL EVENTUALLY IS TO HIRE PEOPLE AND GET OUR OWN IT DEPARTMENT BACK IN HOUSE, THAT'S THE WAY THIS PROPOSAL IS GEARED. WE'RE NOT DONE WITH IT YET. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COURT. I'LL HAVE IT READY BY BY NEXT GO AROUND. BUT WE JUST MET ABOUT THIS, I CAN'T REMEMBER FRIDAY, I THINK. BUT THERE'S A MIDDLE OF THE ROAD OPTION THAT HIRES A DECENT IT MANAGER, AND IT HAS A JOB DESCRIPTION THAT'S WITH IT, AND THEN VERY LITTLE HELP FROM UNIFIED GOING FORWARD, AND AS THIS PERSON STARTS TAKING HOLD AND START HIRING THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN UNIFIED WOULD GO AWAY AND BLUE LAYER WOULD GO AWAY. IT WOULD BE A TRANSITION. I'M NOT KNOCKING BLUE LAYER, [00:25:02] SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. BUT WHEN WE HIRED THEM, WE WERE IN QUITE A BIND. BUT WE OUR IT SPIN HAS REACHED A POINT NOW TO WHERE WE COULD BRING IT ALL BACK IN HOUSE TO WHERE OUR IT PEOPLE WERE OWN FOCUSED ON CALDWELL COUNTY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY INSTEAD OF A COMPANY THAT'S FOCUSED ON, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CUSTOMERS THEY HAVE FOR THAT. THEN PART OF THE WAY IT'S DONE WITH BLUE LAYER IS THEY GO GET OUR LICENSES AND THERE'S SOME LICENSING AGREEMENTS. I'M STILL REALLY UNCLEAR ON WHO OWNS THE LICENSE IF IT'S BLUE LAYER OR THE COUNTY. THAT'S PART OF WHAT UNIFIED IS DOING IS DIGGING IN THAT SORT OF THING. I'LL BRING ALL THREE OPTIONS, BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST OPTION B TO YOU GUYS AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT THAT MEANS GOING FORWARD, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. WE'RE WORKING ON THOUGH STILL WITH THAT MONEY. THEY HAVE PUT TOGETHER A PRETTY NICE SLIDE BACK THAT WE CAN BRING TO THE COURT. HE WAS JUST WAITING FOR ME TO TELL HIM WHICH OPTION TO FOCUS ON SO HE COULD FLASH THAT OPTION OUT. >> YES, SIR. >> WHAT ELSE? IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THEN WE WILL BE ADJOURNED AT WHAT TIME? COMMISSIONERS MY PHONE IS DEAD. >> 11:36. >> 11:36. FORGOT I HAD IT ON MY COMPUTER OVER HERE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, THERE ARE NONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 11:36. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.