VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL BUDGET HEARING MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2018

Transcription

1 BUDGET HEARING MEETING MINUTES The Vanderburgh County Council met for the 2019 budget hearings this 2 nd day of August, 2018 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. Vanderburgh County Council President John Montrastelle called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. President Montrastelle: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to day two of our budget hearings. Today is August the 2 nd. We ll start with roll call, please. COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT ABSENT Councilmember Terry Councilmember Kiefer Councilmember Shetler Councilmember Goebel Councilmember Raben X X X X X Councilmember Koehler Lindsey X President Montrastelle X President Montrastelle: We have a quorum. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & INVOCATION President Montrastelle: If I could ask Councilmember Terry to lead us in the invocation, and James to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please? (The Pledge of Allegiance & Invocation were given.) President Montrastelle: Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you, James. RECORDER & RECORDER PERPETUATION President Montrastelle: Yesterday, I led the budget hearings, and normally our Finance Chair does that, and he didn t even stop me. But, today he has it, James, I ll turn the meeting over to you. Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you. First we will turn to page five, the Recorder. Debbie Stucki: Good morning, Debbie Stucki, County Recorder. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Debbie s budget is flat outside of a step increase. Debbie Stucki: Yes. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Does anybody have any questions (Inaudible) Debbie s budget? Over time, a lot of this is (Inaudible) Perpetuation Fund (Inaudible), so, there s not a whole lot here. Three salaries and (Inaudible). Councilmember Goebel: Debbie, I want to thank you for working so well with this Council, and also with keeping the open mind of how the operation works for the entire county. You certainly help with absorbing some of your salaries and things like that, and I know you re also open to doing even more. So, I think you ve agreed to sign the affidavit for Mr. Ahlers when he prepares that, correct?

2 Page 2 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Debbie Stucki: Yes, we have a, we did some number crunching, thank you, Brian, and we are able to absorb line item , that salary into the Recorder s Perpetuation Fund as well. So, it will be six of the eight salaries paid out of Perpetuation. Councilmember Goebel: I think Councilperson Terry needs to give another prayer of thanks on that one. Thank you so much, Debbie, for working with us. That s amazing. Councilmember Raben: Okay, we will turn to page 69 Jeff Ahlers: Can I ask one question? Councilmember Raben: Oh, sure. Jeff Ahlers: Is there anything other than the salaries and benefits for those six employees, is there anything else that doesn t have to do with preservation of records that we will need to put in the, your sworn statement? Or, is that the only thing that s Debbie Stucki: No, it s just the salaries and their benefits. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, so, there s like no other operating expenses or anything else that wouldn t have to do with records preservation? Debbie Stucki: No, I believe that statement is just for salaries. The total salaries that come out of Perpetuation. Jeff Ahlers: Correct. Debbie Stucki: I believe that agreement Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, now, if there s anything else, if you were paying office expenses, not related to records perpetuation, it would need to go in the sworn statement as well, but if you re only using the Perpetuation Fund for, you know, the preservation of records, and I know, I don t know if you re still doing Debbie Stucki: Like Supplies, every other operating expense Jeff Ahlers: ---yeah, yeah, yeah, those things you can, you have the discretion to do, but if it s regular operating expenses for the office, then we need to know that to include it. Debbie Stucki: Correct. Jeff Ahlers: So, but, you re saying it s just the salaries and benefits of those six? Debbie Stucki: Yes. Jeff Ahlers: Alright, thank you. Debbie Stucki: You re welcome. RECORDER/ELECTED OFFICIALS TRAINING Debbie Stucki: I was going to ask for in the, I think it s 1217, the Elected Officials Training Fund, to see if that could be increased to $2,000? Brian Gerth: Uh.yeah. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) questions for Debbie? Councilmember Shetler: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Thank you. Debbie Stucki: Uh-huh. You re welcome. Councilmember Raben: Okay, we ll move on. Debbie Stucki: Okay, thank you. SECURITY ID PROTECTION Councilmember Raben: The Security ID Protection, is that under yours though?

3 BUDGET HEARING Page 3 of 54 Debbie Stucki: Yes. Councilmember Raben: I did forget about that. Can you explain that? That s a new one to us. Debbie Stucki: Um, that is money collected on each document, two dollars on each document, and it goes to, for the redaction of personal information off of documents. What our contractor does, they check every document and make sure anything is redacted. Social security numbers, any account numbers, anything personal. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Debbie Stucki: And, then one dollar goes towards that, and then one dollar of that goes to the fund, the Elected Training Officials Fund. Councilmember Raben: Okay, I guess, in the past we haven t had it broken out like this, have we? Brian Gerth: Well, I don t think we ve really spent much money out of this fund, and I think now the intent is to kind of split the software, the Fidlar contract, with this fund, and the rest out of the Perpetuation Fund. To kind of, you know, she s giving on the employee side, you know, so, we re just finding other ways to pay that. Which is why, I talked to her about the Elected Officials Training Fund, this was the first year the Recorders actually had money to spend for training, we just didn t have enough, we didn t advertise high enough last year. That s why we re asking just to bump it up to $2,000, like every other official. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, and I think we re all comfortable with that. Debbie Stucki: Yeah, and that 40 Councilmember Raben: Debbie, thank you. Good job. Debbie Stucki: --that $40,000 then will go towards the contract and save $40,000 out of Perpetuation that can be used for salaries and computers and records. Councilmember Raben: Okay, thanks again. Debbie Stucki: It helps save more Councilmember Kiefer: Alright, I ve got a comment. Councilmember Raben: Oh, please. Councilmember Kiefer: So, to be clear, this is not new money being spent, this is being offset by fees and other things. So, there s an income stream that covers all of that expense? Debbie Stucki: Correct. Councilmember Kiefer: Right, okay, thank you. President Montrastelle: Debbie, what do you have in mind for the training? You asked for $2,000. Debbie Stucki: It s just for travel. President Montrastelle: Is there an upcoming seminar, that two or three are going to go? Debbie Stucki: There are more to go to, and I missed one this year because of my husband s surgery. So, I m just thinking next year it will be necessary. Brian Gerth: If I can, again, the Elected Officials Training Fund can only be spent for Debbie to go to conference, or the AIC conference, that s it. President Montrastelle: Right, right. Brian Gerth: No other employees.

4 Page 4 of 54 Debbie Stucki: Uh-huh. BUDGET HEARING Brian Gerth: Just her. President Montrastelle: Okay. Councilmember Raben: Good, thank you. Debbie Stucki: Thank you. Councilmember Raben: We re going to move on. PUBLIC DEFENDER S AGENCY Councilmember Raben: Public Defender, page 43. Steve Owens: I was hoping that you had a couple more before I had to come up here. Good morning. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Steve, I guess, the elephant in the room is the $300,000 request for the Juvenile Compliance. So, if you want to speak to that. Steve Owens: I can speak to that, could I hit a couple of points before I get to there, because they re sort of interrelated? I ve asked for a pay increase for all 15 of our part time Deputy Public Defenders. They have not had a cost of living increase for some ten or 11 years. Whenever the county has granted cost of living increases for full time employees, the part time employees have had none. During that period of time, the Felony Public Defenders, their case load has increased by 30 percent. They are the highest paid of that group of 15, at the current time. The Misdemeanor Public Defenders have a case load that is three times over the recommended case load by the Public Defender Commission, and we already know what the CHINS and TPR attorneys have. I ve requested a modest increase for all of the, well, a modest increase for the Felony Public Defenders per year, and it would be a substantial increase for both the Misdemeanor and the CHINS/TPR attorneys. When I took this job in 2001, for whatever reason, the judges had a substantial differentiation in pay between Felony Public Defenders, Misdemeanor Public Defenders and CHINS and Juvenile Public Defenders. We were able, a few, many years ago, to get some of that differentiation taken back, and had the Misdemeanor and the CHINS people increased, however, they still don t make as much money as the Felony PD s. So, what I m asking is that all of the Public Defenders be paid the same amount of money, because all of them, in all of the divisions, are as important to the operation of the Public Defenders Office, as are the felony people. That sort of rolls into the CHINS and TPR Councilmember Raben: Well, can we, can we hold off, because I think there might be questions, and I know I have a comment. Steve Owens: Okay. Councilmember Raben: I guess, when we discussed part time people and consider all things equal, your part time Public Defenders are receiving benefits, where other part time county employees are not. So, do they want to waive the benefits for the cost of living increase? Steve Owens: I doubt that they would consider waiving the benefits for the cost of living increase, but I would also point out that all of the part time Prosecutors have also received benefits for all of the years that we ve had these people. Currently, the part time Prosecutor assigned to Misdemeanor Court makes about $39,000. My guys make $33,700. So, I understand that there s this issue about cost of living and the benefits, and frankly, if we did away with the benefits for the part time people, we wouldn t have part time people. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I get that, but in all fairness to the county, when benefit rates went up some years, ten percent, 12 percent, and we absorbed those rates, they ve been getting all along a cost of living increase. So, I don t know if anyone else has a comment on that or not.

5 BUDGET HEARING Page 5 of 54 Councilmember Shetler: Steve? Can you give me an idea of what the average amount of hours a part time puts in a week? Steve Owens: Well, Tom, it varies. I don t know that I can give you an average. For example, the Misdemeanor people are in Misdemeanor Court every third week, for the entire week, for however long Misdemeanor Court takes, in addition to any additional trials that they may have. The Felony people are virtually over here every day, in addition to whatever trials that they would have, because they re assigned cases in a given court. So, I really can t give you-- Councilmember Shetler: Well, do you keep Steve Owens: --an average number of Councilmember Shetler: --time records? Steve Owens: We keep time records for, our full time people are keeping time records for the Public Defender Commission, to get an idea of how many hours we re spending in different level cases for the felony folks. We don t necessarily, I can t tell you that all of the part time people are keeping time records, because, frankly, it would be a nightmare to try to enforce that. Councilmember Shetler: I mean, I would think that there s a, I mean, as long as you ve been involved in it, you would have a sense, and maybe perhaps, I mean, I realize it s maybe little bit of homework here for you, but for someone to go back through and just kind of, you know, put them into those different categories and try to get a sense of what, you know, that on the average, your part time is working 28 hours, or whatever it might be, it would be helpful to me to break this down to an hourly thing, because you guys, in the public world, charge by the hour, you know, and stuff, and you receive, generally speaking, by the hour. So, it would be helpful to me if I had an idea of that, so that I could take that $40,000 and divide it into, you know, that $800 a week, and divide that into the hourly rate so that I would have a feel for, are we, you know, are we meeting what the market is paying outside? I want to be competitive so that we attract. So, just trying to use that as a tool to see where we are, and stay current. Steve Owens: I think a more accurate way to do it, frankly, because of the variation in the types of cases, for example, the Felony lawyers handle, I mean, they re doing everything from murder cases to Level 6 s. Level 6 cases, obviously, don t generally require as much time as a murder case. So, I think, probably the easier way to look at it would be, what are they making per case, and how does that relate to what there would be in the private practice? Councilmember Shetler: I don t know. It s not, I mean, I didn t know that they Steve Owens: Well Councilmember Shetler: I guess Steve Owens: --you have to understand, I think, a couple things, by and large in Vanderburgh County, criminal defense lawyers do things on a flat fee basis. Councilmember Shetler: Okay. Steve Owens: So, if you re looking at handling a Level 4 Felony, for example, and you go to a private attorney, that attorney is probably going to quote you a fee that is on a flat fee basis. And, if he gets five hours in a case, great, if he gets 100 hours in a case, he doesn t do quite as well. So, when I say it s probably makes a little more sense to look at this on a per case basis, whatever that average is they re making per case Councilmember Shetler: And, I get that Steve Owens: that would be (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Councilmember Shetler: --and I would be fine with that. It seems to me though, that when we got some of the expense reports back, when we ve had capital cases that have been outside of this county, and I m recalling one specifically that was in the New Albany area there.

6 Page 6 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Steve Owens: Well, we ve had a couple over there, but I think I know which one you re talking about. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, and, you know, those were, the judge basically the attorney that was, you know, handling, well, I may be talking about the prosecution side, in fact, on this one, but the judge generally allocated the special attorneys or judges, or prosecutors, that they did that on an hourly basis. It came back, and they said, you know, like, you know, the guy would report every week, I worked 37 hours, I worked 46 hours, or, you know, whatever it was, and that we were charged back then x number of dollars per hour. Steve Owens: We were never charged back for prosecutorial expenses. Councilmember Shetler: Well, you guys wouldn t have, but, I mean, I m thinking that may have come from the Prosecutor s Office on Steve Owens: I don t know what the Prosecutor tried to charge back or didn t charge back. I can tell you that on capital cases, the hourly rate is set by the Public Defender Commission. It goes up every year or so, and so whatever that hourly rate would have been, during any of the capital cases, is what the judge would have approved. Councilmember Shetler: Now, that, is it only in capital cases that, because we, a lot of times, those part times, when we bring in outside counsel from your group, and a part timer, or a part timer who may have been, I m thinking when Tim was a part time, I believe, Tim Dodd? A few years ago. Steve Owens: We had a capital case Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, we upped his pay on a capital, and it may have been a couple other people that we did that from time to time. Steve Owens: Well, I mean, I can tell you what we ve done in the past. Councilmember Shetler: Do we do that for all death, I mean, do we do that in all murder cases? Or, do we just do it only on the capital murder cases? Steve Owens: In capital cases, there are some specific requirements that we have to meet. Councilmember Shetler: Right. Steve Owens: In one of the capital cases we used two part time Public Defenders, paid them hourly, and then we took the case load that they were, otherwise would have handled, took what their salaries were as part timers, put that in a separate line item, and we paid a replacement attorney to handle their cases. Because they re limited to the number of cases they can otherwise handle. So, we paid those attorneys on an hourly basis. The last capital case where we had Mr. McDaniel who was from New Albany, we had to pay Mr. McDaniel on an hourly basis the entire time. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah. Steve Owens: I ended up taking that case over at some point, as second chair, and was paid my regular salary to take that case, plus whatever else we had. But, there are some specific requirements that apply to capital cases that don t Councilmember Shetler: Right. Steve Owens: --particularly apply to say, life without parole cases. We have four life without parole cases in our office right now that all being handled by salaried Public Defenders. Councilmember Shetler: So, to get back to the point, I would feel more comfortable if you would maybe do both scenarios. One where you do it per case load, or per case. Steve Owens: Uh-huh.

7 BUDGET HEARING Page 7 of 54 Councilmember Shetler: And, the other one if you could do it by, figure it out someway, and I get it that it s an average, but, you ve got a good feel. You ve been around for 16 years on it. So, I m sure you have a good feel Steve Owens: I ve been around for about 30 years Councilmember Shetler: Well, I m talking about, within, running this department. Steve Owens: But, the Councilmember Shetler: If you could give us a Steve Owens: I don t know that we re going to be able to give you, I don t want to tell you I can give you something that I can t. I don t believe we re going to be able to give you an accurate number of hours per week, per part time Public Defender. Misdemeanor people is going to be different than Felony, Felony is going to be different than the CHINS and Termination people. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah. Steve Owens: I don t think I can give you an accurate number. I can give you, simply the number of cases they ve been assigned, divide that by the salary, that s what they re making average per case. That figure is easily available, but in terms of the hourly, how many hours a week are they doing. I don t know that I can give you an accurate number. We ll look at it, but I don t know that we re going to have that detail. Councilmember Shetler: Well, let me ask you this then, if the judges were, if we went to the old system, is that, did they pay it primarily by case load, or did they pay it by the hour? Steve Owens: We got paid a salary and we took all the cases that we got in a particular week. When I was a Circuit Court Public Defender, I was a paid a yearly salary, I was in court every sixth week, and I got all the PD cases in that court for that week. So, we were never paid hourly. We were never, I mean, we just had a salary and we took however many cases we got. Councilmember Shetler: Alright. Whatever information you could come up with, it would be helpful to me, because I m not denying that these guys, you know, may, you know, need an increase, and you may need it to attract, because we don t have, these aren t rookie people that you have, as your part timers. I mean, these are pretty experienced, you know, litigators, for the most part, from what names I ve seen in the past, anyway, so. Steve Owens: They have, most of them have a lot of experience. We ve lost two part time Felony Public Defenders within the last year, because of the caseloads. They ve just decided that they don t want to do this work anymore for the amount of money they re getting, and they re in a position where they can hit the Rule of 85, or whatever it is. President Montrastelle: Steve? Steve, you ve got seven employees, and it s kind of a follow up to Tom s comments. You ve got seven employees at $39,501 right now, and they re listed as part time. You ve got another seven, actually three listed at $33,700 in salary, and three more, or four more listed at $33,200. So, there s about a $6,000 gap between the $33,700 and the $39,500, but they re all listed as part time. Steve Owens: They are. President Montrastelle: Why is that, why is it like that? Why is it just part time on all of them, and there s a $6,000 difference? Steve Owens: I think, historically, when we were employed by the judges, when the judges actually hired the Public Defenders, the Circuit Court Public Defenders historically were the highest paid, because we handled all felony cases, primarily. The Superior Court Felony Public Defenders were paid a little less, but they also got a stipend for office assistance. The Juvenile Public Defenders, who worked for that particular judge, had a much smaller case load at the time, and, so they were paid less. President Montrastelle: Uh-huh.

8 Page 8 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Steve Owens: Misdemeanor accounted for the same thing. When we started the office back in 2001, the Council, whoever put together that budget, which wasn t me, decided that all Felony Public Defenders would be paid a certain amount, and that amount was about $10,000 more than the Misdemeanor and the Juvenile people. My liaison back then and I were able to agree to try to bring the Juvenile people and the Misdemeanor people up, we just couldn t, he didn t think we could sell bringing them up all at one time. So, we got some of that to equalize that out, and since that time it s never changed. President Montrastelle: Right. Steve Owens: Notwithstanding that those seven people have some of the greatest caseloads of anybody in the office. My personal feeling is, they re handling cases that are just as important as the felony caseloads. My personal opinion is they all ought to be making the same amount of money. What triggered part of this is that we have to increase the salary for the CHINS/Termination people, the four, that are currently making $33,200 and some odd dollars, in order to try to come into compliance with the Public Defender Commission. That s part of Mr. Raben s question. The budget that I ve put together, to try to come into compliance, part of that is taking into consideration that they get a pay increase, to bring them up to the level where they can handle a 65 percent caseload. President Montrastelle: The three of them that are at $33,210? Steve Owens: No, there would be four of them. President Montrastelle: There are three Steve Owens: There s none of those four that are $33,210 and there s one of them at $33,709. President Montrastelle: Okay. Steve Owens: So, those four people all are going to have to see a significant salary increase to get them to where we can give them the 65 percent caseload. That is in addition to the $300,000 line item that I ve requested. I need both to make that work. The $300,000 simply is just to hire additional people to manage that caseload, assuming we give those four part time folks the pay increase. So, that $300,000 line item is predicated upon some pay increase for those four part time people. If we don t give them a pay increase, the $300,000 line item is going to have to go up, because I didn t, I don t have much fat in this at all. I mean, I ve got what I think it s going to take for us to come into compliance with CHINS and Termination. President Montrastelle: Yeah. Steve Owens: It s going to be tight. I don t know that we ve got a lot of excess. There are a couple of questions that we haven t a couple of things that we haven t exactly factored in, that we think we re going to try to absorb out of the Supplemental Account. But, without those figures, at least for the four part time CHINS/TPR attorneys, and the $300,000, it doesn t work. Regardless of whether we go to full time people, regardless of whether we go to all part time people. I mean, we ve put our figures together with about five different, six different plans, part time/full time, combinations thereof, the money is all going to come out roughly the same. President Montrastelle: Yeah. Steve Owens: So, to ask, or to answer Mr. Raben s question, the $300,000 is what I think it takes to get us to the additional personnel that we need to come into compliance, in addition to those salary increases for those four folks. Councilmember Raben: Steve, I think it s been mentioned in this setting before about possibly turning over the CHINS, to bid it out to a private firm. What are we, what prevents us from doing that? Steve Owens: The Public Defender Commission, basically, is going to require you, if you want to get any money back from the Public Defender Commission, they re going to require you to comply. So, if you bid it out to a private firm, the private firm, if you want to get 40 percent of that back, the private firm is going to have to comply. Right now, I would

9 BUDGET HEARING Page 9 of 54 suspect, given what I ve heard from the Commission, that if you tried to bid it out and not comply, just basically say take it out of our system altogether, a number of things would have to happen. One, we would have to go to the Commission with a modified plan to exclude that portion of reimbursable type stuff from our plan. And, they would have to approve that. If they didn t approve it, then what we re going to do is we re going to jeopardize the reimbursement for the stuff we get reimbursed for now. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I would understand that there would be some hurdles that would have to be, we would have to Steve Owens: Yeah, I mean, we would have to jump through that deal. I suspect, given the bent on the Commission, that they would not approve us contracting that out, at some level that would be, would not be in compliance with their guidelines. Councilmember Raben: Uh--- Councilmember Shetler: So, the $300,000, Steve, the $300,000 that s down here, let s see what underneath the Juvenile Compliance, that s like a placeholder, if you will, for the amount of money? You re not saying that you re going to contract that out? Steve Owens: Yes. Councilmember Shetler: You don t know if it s going to be part time, full time, a combination thereof, but you re just using the dollar amount as a placeholder until you sort President Montrastelle: Juvenile Compliance. Councilmember Shetler: --that part out? Steve Owens: Yeah, that s exactly what we re doing. Councilmember Shetler: Okay. Steve Owens: I think what would happen is, is once, assuming that money was approved, that what we would do is, once we knew exactly how we were going to do this, whether it s going to be all part time, all full time, or some combination thereof, that money then would be transferred over to a salary line item, and FICA and PERF. President Montrastelle: Can I, I missed that, was that the Juvenile Compliance? Councilmember Shetler: Correct, yeah. President Montrastelle: Okay. Councilmember Goebel: Steve? President Montrastelle: Jeff and I were just talking about that. Steve Owens: Yes, that s exactly what it is. It s a placeholder, just because that was the number, and we needed to get it in somehow. Councilmember Goebel: Steve, when you go to the Public Defenders Commission in September, do you have to have the exact plan? Or can you say you ve got $300,000 allocated, and you re still working out the details? Steve Owens: I had a conversation with their staff attorney last week, I believe it was, and, basically, what he wants to hear from me, on the 19 th, is that (1) we have something that s been funded, and (2) that we re going to come with them with a plan. They would like to have that plan a week before the 19 th meeting. Assuming you vote to fund compliance, I will meet with my board, and we will develop a plan, or an alternative plan. I think it will be very difficult for us to pick up the number of full time employees that we have to have. One, I don t have any place to put them. So, we would have to find some office space, the Commissioners would have to find some place to put us. So, I anticipate that what we ll probably do is go to the Commission with a plan, saying we intend to hire additional part time employees, and break this caseload out over eight or ten people, instead of four.

10 Page 10 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Councilmember Goebel: Financially, speaking from our viewpoint, it would be less expensive to actually have full time, because you do get the write off the computers, the help, the rent, etcetera if they come on board here. Steve Owens: We would be able to write off, obviously, the rent, we get.well, we wouldn t write it off, we get 40 percent back; rent, insurance, computers, telephones, all of the office furniture, all of those things. I don t have a good figure, Mike, about what extra computers, for example, and telephones would cost us, extra support staff yet. My best guess is, if we took six full time people, we would have to add another $150,000 to, coming out of somebody s budget, whether it s the Commissioners budget, or whoever pays the insurance, and whoever pays the rents, because we would have to have places to put them. We would have to have the equipment. So, would it be less expensive, by the time you factor that in, I don t think so. Councilmember Raben: Currently Steve Owens: Where part time people are going to be working out of their own offices. Councilmember Raben: -- currently we re not paying any of those expenses, as part times, right? Steve Owens: We don t pay any expenses for part time people. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, so, I don t think it would, other than insurance. Steve Owens: Other than the insurance and the FICA and the PERF. And the FICA and the PERF is figured in these figures, but, I think when you add all of that overhead that we get 40 percent back, I think probably the part time people is the way to go, because we don t pay for those expenses. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, okay. Steve, thank you. We re going to move on. Councilmember Shetler: Um Councilmember Raben: Oh, did someone else have something? Councilmember Shetler: I think Joe had one other thing. Councilmember Kiefer: I just had a question. So, just to clarify, we don t pay any stipend or any per diem or anything for the use of their office? What about their gasoline or mileage on their vehicles? Steve Owens: We don t pay anything for that. Councilmember Kiefer: Oh, okay. That s good. Councilmember Shetler: One further point, Steve, wouldn t, have you, would it make sense that if we took the part timers, did eliminate the health insurance, but increased their pay, say $10,000, and that way, you know, I mean, we may find some savings there, because right now we re not getting reimbursed for that health insurance, are we? Steve Owens: Yes, you are. Councilmember Shetler: Oh, we are? Steve Owens: You re getting 40 Councilmember Shetler: Because I thought that was a contention we had a couple of years ago. Steve Owens: No, you re getting, everything you pay towards indigent defense; office space, travel, if we have any Councilmember Shetler: I was thinking on the part timers though, that was one of the things that they, did they, they weren t before and maybe they gave us that then two years ago?

11 BUDGET HEARING Page 11 of 54 Steve Owens: No, they, we ve been getting 40 percent of their insurance premium since day one. Councilmember Shetler: Okay. Alright. That s why I was going that line then. Steve Owens: For the reimbursable amounts, we ve never gotten reimbursement for CHINS and Termination attorneys. Okay? Or their insurance. So, once you bring them into compliance, you get 40 percent of their salaries, their FICA, their PERF, their Insurance. Councilmember Shetler: Thanks. Councilmember Raben: Alright, Steve, thank you so much. Steve Owens: Thank you. Jeff Ahlers: Steve, just to clarify, on the increases in salaries of the current employees that you ve asked for, that, and I understand your explanation that, I think, you think that those employees deserve that, but that s not something that would be required to be brought into compliance on that particular issue, would it? Steve Owens: Only for the four CHINS/TPR attorneys. Jeff Ahlers: That are already in here? Or that would be hired? Steve Owens: They re already in there. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, so which ones would those be then? Steve Owens: There are President Montrastelle: Those would be the Steve Owens: --right now, there are three attorneys at $33,210, and there is one at $33,709. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, hold on, hold on. President Montrastelle: And which line item number is that one? Steve Owens: Oh, okay. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, I ve got it. Steve Owens: Hang on a minute, I can give you the line items. Jeff Ahlers: (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) figure it out. President Montrastelle: Because there s four of them at Steve Owens: There are four of them. Jeff Ahlers: Oh, okay. Steve Owens: One of them would be 173 Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, well, I think Kathy just pointed out to me, 173, 181 Steve Owens: Well Jeff Ahlers: and 185, is that right? Kathy Glaser: I m not sure of that one though. President Montrastelle: Yep. Steve Owens: There should be four. Jeff Ahlers: Is 170, is the 173, is that one of them? Steve Owens: That s one of them.

12 Page 12 of 54 Jeff Ahlers: Okay, and then I said 181, 184 and 185. Is that right? Steve Owens: That appears to be correct. BUDGET HEARING Jeff Ahlers: So, those are the ones you say need to be brought up, why? Steve Owens: In order to get them to the 65 percent caseload, they have to be paid, roughly, $39,561, which is what our felony people are making, and they re carrying a 65 percent caseload. So, those four have to be brought up in order to make this plan of compliance work. Jeff Ahlers: Okay, so, those are mandatory, the others are discretionary, noting that you believe they deserve it? Steve Owens: Yes. Jeff Ahlers: I m not, and I m not questioning the deservedness of it, I just wanted to make sure to clarify for the record which ones were, when we get down to the crunching, which ones are have tos and which ones are wannas. Steve Owens: Those four are must haves Jeff Ahlers: Okay. Steve Owens: --the other ones are discretionary. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Steve, thank you very much. Steve Owens: Thank you. DRAINAGE BOARD Councilmember Raben: We re going to move on to Drainage Board, page 23. This is really nothing. It s a total of $3,200. It s for the three board members. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS & COMMISSIONERS/CCD Councilmember Raben: We ve move on to County Commissioners, page 26. Good morning. Bruce Ungethiem: Good morning. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Councilmember Kiefer: So, when are you due? Kristin Comer: Not today. Councilmember Raben: Okay, we ll get started on page 26. I know the first item, that Human Resource Specialist, that s been discussed in here the last couple of years, or for sure the last year. The next item, I guess, that is the Insurance line that is in three different budgets right now, or that s part of it. The Insurance, the main employee health insurance line, $7.5 million, we ll deal with that later on in the process. Councilmember Shetler: I do have a question about the Insurance line, and that is, in our insurance policy, do we have Cyber insurance? Bruce Ungethiem: Yes. Councilmember Shetler: Protection and stuff? Bruce Ungethiem: Yes. Councilmember Shetler: Do you know how much we have on that? Bruce Ungethiem: The amount of insurance, I m not quite sure of. It costs us about $18,000, I think, for Cyber. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, it s not terribly expensive, but, boy, you get

13 BUDGET HEARING Page 13 of 54 Bruce Ungethiem: Yeah. Councilmember Shetler: --whacked and you re (Inaudible). Bruce Ungethiem: Yeah, it s a couple million dollar policy or whatever it is, but it s like $18,000 is the cost. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, I would be interested in knowing what kind of coverage we have on that, because, I mean, that s, that s getting to be a big deal. Bruce Ungethiem: Yeah, I can get that detail. Councilmember Shetler: Alright. Bruce Ungethiem: We added that, two years ago, I believe. Councilmember Shetler: Yeah, alright. Thanks, Bruce. Councilmember Raben: That would probably, Tom, that would probably fall under, in the Other Services Insurance, that $1.3 million, that s probably our Property and Casualty. Bruce Ungethiem: It is. It rides along with Property and Casualty. Councilmember Raben: But, I guess, the question there is, is that s a little over $500,000 increase. Do you know as to why the P&C s jumped? Bruce Ungethiem: Which line are we talking about? Councilmember Raben: Well, line It s the first line under Other Services. Last year we budgeted $771,000. This year we re requesting $1.3 million. Bruce Ungethiem: Why the increase? Kristin Comer: This one? Bruce Ungethiem: Yeah. Kristin Comer: We did request $1.1 million last year. Bruce Ungethiem: Last year s allowance was $1.1 million, from what I m reading. Brian Gerth: If you ll remember, it was repealed in January, to kind of offset with the Riverboat, moving that stuff around. I believe the P&C, if you look at the policy, it s $800,000 a year, which that gets split up between Commissioners budget, Health Department, Highway and some other small department, maybe Public Defender. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Brian Gerth: And, yeah, I was thinking rounded off to 800. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Brian Gerth: You know, because they do pay bond stuff additional out of that. Councilmember Raben: Okay. Anyone is free to interrupt me as we go through this budget. President Montrastelle: Yeah, on the insurance, Bruce, our provider has done a pretty good job, Torian, I think they ve done a really good job. We ve been with Torian for a number of years. Is there an RFP, RFQ going to be put out for next year s insurance, just to keep Torian honest? What s the thought process there? Bruce Ungethiem: The insurance, at this point in time, has been extended to mid 2019, and it s my understanding that the Commissioners, at that point in time, fully intend to do a full evaluation of that insurance, both health insurance, property & casualty, the whole nine yards, and get other folks to bid in on it at that time. President Montrastelle: Okay, how is that going to work with

14 Page 14 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Councilmember Raben: You ll have to, what you ll have to do is you ll have to inform the, not the agent, not the broker, but you ll have to inform the carrier, because they ll have to, otherwise it will be locked to just them when you get into proposals. So, you ll need to, well, somebody, will need to remember to do that. Bruce Ungethiem: Our new Human Resources person will take care of that. President Montrastelle: Well, what I mean by how is that going to work, you know, we budget for the year Councilmember Raben: I understand that. President Montrastelle: -- this is a half year. Councilmember Raben: The risk is, is they are going to hit us with an increase mid-year, but, I mean, you know, we re talking about a year from now. So, who knows? President Montrastelle: Yeah. Councilmember Raben: If our claims don t get out of whack and, you know, we don t, we just gotta Bruce Ungethiem: Right now claims are trending pretty well, and I m fully expecting if we continue along that path, that our current insurance, the way it s set up, we will actually get a refund back from our payments this year President Montrastelle: Yeah. Bruce Ungethiem: --because of our claims profile in President Montrastelle: Is the new clinics helping out in any way? Bruce Ungethiem: It s a little early to tell, but generally speaking they think it is. They think we re getting more visits, or we know we re getting more visits into the clinics, and we think that is then dropping the outside claims cost. President Montrastelle: Uh-huh. Mike? Councilmember Goebel: I was just wondering why, all of a sudden, it will be mid-calendar year, mid-budget time for us, instead of going through January through December, as far as a lock in rate time, so we could have a better idea? Bruce Ungethiem: We always had a problem with the insurance carriers getting us a price for the following year by the budget time in August, as we started the budget process. The thought was, if we bring that insurance cycle in with the budget cycle, we could get that number, a more accurate number, for the budget. Now, the downside of that, is you re only going to get six months of that number. So, it s a catch 22. Councilmember Goebel: That would be my point, It seems like they have all of the information ready for how many years they ve had the contract. They ve got the numbers and they ve got the trending. Bruce Ungethiem: I would be more than happy for you to call them and have that conversation, because I ve had that conversation for four years. Councilmember Goebel: Well, I know, and, Bruce, you ve mentioned it already, the fear all of us have, if we go mid-year, set up a new insurance, what s going to happen? Councilmember Raben: I would think this is just a one time what if. Because going forward in 2019, it will be a one year proposal. Bruce Ungethiem: Yes. Councilmember Raben: So, it s, our only risk is the second half of next year, and then moving forward it will be an annual, it will be an annual quote, right? Bruce Ungethiem: Yes.

15 BUDGET HEARING Page 15 of 54 Councilmember Raben: It s just, instead of it being on the calendar year, it will be on the June to May cycle. Bruce Ungethiem: It will be your budget cycle Councilmember Raben: Yeah. Bruce Ungethiem: --so your budget will come Councilmember Raben: This will, again, I think this will help Councils going forward forever. Brian Gerth: I m sorry, I have to disagree. Councilmember Raben: Really. Brian Gerth: Because what happens if we get the quote by, for next, in, for July 1, what happens if there s an increase? Then we re going to be expected to find the money somewhere, and it s not going to be budgeted for that (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Councilmember Raben: Well, no, I think Councilmember Goebel: And, that would be annually done, as well, every July, and we re on a January through December budget cycle. So, it seems to me this would not be very good for us to know exactly what our costs will be. Councilmember Raben: Bruce, explain this better maybe. If it s a, if June 1 begins the new policy Bruce Ungethiem: That s the renewal, or July 1 is the renewal. Councilmember Raben: --or July 1, okay. We re going to know those numbers before July 1. Bruce Ungethiem: Yes. Brian Gerth: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) Councilmember Raben: No, for the annual Bruce Ungethiem: You ll know them for a year from July 1 to June 30 th. Councilmember Raben: Yeah, it will be an annual. Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, but what Brian is saying is you re going to be six months short. You re going to already have your budget though. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) no it s not. It s only going to be a hiccup in Moving forward Jeff Ahlers: No. Councilmember Raben: --we ll get the information probably in May or June. We ll know where we re going to be in July Jeff Ahlers: But, you ve already got your budget for the whole year. You can t change your budget for that year. Councilmember Raben: No, we re going to budget. From the standpoint of budgeting, we ll be able to budget in August Jeff Ahlers: But only for a half a year. Councilmember Raben: -- for that year. Councilmember Shetler: You ll be able to nail down Jeff Ahlers: That would be for the following year.

16 Page 16 of 54 BUDGET HEARING Councilmember Shetler: --like next year in 19, we ll be able to nail down what the first six months of 20 are, but then come the second six months...so, when we look at the budget next year, we re going to have to be kind of doing a wild guess, a little bit, on what s going to happen from July to December, because we don t know that. We won t know that until June of 19 of what that 20 are you following? So, we re going to be guessing a little bit of what that s going to be. Councilmember Goebel: It s just my simple question, why are we changing now to midyear, coming up with the rates, after our budget has been set? When all along we ve been doing it, at this particular time, or just right before the end of the year, for the next full complete year. Bruce Ungethiem: Well, it was changed because of the difficulty that we had in trying to get the insurance company to give us rates in August for starting in January. You re asking for somebody to give you a quotation on something that doesn t start for six months, and they were reluctant to do that, because they didn t have the data in front of them for the end of the year. Councilmember Shetler: Truthfully, neither one of them are perfect worlds. I mean, when you get down to it, you re always going to be guessing some time. Bruce Ungethiem: It s going to be a guess Councilmember Shetler: So, you re, I m not faulting anybody. Bruce Ungethiem: --no matter when you guess, you re, it s going to be a guess. Councilmember Shetler: Right. Councilmember Raben: And, I would suspect, it s always been the case, when we re asking them to give us a figure six months in advance, they re always going high. Bruce Ungethiem: Yes, they will. Councilmember Raben: So, I mean, eventually Bruce Ungethiem: They ll put contingencies in their number. Councilmember Raben: -- in time, I mean, you know, if they worked it on a trailing 12 months, you know, after a few years, and we could look at it ourselves on a trailing 12 months, it would work, it would almost be to the penny of where it probably needs to be. Bruce Ungethiem: We hope. President Montrastelle: I wonder how other counties do this throughout the State of Indiana? Does anyone know? Brian Gerth: Not like what we re getting ready to go to. Councilmember Goebel: They go by the calendar year, or the budget year, and I think we re getting in dangerous territory if we go with a half year. Councilmember Raben: Alright, well, Bruce Jeff Ahlers: Are you able to, what if a number comes in, we don t have it budgeted, let s say a ten percent increase comes in mid-year, and we don t have it budgeted for, are we able to just terminate that coverage and get new coverage? Or what do we do if the funds aren t there? Bruce Ungethiem: You can change coverage every year. Every time that contract comes up, on an annual basis, you can change coverage. You can change your carrier, you can change your insurance broker, you can change your Jeff Ahlers: Of course, I guess, there s nothing to say that whoever we would change to would be higher too. I guess, the question becomes where you come up with that money, I guess, is when you do it like that, I guess, if we had a crazy year, or, I don t know, weren t there some years we had like a 20 percent increase or something crazy? Where does that money come from? Because when you re talking about 20 percent of $18 million

17 BUDGET HEARING Page 17 of 54 Councilmember Goebel: (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) off. Jeff Ahlers: --it s a lot of money, you know. Councilmember Raben: We ve always had that. I mean, we budget based on their estimate, every year, and then in January, we ve had it where we budgeted a four percent increase and it s been eight percent. Councilmember Goebel: Bruce, when did you Jeff Ahlers: True, but, true, but you would know at the beginning of the year. Councilmember Goebel: -- contract for this current year? When did we have that in our hands? Jeff Ahlers: And you can adjust your budget, if you had to, now you re going to know after you ve already depleted a lot of your General Fund. Councilmember Goebel: correct? It s before the (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) year, Bruce Ungethiem: Currently the contract, the existing contract ends at the end of December. What the current carrier has done is extended that contract out another six months, at the current rate, with no increase, to put us into July 1. Councilmember Goebel: Yeah, he can wait until July 1 to give us the increase, and then we re scrambling, or we don t know. Councilmember Raben: Let s don t work this out today. Councilmember Goebel: Okay. Councilmember Raben: I know there s other issues that Bruce Ungethiem: It s, it doesn t matter whether you do it in June, or you do it in August, or you do it in September, there s a certain amount of guess Brian Gerth: Well, I think my point was, like for calendar year of 18, we had the information, it was late, but we had it in November of last year, and we were able to put a number into the budget. We re not going to be able to do this going forward. Bruce Ungethiem: You won t be able to do it Brian Gerth: Not for a full year. Bruce Ungethiem: -- you won t have that number for the back half of 19. Brian Gerth: Exactly. Bruce Ungethiem: You won t have a quote for that number. You might have an estimate, but you won t have the quote. Brian Gerth: And, I ve already tried to preach this to the Commissioners, and it didn t go anywhere, so. Councilmember Raben: Well, we ll, you guys continue to hash that out. We re going to move on. Data Management is $25,000. Can you tell us what that s all about? President Montrastelle: What page are we on? Councilmember Raben: We re on page 27. Kristin Comer: (Inaudible) County Council. It s one of those. Bruce Ungethiem: Say that again. Kristin Comer: It s one of those that s moved from County Council. It s not an increase. Councilmember Raben: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)