Hancock County Commissioners Send 2027 Budget to Advisory Committee

[0:30] Commissioner Chair: I'm going to call the meeting to order. Do the adoption of events. I want to move to accept the agenda as presented. I'll second that. All those in favor, aye. I'm going to call the public hearing on the proposed 2027 Hancock County budget estimates, including the 2027-28 unorganized territory budgets. What public comments do we have today? You can indicate that you'd like to make a public comment, identify yourself at the beginning of it, and give you three minutes to make your comment. Anyone would like to begin? See anything on your end? There's no one in the meeting physically in the meeting, so all we have are our online guests today. So not saying anyone wanting to make a statement? Yes, that's that. All right, let's go to the proposed 2027 Hancock County budget estimates. Good timing on the proposed budget. First point I'd like to discuss is my concerns that we last time we looked at this that we hadn't added any proposed stipend. And for a key department, who may be selected as the Supervisor, have you put them in there since then? No. Yeah, she said any discussion about what the amount stipend should pay for the client is going to take over the responsibility. I want to talk about the reason I'm bringing these up is that I believe that we should give the BAC a heads up on any changes that we might make to their recommendations when comes back to us. So in other words, we don't, we don't surprise them with changes that we had anticipated before we sent it to them, even though the numbers that we send to them might not be what we ultimately decide on, but we ought to give them the opportunity to weigh in on whatever we're considering. And if you gentlemen share that belief then i believe that this is an area that at some point we're in discussion i just don't believe that we're going to assign supervision in the d.a's office to an existing employee and say oh by the way you're going to have to do those as part of your regular salary so i think it's fair to assume that 's going to be something but you know it's like it's like giving a percentage increase budget preparation on raises once you throw the number that number becomes cast in stone so i was hoping that maybe through discussions with hr in his office that there had been some suggestion on what that number should be so you don't what do you think what's the implication i'm still a little bit confused over the urgency of assigning somebody is the department head but we've never had department head we already have a big lull up about what the budget's going to be and now we're wanting to make sure we can assign a department head I guess the issue is because we have become very aware that the DA is not the maternity's office department yet we have the va with us today so why don't you want to be the head of your department [5:32] District Attorney: to be the head of my department i've never said i wouldn't there's some opinions out there that suggest that statute blacks does not designate the va as a supervisor for county employees main association main trustee association i'm working to get that corrected can you come to the mic [6:01] Commissioner Chair: I mean, there's a lot of semantics where, for some reason, you don't want to be held accountable as an apartment head for your own. [6:10] District Attorney: And I don't understand this. That's not the issue at all. So what is the current attorney general opinion? [6:17] Commissioner: Because I know the last time you and I met, I asked you twice about what you want to do it. You never said yes. You never said no. No, so I have the attorney general's opinion. Well, what was it that we had during the conversation? I mean, 4 of us were here in that room and there was the saying, and I believe Michelle, the 1 that said right now, they're silent on it because they're going to say, leave it up to the county. So, the counties can decide some counties are going to make an appointment of the D. A. To be the department head is what I remember from the conversations, but I think this is getting blown out of proportion, but. I mean, I think as far as I'm concerned, we'd love for you just to say, yeah, I'll take your responsibilities on nothing changes, but then they have to be responsible for the chance because what he's going to tell you is that there's been a examination is by an attorney well known attorney who represented us in the back. [7:14] Commissioner Chair: was determined in canada county that the district attorney cannot be the department head and for me that is as good as the attorney general's ruling because that is the person who would represent us if we selected law and it turned out some court said you didn't have the right to suspend and discipline or dismiss because you're not the department head so [7:33] District Attorney: Well, I'm not sorry. I didn't mean to preempt that. I just brought that letter, of an opinion letter that's circulated by the Canada VA, out of concern, because really impossible to run a department if you can't supervise your employees. And it appears the prevailing discussion we have on there was that the statute is just an oversight, that they didn't miss this attorney as one of the authorized Supervisors of county employees, and the main prosecutor's association was looking at. Approaching some legislators to try and get that correct. I just provided the letter as a heads up. Have you seen the one? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, good from. Yeah. We all had a conversation about this. [8:21] Commissioner: I don't know why there's a big issue or dispute. The reality was we were going in the direction of having to assign somebody into that position. Then when the job descriptions were discussed, a lot of the language wasn't agreed on. So we had to go back. That's why nothing happened at the last meeting, including that the DA couldn't be there. I personally, I don't care what way all of you go, but I'm not going to be responsible for an employee that I have no authority over. I mean that's not fair to me, nor is it fair to anybody else in this room. So somehow we've just got to figure out, and question becomes, I mean, will the legislature do it? And I guess, and if they can make those changes, when will it be? Because we may want to build in some type of sunset provision then, because if the, if the district attorney ultimately is able to go back to that, we don't necessarily want to create a position right now, a full-time permanent position. I would assume if the VA is going to be able to take that over at some point. [9:21] Commissioner Chair: My intent was not to arbitrate this today, to discuss this and try to resolve this. My only intent was to indicate there is ongoing discussions, there is more work that needs to be done on this, and there is a possibility that somebody other than Bob is going to be selected as the office supervisor, based upon that opinion from Mark Hazy. And if so, do we want to add something to the VA's budget to compensate that employee? The issue, it's not whether or not I'm sure it shouldn't be, wants to be, it can't be, or whatever. So let's get back to the real issue here. We're talking about money. We're talking about the revenue properties budget. We want to just ignore that until at some point later when this issue gets resolved, and then we decide whether or not it calls for a stipend added then, or do we want to put something in it today so the BAC can at least see that we're contemplating an amount of [10:14] Commissioner: money to the VA's budget. Make a decision. The correspondence that I had when we were talking about numbers on this was like 77,536 was the highest number I've seen right now, and that depended upon when you put it in, right? We were looking at it as an upward transfer which comes Council that needs to 5%, that's excuse me, not in the current version. Now it's 75,254. So we're only talking two, three thousand dollars [10:56] Commissioner Chair: Okay, so maybe for that amount of money, I mean, so, because this is controversial, sorry to get this started. Well, I think we just can't wait. Resolve the issue and see if it involves more money, and then before December 15th, we'll see if we can make a correction. [11:15] District Attorney: Now, I want to take efforts to see what's being done on the legislative side. I will indicate that the opinion letter was not universally accepted by all the A's. I have not necessarily accepted it. I'm just shared it with the commissioners so you're aware of the issue. [11:33] Commissioner Chair: And my issue has always been legality. An individual in the Department of Human Services exercising authority that perhaps the courts later determined he didn't have, they didn't have. And puts us in a position where we have wrongfully terminated the way we didn't have the statutory authority to do that. [11:54] District Attorney: And we don't know that until the court later. I think that letter arose out of a situation where Megan Maloney, the counterback DA, imposed a policy on county employees, and the commissioner submitted there was some dispute over that from the county employees. The commissioners took it up, sent it to Peter Martesi, and that's the opinion that was rendered by that law firm [12:21] Commissioner Chair: That's all I have. Okay, well, let's let's let's work on this today. Thank you. The another issue that I have is establishing a separate budget for the Hancock site. We've talked about that. Where are we now on that board? [12:56] Commissioner: So I went, we gathered information from three department heads. I wish they were here today, but from Bob Connery in the RCC and from Dennis Walls and from Chuck in IT. And at your suggestion, I put together a potential department 22 for the Hancock site. And so I have worked up numbers in a separate spreadsheet just to see what kind of effect that would have. On the bottom line, I forget what the. [13:35] Commissioner Chair: I didn't notice that what was the. [13:38] Commissioner: The it budget well, the amount that Chuck wanted, what's good about Chuck's portion is that it would reduce his own budget. It'd be a fair trade. So it would be a it would reduce his budget by 55 000 and the 55 000 would end up in the department [13:56] Commissioner Chair: So it's just shifting it for variety right I'm a little concerned that out of in my opinion nowhere I'm saying that we are going to have to get new councils from the RCC what council yeah [District Attorney: Yeah, I] mean, the sample is discussed. Oh, you're talking a huge expense. Moveables were taken out of the original contract in order to get that to comply with 2.7, which meant that was going to be a cause that we'd have to bear some room. That does not have to happen. I guess the, we have some kind of. Mobile councils now, right? Right because we have to have the alternative an option something happened here at the courthouse now supposedly to communicate. Well, no, we don't have portable consoles. We have a process in place covering this badge and the piece of the answering point. And then we have to vacate. They don't include consoles. [15:18] Commissioner: Consoles I do have Bob's proposals here. If you want to see it. I've seen you see him. [15:28] Commissioner Chair: Okay, but she, what he said is, he's put his movables into the 27 budget, right? His movables on his consoles is all I don't know. I, think the consoles are separate. [15:43] Commissioner: The way I understood it is that basically before some of the equipment that had been purchased on the ARPA, the stock to go up there is not going to be able to work as a full-time solution. So what he's proposed here is basically a basic option of just trying to get so you could have a functional remote system out there if you needed to. And then the other thing would be actual consoles and a more of a permanent long-term solution it's the permanent long-term solution in the proposed that's like you have the two options two options a and option b and that's the 337 and the one that the treasurer is plugged into the budget right now which makes the department like 439 or whatever includes the 337 second [16:38] Commissioner Chair: Second option from Browns that Bob called it, so it's, it's 100,000 for just getting [16:46] Commissioner: him up there, so he's giving you basically the first one, three desk set consoles, a console that desktop control station, and five antennas, and then the installation, all that was like 3,200 estimate, so for that total it's 52,800 to have basically, as I understand it, almost like a plug and play basic type of thing where you could transfer control from here up there. Would you call that minimum he needs just to move up there? That's my interpretation from his discussion, but I'll be the first to say I don't understand all that technology, so because I mean [17:30] Commissioner Chair: For me, that's, we should stand and consider whether or not we want to do anything more than that for 27. Once we get done with everything else, as sure as we do, quite honestly. [17:47] Commissioner: I think he said it's the difference, what I understood it to be was the difference between people just walking in, sitting down, having a bowl. [17:56] Commissioner Chair: Essentially just like they have back in the day. [17:58] Commissioner: What they have here versus plugging in a phone. [18:03] Commissioner Chair: But the differences are 350,000 dollars, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, about 300,000. [18:10] Commissioner: But I also understand that the reliability, the extent of what can be done and all that will be still limited. So it won't be like. Like, for like, what they have right now, which I think is Bob's ultimate concern is that if you really needed this for a backup that. may not be enough for a long term backup, you know, a couple hours here and there, make some end rounds, use different frequencies, all that, yes, but like a permanent setup that would be something different [18:40] Commissioner Chair: well I mean I think I certainly not going to poop you know our emergency planning I think I have a problem with establishing such a department and going with the proposed [District Attorney: Post budgets] with the less expensive councils right now. But, yeah, we can look at it as we go through. This year, the end of the budget process and see where we're at. Because I think Bob really needs to explain to us a little bit more to understand. understand what we're saying is agreeable, not agreeable. But just on what Michael is saying though, I think getting this thing up to 100% capability may be a multi-year process. And I object to myself by saying this and whatnot, but all the years I've been involved in county government, we have never needed this. So it's not like it's impending. It's going to happen next month. So anyways, I think we can safely assume that given the history, we can do this and this thing around, you know, get subsequent budgets. We don't have to frame it all into the 27 budget. So having said that, 52,000 represents the RCC portion of department 22. Is that number this 22, right, 22, okay, 22, but we still have maintenance, we still have EMA, we still have IT. Now IT, you've already said, is a wash, right, IT would be a wash. Okay, so that's just a matter of transferring from one account, so that's that's a done deal. How about EMA, have they [20:40] Commissioner: discuss any additional cost being noted? Quickly, so when I originally asked, because I asked all, he was the other department, I asked all of them, you know, can you give me an estimate of what's in your budget right now, the 27 budget that has proposed, what's in there right now, and what would come out if it was to go into a specific budget item for the department? And Andrew told me that basically he had nothing that's in there right now that would be an additional expense that we're going to, so for the time being, we don't have to consider that. [21:15] Commissioner Chair: Now it comes down to maintenance, which has it's about 22,000 for maintenance, yeah, additional costing, yes. So if we could add 22 to 52, now we're up to 74,000. [21:29] Commissioner: Yeah, I can give you, I can give you numbers, it's so I also felt like we need to consider carrying insurance out there, so I did a really rough, you know, liability, property, contents, I don't know what we might need for insurances out there, I think it, but I think it should be considered, so I added an additional 9,000 myself just for insurances. So with Bob's 52,800 estimate for the RCC and with Chuck's, Chuck and Dennis's estimates, plus 9,000 for insurances, we're looking at 154,800. [22:15] Commissioner Chair: Additional 154, yeah, I don't understand how they jumped, I thought we were talking about 22, 70 or 52 and not, there's the episode, 52,000, 53,000, 55 for Chuck, 55, 22 for Dennis, 77,000, 9,000 for [22:34] Commissioner: insurance, yep, and 52 8 for RCC, okay. [22:45] Commissioner Chair: 150,000, 150 something, Dennis, we're talking about your, you are the new department 22 budget. Okay. People come forward, questions about that. Did you just hear what I did? Something like 157,000 now. 22, this is not in budget. My comments earlier, I think that we should let the BAC contemplate these things and don't surprise them after the fact that they didn't get a chance to call. So that's where we are today. Today. So the RCC councils, it's not a reoccurring expense. That's right. You know what I mean? So maybe we really shouldn't even have that in there. And when it comes time to, if we end up going with the least expensive option for the short term, that can come out of community benefits. Since it's a runtime expense, I think we don't need a budget for a runtime expense like this. [24:01] District Attorney: Is that true also with IT? Some of IT, yes. Other parts are contracts. Yeah. Qualitative for the dark fiber and such. Well, I like that too, because that means we don't have to do it [24:19] Commissioner Chair: the expense January 1st, we can do it any time, the 27th, if we take it. So let's back out, let's back out RCC expense from that $150 something. Because [24:32] Commissioner: some of his stuff includes desks and furniture, things like that as well. [24:38] Commissioner Chair: Well, the table might be sufficient for the rest of your clients. [24:41] Commissioner: So you might want to just take that out. [24:46] Commissioner Chair: Yeah, still CBA has always been for the last year tentatively funded because of our commitment to paying off the EOC debt, but I gotta believe that even though the reimbursements are coming slow right now, that by spring they'll have restituted but reimbursed at that level, and that CBA plan will be fully restored. Hoping I'm not too optimistic, but how long can the government and all that, those funds, I mean, we're going to be, we're going to have committed all those funds, Elshay is going to be done out there, so you'll have all the bills you'll have submitted, so I got to believe by May 1st we should be fully reimbursed, right, I said [25:36] District Attorney: well if everything goes as planned even on a very slow snail's face schedule I'd say yes [25:47] Commissioner Chair: So, my point is, that I think even though we shouldn't be spending this fall, early spring, I think that we can step on those again. Really? So, especially since it's since these are expenses. And it's definitely to finish up the project. [26:08] Commissioner: So, it doesn't have a huge net effect. We're now at close to anywhere. If I, if I have to rerun the numbers completely, but we're at 100 to 120,000. [26:22] Commissioner Chair: Dollar difference for the 22nd. Yes. Okay. And it doesn't have much effect on the bottom line. Sure. 14.5. Okay. But here is another issue. In keeping with concept to the AC, what we might be. We're contemplating is that. And you have been advised by Dennis in the past and whatnot. We're in the in discussions with the state about developing building E out there for a substation. That still is very active, even to the point now, where we have just secured contractor. Who's available today to get this move available now. Now, that's available and will stay with us all winter if we need him, which is, we never thought that would happen. You'd have to wait months for it, you know, a contract. So, the point is, that we are still very interested in trying to come up with a way to renovate that space and start getting some revenue out of the Hancock site for space that presently is unoccupied. Now, we have no idea what we can develop that space for. We've got a big contractor price, which was more than we wanted to develop. But Dennis and I firmly believe that letting us do the work ourselves after we get the spec from them, we can reduce the cost of that development significantly to the point of where we could afford that. And what it's going to take is a significant down payment, a significant investment in that. But we're looking at $100,000 a year in revenue for the next 15 years. [28:16] District Attorney: 15 was the period proposed. [28:18] Commissioner Chair: They proposed themselves 15. So even though it might hurt the first year to raise this money and spend it, we're going to get not only repayment, we're going to get the ability to help offset the expenses of operating on it. So having said that, and in an effort to keep the BAC advised, I would like to add to Department 22 reserve account $250,000 in construction. It's not the full cost, but it will get us started and then supplement that with other funds as we move along in that project. But I'd also like to add to their revenues, 65,000 in revenues from rent because the best case scenario, I think we could have this project ready on the ground and they could be occupying by early spring because balance of 2017 we've been getting eighty three hundred dollars a month in revenue from rental that's That's a big hit. I'm racing by 180,000 or something like that. But I think planning for the long run, I really think this is a good investment because we presently have a building out there that has just been sitting there since the day we bought it. And it's in good shape, right Dennis? It is, it is suitable for, you know, for renovations. So now this number is not cast in stone. This is just a place setup and for us because over the next two months we'll be refining that and see whether or not it is workable. If it turns out it's not workable, we just remove all of that in 22. But again, it lets the BAC know that this is a pending consideration because I think it's unfair. I'm fair to then to not say anything, then to additionally adjust the budget after they send it back to us about giving them the opportunity to weigh in. For sure. What do you think, John? [30:35] District Attorney: I'm in favor. I'm in favor. Yeah, and again, I just want to reiterate that this is revenue and repayment for our investments. [30:46] Commissioner: Chair person. Yes. Just a couple of questions. I mean, first, are you talking about actually incorporating this into the approved budget today or just we're somehow giving the BAC members a copy of a proposed Department 22, but you're not actually including it in one thing. I think it's, I think it's important that they actually incorporate it because they're going to be looking at the increase. [31:11] Commissioner Chair: Raised by taxation, that's going to be a big item today. And so, if we don't include that, and they think they're going to be recommended back to us, a 10% increase, but in fact, it's a. 14 increases it's kind of misleading but if we incorporate that in the closed points that we send to them now they see that this is what they're looking at if they send [31:34] Commissioner: That back to us. So the other question I have, which to me is an obvious question, how or what do you mean by you secured a contractor because again, as I understand, the law is pretty clear about the bidding process and then what you have to go through to do that, which would take some more time. And this is maybe a building that's in an existing facility, but it was never part of a specific contract that we have in place right now. [32:06] Commissioner Chair: And that's all details that people worked out. I'm just saying that because this is possible. It gives us, you know, some reason to move ahead on this, because if we had to wait until next August for a contract, I'm not sure. [32:23] District Attorney: I think we could still observe the legalities and go on to bid or RFQ, but we know that we have parties willing to engage with us and make that presentation. And maybe it's an opportunity to find someone who might even do it better. So, yeah, [32:43] Commissioner Chair: I kind of assumed would said that we're still going to end up having to. Put it out to bed to keep everything proper. [32:53] Commissioner: No, I mean, you seem to ask the same thing. [33:00] Commissioner Chair: To my mind, so I don't want to preempt that discussion, but tell you right now that. That if we, if the market said, you know, contract to 6 or 8 months, so that's a discussion we can have somewhere down the road. [33:19] District Attorney: Yeah, well, conditions are unknown at this time, even the specs. So I think it's important to plan for everything under the umbrella. And then as we go, we go, we'll go. [33:32] Commissioner: So to be clear, you wanted to remove the RCC's numbers, knowing that those will be pretty much one-time purchases that may come up in the future. You don't want that as part, you don't want any of the RCC, or do you want a small amount? [33:52] District Attorney: They may have subscriptions associated with this as a very small, in comparison, a small, big, you know, most of their stuff, most of the stuff that Dennis that Bob was listing wasn't subscriptions. [34:08] Commissioner: It was just purchase. It was hard procurement. Yeah. [34:11] Commissioner Chair: Yeah, okay. So I would say, [34:15] District Attorney: Miller had a chat saying the UT has funds available for a loan. [34:20] Commissioner: If the county needs money for construction to stop the project. [Commissioner Chair: Thank you. Okay.] So that's interesting. So no amount for the RCC that. [34:39] Commissioner Chair: Okay, yeah, that is,. So, Dennis and I have not had a chance to talk about this because I was thinking, I'm thinking 60, I'm thinking 8 months, 7 months, 8300, I mean, what do you think? I'm talking about the revenue that we should be really doing. Yeah. [35:11] District Attorney: And depending on, there's some idea that 's the maximum that we would get, there's some concept though that we get a costless whip of rent and then recoup the investment if we decrease the construction costs that may decrease the return payment that we get as well if you follow my reasoning so it may might not use up all of that appropriation that they have which may be something i never really understood how that formula was no we never got that part in [35:48] Commissioner Chair: i'm thinking friends is right that's just for sure i mean the fact that we're able to do it [35:54] District Attorney: Cheaper shouldn't mean we get less money, certainly not, but it may be the lower repayment. Okay, so help me with a figure for proposed revenue. I've mocked up a very basic layout of this, a facility which includes the wash bay that they would want. All I need those three offices, your recommendation for revenue, right, which comes down to about 2200 square feet and ten dollars a square quarter, whatever we decide. We really don't even have that, so 2,000 to 2,500, but that's for rent, that's just right, yes. Now we've got repayment on top of that. Repayment on top would be as more to the point of depends on the length we use, that same 15-year term, and we spend 400,000. Well no, with the early ones at seven percent actual cost, I think, I think that's how the only way we really can be honest brokers about it. [37:10] Commissioner Chair: If we have no idea what it's [37:12] District Attorney: going to cost. Well that's, that's the thing, we're sailing into the, into the dark until we get a [37:19] Commissioner Chair: specific plan we need to put something in there because whenever we put in the increases the amount of the rate of taxation i'd call it 70. and i would call it 70 000 We're not going to start running until May or June. Yeah, I did 6 months at 8,300 you mentioned. I don't know what, but he's thinking that 's based upon 800,000 dollar cost to me. Yeah. Yeah. We can't. Yeah. We're going to have to do this for less than that. And this is saying you spend less. We get this. Yeah. So, I'm thinking if you're thinking 70, I think we should reduce that to 50. [37:53] District Attorney: Just to say, it's a, it's kind of a month 3. You got to start somewhere. Yeah, we got 2 more months to refine that. Something and just to inform you what we are. The state has agreed to send us their specs. And their space requirements, but we don't have that. Okay, so we agreed upon 50 revenue and once we do, we can nail that down pretty quickly. Because a lot of the costs we know, we know we're going to do water septic, which they don't aren't aware of the level of preparedness that we have, so that's a big windfall for us. And then there's the roof and some respraying on the back side that we know we're going to encounter as well, removal of some doors probably, that middle space that's open to close that in, just to just to again satisfy our tenant and to make best use of that space. Okay, so we have [39:00] Commissioner Chair: a full discussion on exactly what we're doing, like meetings. Yeah, we have the numbers, so we have revenue and on the expense side we were taking out chucks too, right? Well no. [39:11] Commissioner: No, Chuck sends up coming out of. Oh, that's right. That was a wash. [39:15] Commissioner Chair: We're going to edit hours because it is an RCC expense, but it's not going to reduce it. So it's just RCC. Okay, I just want to make sure. Yes, thank you. Yes. So we don't have that number today, but we know what that we know what. The numbers we look like, because we factor in all these, right? [39:38] Commissioner: I can have it for you, know. [39:42] Commissioner Chair: I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL SEND THE PROPOSED BUDGETS TO THE B.A.C. AND THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS TODAY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER, BUT WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN IT. OKAY, DEANLIN. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO REFER THE 2027 PROPOSED TANCOC COUNTY BUDGET AND THE UNORGANIZED TERRITORY BUDGET TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE I'LL SECOND THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15 2026 COMMISSIONER'S SPECIAL MEETING AS PRESENTED I'LL SECOND THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE do you have to review we are reviewing the ut budget correct yes [40:46] Commissioner: so just for clarity purposes i cannot put you back behind but the budget that you put forward the bac it was with the amendments that you discussed around me correct yes [41:01] Commissioner Chair: i should have held off on my motion to the ut budget until after the discussion but i don't have any suggestions to changes? Yeah, no, it's yeah. [41:12] Commissioner: I did add that section to your budget books. For the budget. Yeah. Okay. [41:19] Commissioner Chair: So, based upon no discussion on, you can see my motion still stands. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So. I can measure promotion for the budget. That includes my motion. did you vote we don't have to do another vote no because my motion said ut budget okay i just [41:52] Commissioner: wasn't sure i think the only clarification is the ut budget doesn't necessarily go to the bac like the other oh [42:09] Commissioner Chair: it just went to the public hearing ut budget simply went to the public hearing after that it doesn't go to the vac does it no not maybe yeah that's why okay that's my attending UT I've got to withdraw my motion I want to move to withdraw the previous motion on referring budgets to the DAC I'll second that all those in favor aye so I'm going to move to refer the 2027 proposed Hancock County budget TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH AMENDMENTS AS AMENDED THIS DATE TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE I 'LL SECOND THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE SINCE YOU ADMITTED TO THE ONE WE STILL Sometimes we still have to do a yes. Yes. No. Just you team simply was. Was presented to the public. Yeah, there's no action needed on that. Okay. All right. Great. Michael. Well, historically. [44:08] Commissioner: Approved the budget as presented, and then it just gets referred on to the state after this time. So, I believe all prior years I've been here, you have actually voted to approve the budget as presented a public hearing. And quite frankly, I mean, you didn't have a complete budget that's the last meeting either, so it makes sense that you'd want to have, you know, all of that in front of you so that Miller can forward it on. Yes. [44:44] Commissioner Chair: You need to, commissioners need to approve it so I can send it on to the state. So is the wording, bill, it's simply to move to approve the UT budget. Yes. Move to approve the 2027-2028 Organized Territory Budget as proposed. Is [45:38] District Attorney: that okay, Miller? Yes, that's sufficient. [45:45] Commissioner Chair: Okay, so I'm going to move to approve 2027-2028 Unorganized Territory Budget as proposed. I'll second that. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Do we have any administrator comments? [46:04] Commissioner: Just 1 brief 1. Commissioner Developer, I attended to me counting convention last week and 1 of the pleasant things that happened during the meeting is that the county received a check for 2000 dollars since we came in 4th place and the competition for. For safe drivers. So I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that and acknowledge the employees for their work in helping keep us safe and keep those vehicles out there functional as well. Fortunately for the county, all the other counties have as many deer strikes as we're having as well. So we're not on bad footing for that. But we did come in fourth place and Sam accepted a $2,000 check on it. [46:51] Commissioner Chair: Yeah, for the, riskful traditionally, what would be done. [46:57] Commissioner: We've sent back into proportionally wise terms of the basically, it's based on the number of total miles you drive and then the record of incidents. So, proportionally, we put that back into those line. I think that's what we talked about yesterday, right? 4 departments that contributed mileage to his. Submission, so it goes back to a little bit back to the sheriff, the jail. [47:22] Commissioner Chair: MAINTENANCE AND TA SOMETHING TA DIDN'T HAVE MILE ATTEMPT. YOU DIDN'T PUT ANY MILE ATTEMPT FOR TA SOMETHING. YEAH, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT'S ON THERE NEXT YEAR. WELL, REMEMBER THE NEXT YEAR THEY HAVE TWO VEHICLES. YEAH, OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND WE SEND THOSE BACK IN THE DEBATEMENT. YES. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA? NOT FROM ME. SO IF YOU'RE READY, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.