All right. So we will go ahead and get started. Good evening, everybody. Today is Tuesday, June 30th,
twenty twenty six. The time is now five one and I am calling to order what was supposed to be the joint
session of the Monroe County Council and board of commissioners. However, it
does appear that we do not have a quorum of commissioners, although Commissioner Thomas is online with
us. And here present in the NETU Hillbron, we have county council members Iverson, Wilts, Feidl, and
then online we have council members Deckard and Henry. So we will go ahead and get started. Is there
anything that you need to add to this, Commissioner Thomas?
Uh, no, I, well, yes, let me be brief. Um, I have, um, I could not attend today in person for a variety
of reasons, but, uh, commissioner Madeira got waylaid on, um, a trip. And so that's why she's not here.
Uh, but I will take, um, our discussion back to my colleagues.
for consideration. I don't see anything particularly significant in terms of debate. Okay. All right.
Thank you. Yep. So we will proceed. So we will go ahead and adopt tonight's agenda. Is there anybody
that has any
concerns about the agenda as presented. Okay. All right. So I just need a motion to adopt tonight's
agenda to move. All right. We got a motion and a second. And Michelle, will you please call roll? Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Thank you very much for that. Next up is the information related to the projects because as
we all know, we have until
December 31st of 2026, which is just a short while from here to spend all of the government dollars
and we don't want to give not a single penny back. So I know we have the auditor's office that is here
to present their recommendations to us. It looks like Miss Woodruff is going to be doing that. So please
go ahead. Good evening. Good evening.
We have some documents I would like to display. If I could be promoted, that would be fantastic. This
is Carly. All righty. So this should look very familiar. This is our ARPA spreadsheet.
We're going to get back to this here in a moment. I'm going to go over some details that are provided
also in the packet in writing. I'm not going to read those word for word, but we're hopeful just to
give you a brief overview of that document and how it plays into this spreadsheet. So reviewing the
timeline for ARPA.
It looks like we need to review the status of the ARPA projects as they are today. We need to determine
next steps for currently overfunded projects. And then we also need to determine where that money is
going to go. Ultimately, if we could, it would be really great to come to an agreement on what happens
if other projects become overfunded after this meeting. That way we don't have to come back to the table
and schedule a meeting. It's just kind of a natural process that happens.
The cash summary, as of right now, we have spent roughly $27 million, and we have roughly $1.9 million
unexpended. That is all currently obligated, but we do have some projects that are coming in under where
they are currently budgeted. So that's why we are having this meeting today. When we look at the spreadsheet
that should
this spreadsheet right here, you should be looking at this column for obligated or appropriated. Yes,
it's the appropriated or obligated column.
Whenever you're looking at the color coding that's used in this column, the yellow is going to be lost
revenue and the red orange is going to be that restricted. So anything that's restricted, it has to
have a certain purpose outlined in the ARPA guidelines. And we have worked with our ARPA advisors to
be able to determine
whether a project is restricted or unrestricted. Now, if we have unrestricted projects, we can only
have a total of $10 million obligated towards those unrestricted projects. So when we look at moving
money around across projects, not only do we need to make sure that we have enough money in the fund,
but also that we are not going past that $10 million obligation.
If you look over in the gray box over here you can see the totals and that's simply a sum function of
all the yellow and all the orange. And then down here right below the gray box you'll see how much of
a difference there is between what we have currently obligated for those
lost revenue projects versus what our max is. So as it stands right now, we have 152,000 and change
that we have not obligated to the unrestricted, but we have obligated that in excess to what are required
in the restricted. And we'll get back to that in here in a moment.
Moving on to talk about open and closed projects, you'll see this red line. These are two projects that
are currently under budget. So we expect for them not to use the full obligation. You'll notice that
one of those projects is restricted and one of them is lost revenue or unrestricted. Moving down
To the next layer, you have the light green. Those are projects that are open and have requested additional
ARPA funds. So those are projects that can take on more of that money that the red projects cannot use.
The next section, which is the dark green, those are simply projects that are open. It seems like they're
running smoothly. We haven't received any indicators that they are going to go over or under budget.
And then bouncing back up, you'll see all of these gray cells up here. These are all closed projects.
So those are projects that we have started. We fulfilled the obligation. They've been fully expended,
and they have been closed out in our ARPA portal. So when we look at the light green, I'm sorry, we
look at the red. Bear with me here.
Across the two projects, the amount that we are being told by the individuals that are running these
projects, the amount that is available to be re-obligated to one of the light green projects is $315,225.41.
And if you're trying to follow along, if you look at this page right here, it's the ARPA update.
That number is noted in red on that page. Now the light green projects the amount that they each project
is requesting in addition is listed in the chart on the ARPA update continued page which you can see
displayed on the screen right now.
As you can see, the requests are much higher than the cash that we currently have to be re obligated.
Moving on.
I just want to make a quick note that we do have some LATCF funding that we do need to make some decisions
on soon, whether that be now, in six months, in 12 months. We're not on nearly as much of a timeline
for LATCF funding, but that money is there and has not been obligated. Do we have any questions at this
point about what's been discussed so far?
Looking to my colleagues here in the room to see if anybody has any questions or how about virtually
So for tonight's meeting the auditors recommendation would be to Suggest a deobligation of that three
hundred and fifteen thousand and change of those red projects and then figure out a
across those light green projects, how we want to kind of spread that money across those projects.
And again, the very simple breakdown of what those projects are requesting is on that ARPA update. I
do have a question. My hand's been up. If I might. Well, we couldn't see you. All right.
So, hey, I do want to thank Ms. Woodruff and the auditor's office for putting this together. It's very
clearly written and very precise and very concise. I did notice that there had been some sort of email
exchange with the airport regarding the stormwater project where they may or may not need the $50,000.
Do you know when we're going to know that?
I do not have an answer for that. I can tell you they are working as fast as they can to close up that
project. And it looks like there may be a hand. I'm so sorry, I was hoping that was the airport chiming
in. I don't have a definitive answer, but I do know that they indicated their project should be complete
by October of 2026 is what they said. Thank you.
Councilor Decker. Thank you very much and sorry, I didn't mean to confuse that. Does this mean that,
and maybe I'm getting ahead of things here, but does this mean that if the airport doesn't need that
or, sorry, I'm getting an echo. If there's a combination of these that we might be able to spread this
across all three since we can't max out.
There's one of them that we could not max out to. Is this making any sense? Yes, that makes sense. Whenever
I look at these, and again, I'm not going to make a recommendation for what you guys should or shouldn't do.
But whenever I look at this table and I look at the fact that the max amount right now that we can give
to parks is roughly $214,000, that is the easiest project for us to quickly funnel money into. So those
monies have already been spent out of other non-ARPA funds. So what that comes down to is a simple ledger
correction to move those expenses.
from one fund to another fund. That would allow the Parks Department to then use the money that's freed
up in the fund that the correction came from on the paving that they are trying to complete. That being
said, since that is such a quick
action item for us to complete I would suggest we figure out a hard dollar amount that we want to give
airport that we want to give the ambulances for the fire district and then we leave some flexibility
in the parks project so that if any other projects come in under budget we can make that quick pivot
does that answer your question it does it sounds like
Sorry, the feedback is wild. It sounds like the flexibility would allow you to say all but 50,000
of it. And then in October, you'd know the remainder amount and could, you could throw that, if you
were maxing out to cars, you just put it into more ambulance funding.
it would actually be the opposite, because right now, if we give money to the ambulance, they're going
to have to go out and purchase the items, get the invoice, pay the invoice, request reimbursement from
us, and then they're going to have, we're gonna have to issue that claim. So that's a longer process.
So if we want to give money to the fire district, we need to do that now to give them time to put those
actions into motion.
Does that mean that you would not max out Karst in that case? I would not max out Karst at this moment
if I was making this decision. Oh, I see. I see. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, Councillor Iverson. I want
to switch topics just real quick and go back to this de-appropriation of the 315 and change.
And I see it written here, but I think I do want it spoken into the record. We have reached out to both
the sheriff's department and the health department. They are sufficiently far enough on these projects
that they understand that this is happening. Yes, I've spoken to Dave Gardner, who has said that the
project for the jail locks is complete and all invoices have been paid. And the health department has
also confirmed that
they reach their obligation deadline and they are aware that this is being de-obligated. Excellent.
I think she's pretty sufficiently clear why I would want to have that read out. And Madam President,
I'm ready to make a motion whenever you're ready. All right. Let me see if we have any other further
discussions. I see Commissioner Thomas has her hand up, but I'll go to Councilor Wilts first, and I
don't want to put her on the spot, but I know in looking at
um, what we had and Councilor Wilts has done a really good job with, um, the Head at Home Initiative.
And I know right now it's not a good idea for us to open up things because we have to look at things
as lost revenue, but we also have that LA TCF, um, fund. So Councilor Wilts, I know you had, um, a concern or,
an idea I should say an idea of use of funds and I don't know if you wanted to maybe talk about that
or if not totally fine sure no I can talk about it and then I'm gonna put counselor Deckard on the spot
so when I was when several of us have been involved with the heading home organization and their
forthcoming efforts to look at a project around encampment removal and putting folks from encampments
into housing. That initiative is in the very early stages of being figured out and it would benefit
and indeed I think needs to be supported
with some local government match. There are other funds that they can bring in, but long story short,
I did speak with the auditor about this at one point, and I'm not sure it's the best use of ARPA so
much because of some issues around when the spending would take place and that kind of thing.
That one gets me every time. That's obviously an option. And I do know that since the last workshop
on this issue that was a week or two, a couple of weeks ago, Councilor Deckard has been more intimately
involved along with Commissioner Madeira. And so I think there might be some other ideas that they're
floating either in addition to
or instead of, so I wanted to just make sure that he had an opportunity to chime in. All right, I'm
unmuted now. So that program is in a pilot discussion, and I don't want to get ahead of where they are
publicly on that discussion, but a pilot
pilot discussion on how that might be a collaboration here locally between different entities, city,
county, and others. But the pilot program notion being that different entities would come together with
dollars to fund helping individuals that are either finding themselves homeless or in encampments. And
I guess my question on this would be, would this qualify,
Would these dollars qualify as something that could be used quickly for this, for ARPA? And that I don't
know. Yeah, I don't think that we know enough about the schedule for spending the funds to really have
it be a serious consideration for ARPA.
but the LATCF funds are not as time restricted. So I think that's what Councilor Crossley was referring
to. So I just wanted to sort of answer that question. We can jump back to ARPA, certainly. I do believe
there's a hand raised as well. Yes, okay. I wanted to make sure that discussion was over and then we'll
go to Commissioner Thomas next.
Yes, thank you. Yeah, I think what you've raised is interesting as a potential use for LATCF funds.
But yeah, that's the end of December. And the only thing we can do with ARPA, I believe, is to utilize
it for open projects. Projects still remain open, which is why there's such a short list in light green.
And if I'm wrong, Carly, correct me.
The other thing, I just wanna say a couple of things really quickly. First is that Mr. Copperle and
I are in conversation with the Lake Monroe Water Fund about the potential for an additional septic program
for our community, but also surrounding counties. So it's not that we don't care about septic, it's
just that the timing is so critical
there's only a certain window where you can actually install them, and that's where things ran astray.
And I also want to state that I would, because the airport's looking for 50,000, it seems to me that
for me, we can take whatever
You all recommend I can take that back to the commissioners, but I would think about just splitting
this between the ambulances and cars because the cars can be done quickly, but the ambulance side of
it needs time. And that's really a great investment in our community. Thanks. Thank you.
I guess one would also say as well that I know that it's been airport has been very vocal about trying
to be on the up and up because this also too can be an investment in the community as well. And that's
their economic vitality and growth. So you want to keep that in mind as well. And of course, we've heard
about, you know, what we've been doing with the
car spills project and we've been dealing with that for a really long time. And I really greatly appreciate
all of that. I just am also trying to make sure that we are also taking care of because every budget
season Mr. Laverty is always in here expressing some type of need. So if we could also shift with that
in addition to taking care of the ambulances, that would be great too. Okay.
Is there any other further questions or comments from council here or online? All right. Seeing none,
I guess we will. Well, the idea is for us to make a motion to bring forth the recommendations proposed
by the auditor's office to pass to go to the commissioners as well.
So, okay. Ideally, it would have been nice to have this all at once and go forth, but fate happens and
it allows us to be split at the moment. So that's okay. So. Deappropriation, you're going to start with
the deappropriation. Then Madam President, maybe we can take a breath and kind of look at where that
lands us. And then once everyone's good, then we can make a motion on the appropriations. Sure. All right.
Council, I move to de-appropriate a total of $315,225.41 from two projects, the jail locks project,
a lost revenue project of $62,512.50. And the second project is a septic project with the health department
of $252,712.91. Second. All right. And then I wanna look to,
Are council who looks like, is it good? All right, good, Nerman. All right, we got a motion and a second
to de-appropriate. Is there any other final questions or comments from council virtually or in person
on this item? All right, seeing none, maybe please have a roll call vote. Councilor Deckard? Yes. Councilor Iverson?
Councilor Fine, Councilor Will, Councilor Henry? Yes. Councilor Crossley? Yes. Motion passes unanimous.
All right, thank you for that. Great. So, yeah. Just so we're on the same page, now that we've made
that deappropriation, we know that the three projects in total are asking for $1.3 million.
What is the playing field right now that now that we made that day appropriate? Where do we stand? Can
you bring us back to kind of where things are? I think at this point you need to determine across these
three projects, where are you going to appropriate that $315,000? And like I mentioned, I would leave
some wiggle room and cars so that we can make some last minute pivots. I would not personally max out
to that $214,000 and change.
That's complicated because we don't know the future.
Go for it. I have a question perhaps for somebody who has an answer maybe about the septic project because
it looks like there's more than, and maybe I'm not reading the numbers quite correctly, but there's
still more that is being spent. There's an estimate for how much won't be spent. Is that correct?
It's not the same number. Correct. So the amount that you're seeing for the D appropriation is the amount
that they have not entered into contracts with homeowners and vendors to complete the projects. So there's
no more, there are no more anticipated contracts to be signed. Correct. The issue with septic is that
their work is heavily dependent on weather.
So if they can't get septics in the ground, they can't bill us and therefore we can't spend that money.
So that's where the ability to pivot and do a ledger correction very quickly would be really beneficial.
So are you saying that that is a project that you feel not complete even what it says it's contractually
obligated?
Because there's a chance for all of these projects, but I would say of the projects that has the higher
likelihood of coming in under budget. Got it. OK. And there won't be any issue with the contract.
I mean, I assume that if they can't get the work done by the date, which is not the end of the year,
I mean, how would you all have that figured out, right?
Like we will be able to have time to get money back from a committed contract that isn't going to be
fulfilled in time to. We gave a recommendation to the legal department to amend all of those contracts
to have a date that they had to submit the invoice to us and have the work completed. I believe that
date was in October, but I would have to double check.
It's been a minute since I've had that conversation, but I believe all of those contracts have a deadline
in them. That's important. I will move forward, trusting that. So if I'm understanding this correctly,
for the auditor's office, like
for the ambulances and stormwater, we could essentially, what you're saying is like, we could essentially
max out those two lines and leave Karst open in case there is some projects that come under, which it
sounds like it possibly will. So therefore they would be able to spend that dollars pretty quickly.
and these folks here, but we need to do whatever we need to do for ambulance now. So in case that what
you have mentioned earlier in terms of like getting invoices to purchase those things, because all of
that would take time. OK, the only thing I would recommend is I don't know that I would give parks zero
at this point, because if you have I mean, if none of them have another budget,
to not give money to them at all from this. Because Kelly has been very good to work with. The fire
protection districts has been very good to work with. Both of those entities have been very communicative
in the need for their funding. OK. Yes, Commissioner Thomas. Thank you. Right. It sounds like both the septic
contracts and also when the airport will know more about whether or not they need 50,000, because they
don't even know that right now, is October. The quickest turnaround will probably be not to the ambulance
service because they have to get the invoices and the claims on all of that, but to Karst. So I think
that timing is going to be important to consider
I'm not sure what can be done today in terms of votes, but we certainly can have a discussion about
this among the commissioners and send you back our recommendation for this funding. I don't know what
was advertised for today specifically in terms of allocations or if it has to be done at one of your
regular meetings. Thank you.
So to, yeah, can you answer that concern from Commissioner Thomas? Yes, so the advertisements allow
for you guys to de-appropriate and appropriate within the open projects. I think we're good as far as
advertisements go. I would not recommend leaving this amount of money de-appropriated. I would make
sure to appropriate it somewhere since you guys have already de-appropriated. Right, and technically
in a perfect world if we all were here,
We wouldn't have to do one half here, one half there, because we could have done this all in one setting.
So the purpose was for all of us to do this together. But again, fate happens and we're split right
now, much like a lot. So, yes, Councilor Henry. Thank you. Carly, do we know from the fire district,
that's a very specific number.
Do they have equipment in mind? I mean, I'm presuming he's got a list of things he wants to buy. So
it's in the packet. So the question about invoices and claims, I mean, it looks like there's a list
here of things that they're ready to go with if they were funded. Is that fair to say? Yeah. Yes, that's
fair to say. So that might be a little more expedited than what
What was presented here? Okay, go on, I'm sorry, I know there's an echo, go on. The Fire Protection
District is here and can speak on the next steps if they were to get funding today, would you like to
hear from them? Madam President, I would, but I defer to you in the room. Yeah, I was kind of whispering
to them if they needed to go ahead and come on up, so y'all come on up. Hello, Deputy Chief Matt Bright.
Yeah, I think at this point we stand ready to expend any of those items. Excuse me, can you get closer
to the mic or pull it closer so that we can all hear you? Is that better? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I think at
this point we stand ready to expend funds on any of those items. I think predominantly the stretchers
and power loads at the top are my highest priority.
In the ambulance world, those represent a single point of failure for us. And if that happens, we're
not transporting patients. So having that redundancy in those items is pretty important. I think our
next highest priority is probably in some of the aging electronic stuff. You know, as we've merged,
we've expanded quite a bit of district and kind of inherited
a lot of electronic devices and stuff from the various departments. We've got a lot of items that are
kind of approaching the end of their lifetime. So the tablets, we use those for our patient reports
and stuff in the ambulance and things like that, as well as our mobile radios to communicate. So I think
those would probably be some of my higher priority items. I thought I just saw Chief Diller has his
hand raised via Teams. So you're able to unmute. You can join the conversation as well.
I think just to add to what Deputy Chief Bright mentioned and Councilor Henry, with the exception of
those station alerting systems, I mean, we could move as quickly as ordering things tomorrow. These
items are items that could be ordered and placed into service relatively quickly. The station alerting
systems take a little bit more time. Each station's got to be, you know,
looked at by those vendors and, you know, they designed that system to go in there. So that takes a
little bit of time, but the rest of the items, we can move very swiftly. Council Henry, does that satisfy
your questions? Yeah, it does. Thank you. We appreciate it. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody
else have any questions for? Yes. Councilor Decker.
I don't have a question so much as I have a comment that I think. It's not lost on anyone here, but
I always like to bring it up that we have to be increasingly mindful about ambulance use in the county
and the demand on that. And some of us have experienced that personally and know that the fire district
is responding in this service to a need that we've got, and we've had some shortfalls in the community
in the past.
I'm not casting aspersions on that or blame because I think that goes all the way around to all of us.
But I think that the ambulance services is fulfilling a need that's robustly out there and something
that everybody experiences at some point or another, unfortunately. So I was glad to see this on this
list and would like to see us do as much as we reasonably can while we're doing this mix here.
Thank you so much. Anybody else have any questions or comments for the fire department? Yes. Councillor
Wilks. Okay. I'm sorry. You said for the fire department and my brain was already ahead. I'm sorry.
It's for something else. No, you're totally fine. So it sounds like we're done with questions for you.
Thank you very much. No, you're totally fine. Councillor Wilks.
proceed regarding the other two, then I feel like, um, well, if we've got Ms. Whitmer here,
maybe we could, um, I have a question about the parks specifically, and it's in, with respect to, um,
what Ms. Woodruff said about the money being able to be used for paving in, in cars farm and,
I'm the liaison, so I received an email from you, Ms. Whittner, not too long ago that indicated that
it was about a million dollars in paving. Is that correct? Correct. But with anything, whatever money
we have, that's all we will do. And this is related to? The trucks that came in and crushed our asphalt.
Now our asphalt was only to begin with. Yeah.
actually 30 years, we've never had a renovation of asphalt. So back in the day, asphalt just showed
up, but now it doesn't, now it can't do that anymore. Just showed up. Okay, so that's, okay, that's
the need that's being addressed there is a need for paving back to those new fields. Correct. Essentially,
okay. Our parts that have been falling off and we've. Okay.
Um, I just wanted to make sure that's what the connection was. Okay. Okay. Very heavy trucks. Yes.
Thank you. And so there's, well, I'm thinking of was what with what was just saying in terms of, um,
funding technically and thinking of other places.
besides ARPA, we have other funding, like use of potentially edit, so to speak, if that is a thing.
Right, right, of course. I definitely am not saying that we don't need to give anything, obviously I
wanna go with that recommendation, but considering what we have versus the ask of like, you know, a
million and other projects, I'm just, I wanna be able to give her what she needs and then,
try to tap into other sources of revenue to give them what they need as well. Okay. Are there questions
or comments? All right, seeing none, yes, Councilor Iverson. So I do think it was really helpful hearing
you two talk about, this is the Monroe County Fire Protection District, talking about the projects and
kind of prioritizing your list. That's always helpful.
given the situation, and it's really helpful to hear kind of what's going on at the Karst farm. I think
I've been kind of divvying things up in a mix on a spreadsheet here, and I don't know if we need to
get to that point tonight to make a recommendation about how to divvy up that 315,000, but I think hearing
your prioritization really helped with that.
And it sounds like from the auditor's office, because we've already de-appropriated, you know, those
types of things, the recommendation would be that we do something instead of just leaving it kind of
flapping in the wind. And then again, we would do what we need to do here. And then pass those
recommendations to the commissioners, the office to have a discussion for possible approval.
Yes. Do you, do you recommend that we then, um, move to appropriate pending approval by the commissioners
so that we get that done and they don't have to re-advertise appropriation? So yes, the motion would
be contingent on, um, commissioner approval of the project. Okay. And then as Woodruff, I would also
ask that then your D appropriation also be contingent.
so that we don't have a de-appropriation without an appropriation. So we'll have to go back and have
Councilor Iverson restate the motion. That just helps with everything remaining obligated. Okay. Okay.
And I think I saw Commissioner Thomas is hanging back up again. Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. Here's my
suggestion.
y'all can do what you want to do tonight. Obviously, we know we're shorthanded, but we can
get a recommendation to you before your next meeting, okay? And so I don't know if there's any way to
put this on for ratification at your next meet. I don't know how you wanna do that, but we could get
you that information by then and,
and that will also indicate where we stand as a board. Does that help? Well, and I'm seeing some heads
shaking here in the room with the auditor's office, because again, they're saying we need to do something.
So technically, what we can do is we could technically, all of this is contingent, right?
we could say this is contingent upon approval and then pass the ball to the commissioners. And then
at our next meeting, if there is something that needs to be retweeted and changed, it could be brought
back to us then, correct, Ms. Turner-Keene?
As an alternative approach, you could table the deappropriation and the appropriation to the 14th meeting,
and that gives the commissioners the time to make their recommendation. And then at the council meeting
on the 14th, you can handle the deappropriations and the appropriation. And that would also not require
re-advertisement. I do want to say it has been advertised for both meetings. So what you could do is
you could wait till next meeting, or you could do your contingencies now.
and if they fall through, then you could amend those and do that at the next meeting. So you have many
options. Okay. And I saw two hands go up virtually. So I saw Council Member Henry's hand up first and
then I'll go back to Councilor Decker next. Yeah, thank you. So I just saw I understand the workflow
here. So the open requests that came in,
that we don't have requests from other open projects, right? That's correct. Okay, so having said that,
and I'm looking at three items that are here, and I think, you know, in my mind, like I think Councilor
Iverson mentioned, you know, trying to
come up with proportions or whatever. I'm looking at three things here. But Commissioner Thomas, you
had mentioned something about septic and regional counties as an idea. Are we to expect if the Board
of Commissioners meets that we'll have additions to this list? Are you looking to add septic to this
list or are these the three items that you'll be discussing? These will be the three items. I mentioned septic,
because it's a different funding source, not related to ARPA. So we're gonna continue working on getting
more septic service, better septic service in our community. Other ways. Yeah. So no, just what's here.
Councilor Decker. Well, my question is, we can't table a de-appropriation because I think we already
voted to de-appropriate, right?
If we're following the best housekeeping items of how to handle this fiscally, we'd need a counselor
with some sort of motion so that it kicks it to commissioners. Commissioners either accept it or send
it back or what have you and triggers that process. I'm not offering to do that necessarily, but what
I think we already voted to be appropriate. Yeah, I would agree.
Okay counselor Iverson did you have your hand raised? I did not have my hand raised. Okay so essentially
what it sounds like we should do is since we've already voted is maybe make would you agree counselor
Decker that we should do you agree with the notion that we should go ahead and um
Council Iverson's first motion on deappropriation, if he restates that and make that contingent upon
Commissioner's approval, is that what you're saying? I thought we already roll called that original
deappropriation, so now those dollars are deappropriated and have to be appropriated. But if I have
that wrong, somebody correct me. Yeah, and he did. OK.
So we have a couple options ahead of us, right? So we could re appropriate what I just D appropriated
and get us back to square one. And that would meet that would give the commissioners time to do what
they need to do. And then we can do all this at our next meeting. Option number two is I could amend
my motion contingent upon the commissioners action. We can move forward to the motion on the appropriation
of this 315,000.
depending on commissioner action. I think those are the two options ahead of us. And either way, we
are good for our next meeting because it's already been advertised. Right. Okay. Do you go and then
I'll go to Ms. Turner King. I think that option two makes a lot of sense because there was no need to
keep touching the same topic over and over again, unless
And this is the second point I had. It's important that we acknowledge that we are making these
appropriations in the spirit of a recommendation to the commissioners. It's not that we're telling them.
I mean, I think just to be fair, it is important to mention that. And that's the contention upon is
the fact that we would be making a recommendation if we had all the time in the world. That would be correct.
Okay, you're welcome. No, you're totally fine. Ms. Turner King. And though procedurally to the option
to which Mr. Iverson identified, you can't amend the motion because it's already been passed. So you'd
be making a new motion to make the previous motion contingent. Yes, that is yes. Okay. So Councilor
Iverson, would you? Okay, so let me throw two things out there and Council Member Wilts
please let me know. The first way I thought about this was splitting up the 315 in terms of starting
with the airport. We max out the airport at $50,000. Then we provide the ambulances with the replacement
stretchers and the tablets for $167,500. And then the remainder is given to the parks. That's $97,725.41.
An alternative
would be to start with round numbers. The park's $100,000, the ambulance is $200,000, and the airport
would get the remainder of $15,225.41. So I can go either way. It's a matter of where do you start?
Councillor Henry. Yeah, thanks. So Councillor Iverson, so option B, are you just taking
to get to what seems like two-thirds for the fire protection, a third for the parks. Is that how you
got there? That's exactly right. Yeah, the sum of both of those options needs to be $315,225.41. Yeah,
I had similar math at my end. I was more like $60.40, but I could support that option B. Hold on. Whenever
I speak confidently, it seems like Carly has her hand raised.
and missed the number, but can you just restate how much you would give to parks? In the option one.
Option two. Option two, $100,000. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Does the auditor just have to see any issues
with what Councilor Iveson mentioned?
The only issue would be that if the airport project does overrun, they would have to pay for those expenses
out of a different fund. And the same presumably with the ambulances. $200,000 doesn't get you anywhere
close, but at least gets you those stretchers and maybe some of the electronics.
Does anybody have any questions, comments, or concerns about either of those options? Why don't you
just go through the option two numbers for me one more time? I don't think I have it right here. My
math isn't working. I got option one down. So option two numbers again. Option two, let's go in order
that it's on. Karst Fields Project would get $100,000. Monroe Fire Protection District ambulances would
get $200,000. And the airport would get the remainder
which is $15,225.41. That's what I couldn't figure out. It's the remainder. Thank you. All right. Okay.
So option. I'm hearing a consensus on option two. Yeah, that's what I was gonna say. All right.
All right. Council, I move to, let's get my language correct here. I move to appropriate. If I may Mr. Iverson.
I think you should make the de-appropriation motion first. So council, I move to de-appropriate $315,225.41,
which is the jail locks and the septic. Wait a minute. I think the motion would be I move to make the
prior de-appropriation of $315,200. Conditional. Yeah. All right.
So I move to make my prior motion on the appropriation conditional upon action by the Monroe County
Commissioners. Second. Is that clear? I don't know how it couldn't be any more clear what we're doing
here, friends. We spent a lot of time on these technicalities. Okay.
So it sounds like we're all good here and no other further questions or comments. So maybe please have
a roll call vote. You have to second. I second it. Me? Thank you. You're welcome. OK, so this is just
for the motion. The prior motion is conditional upon the board of commissioners approval. Is that correct?
Councilor Iverson? Yes. Councilor Feidl? Yes. Councilor Wilts? Yes. Councilor Henry? Yes. Councilor
Crossley? Yes. Councilor Decker? Yes. Motion passes unanimous. Thank you. Next up. All right. Council
contingent on County Commissioner action, I move to appropriate the following.
$100,000 in Project 37 Karst Fields Project, $200,000 in Project 14 MFPD ambulances, and $15,225.41
in Project 38 Airport Stormwater Drainage. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any other final
questions or comments, even though I think we've exhausted those, but just in case.
All right, and seeing none, may we please have a roll call vote. Councilor Feidl? Yes. Councilor Wilk?
Yes. Councilor Henry? Yes. Councilor Krueger? Yes. Councilor DeX? Yes. Councilor Iverson? Yes. Councilor
Feidl? Yes. Motion passes unanimous. All right, thank you for that.
So we are good on the ARPA conversations. It looks like. There was a recommendation from the auditor's
office that at some point, and maybe this can happen later, we make some declaration about what happens
to any other projects that don't spend all their funds.
and direct what they should be doing with that. Is that something you want us to do now? I would love
if you could do that now. Okay. Okay. This is about any leftover. Any leftovers. Anywhere. Okay. Did
I just move? Yeah. All right. I move that any
outside of the emotions that we just did, any other ARPA projects that do not expend all of their obligated
funds, have those funds directed to the Karst Farm Fields Projects Project? I think that's it. Second.
We got a motion and a second.
commissioners pending commissioners actions in approval okay so we got a motion and a second to move
any unexpended items to karst contingent upon commissioner approval is there any other further questions
comments or discussions on this item the
Ms. Woodruff, is there anything to add to this? Are we good? No, I just want to clarify. Whenever, if
a project does come up short, we will still send those through council for the appropriation actions.
This is just to put on record what our plan is, correct? Right. Great. And if we surpass the lost revenue
balance in CARS, we'll chat then, but let's fingers crossed that we don't get there. Okay. All right.
Sounds good.
Thank you very much. So seeing no other further questions or comments on this item, may we please have
a roll call vote. Councillor Wilz? Yes. Councillor Henry? Yes. Councillor Cross? Yes. Councillor Decker?
Yes. Councillor Iverson? Yes. Councillor Feidl? Yes.
Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for that. And then it looks like item eight is to discuss the determined
next steps for the LATCF funding, which again looks like has an expenditure deadline of 12 31 27. I
don't know if there is much more to add to that except we got a little bit more time to talk about
that so and we've already heard it's it's not something that we need to have expended right now but
it sounds like there might be a potential plan that we can put into play and so that particular funding
needs to be approved by both bodies is that accurate or in council
understanding is that we don't need a plan like we did for ARPA, but it would require a contract, and
the contract would go through the commissioners. Right, so that's where the two-star, okay, that's where
the two-part process comes into play. Okay, okay, so that makes sense. Okay, but not necessarily needing
to have a joint meeting like this again, we could literally do this separate in our own respective meetings.
Okay, all right, well,
Yes. Do we have some sort of a plan? Because I know 1231 of 27 is a long time out, but when do we expect
to get our plan to do that? You know what I mean? When would we want to put that on an agenda, some
timeline or something like that? Well, it sounds like from what Councilor Decker and Councilor Woltz
was saying with respect to the Headed Home initiatives, that that's still pending right now. And so
maybe when they have more of a concrete idea and plan, then that could change at any given moment, it
sounds like. So it sounds like, although 27 is a little bit in distance, it sounds like maybe their
plan could be coming soon. And so once they have that plan in mind, then of course, we can add that
to our agenda and discuss. Exactly. And then do the two part process where
We do that part and then pass on to commissioners for approval for the contract. Perfect. Thank you.
You're welcome. Is there, Oh, counselor Decker. I was just going to say we can definitely get something.
We can officially report back on that and get it out. I'm not trying to be mysterious on anything.
It's just, I don't want to get ahead of the experts on this and start saying things until
I know what we should say or who should say it or how we should say it. But we can get get really quick
on that. Okay. Appreciate that. So more details will be coming. All right. Is there any other final
questions, comments or concerns from council on this item? All right. With that being said, have a safe
holiday weekend and Oh, counselor Decker, did you have something else?
No, I can't control my hand. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. OK. Just me. It's not you. Keep your hands to yourself.
All right. With that being said, everybody have a safe and happy holiday. And we are adjourned. Thank you.