WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.320 - first time so bear with me so we have an agenda I'm gonna call the meeting to 00:00:06.320 --> 00:00:10.840 - order my name is Liz vital I'm part of the long-term finance planning committee 00:00:10.840 --> 00:00:15.080 - with me today I have a counselor Marty Hawk also on the committee and 00:00:15.080 --> 00:00:22.160 - counselor David Henry who is joining us as he is just joining us just right so 00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:28.880 - welcome so we need to adopt the agenda hopefully you have all seen that I would 00:00:28.880 --> 00:00:37.080 - like to think about getting number six and number seven moved up so we can hear 00:00:37.080 --> 00:00:43.400 - from FSG first if that's a possibility would that work for FSG yeah and if it's 00:00:43.400 --> 00:00:50.200 - that Jeff's going to start off on the general obligation bond well I wanted to 00:00:50.200 --> 00:00:56.000 - hear from you first because for which one I want to move you up on the agenda 00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:03.640 - if it's we're paying by hour to get them yeah so I want to move you up because I 00:01:03.640 --> 00:01:06.880 - think some of these other things we're gonna hear about some of the things you 00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:11.800 - may tell us may be impacted by what you're gonna tell us okay because most 00:01:11.800 --> 00:01:18.640 - of the things we're gonna play a role in on the agenda so okay oh so you'll chime 00:01:18.640 --> 00:01:23.560 - in as needed absolutely on there almost every one of them yes okay so you're 00:01:23.560 --> 00:01:27.720 - telling me there may be not a need to move you up think I would suggest that 00:01:27.720 --> 00:01:32.160 - okay so is that okay with you Marty I really think it should be the bottom 00:01:32.160 --> 00:01:40.920 - person first though the body because Greg's gotta stay here okay so Jeff is 00:01:40.920 --> 00:01:45.160 - asking you to be moved up right which one you're asking to be moved up I'm 00:01:45.160 --> 00:01:50.320 - asking for number nine to be moved up because Dennis Alton who is the bond 00:01:50.320 --> 00:01:54.440 - counsel for general obligation bonds is on the call and want to be sensitive to 00:01:54.440 --> 00:01:59.880 - his time okay all right with everybody all right so you want to make a motion 00:01:59.880 --> 00:02:09.680 - Marty or Marty you want to make a motion stop the agenda that way okay so we're 00:02:09.680 --> 00:02:15.760 - gonna move along and move number nine up to the top and then I guess well where 00:02:15.760 --> 00:02:23.280 - please pardon me where are you putting it on the top top being top being right 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:29.840 - after the adoption of the agenda right or do you want well see that do you want 00:02:29.840 --> 00:02:34.320 - to approve the minutes and then and then have it follow the approval of the 00:02:34.320 --> 00:02:39.960 - minutes so just tell me where to put it what number is it gonna be now I would 00:02:39.960 --> 00:02:45.860 - move it to them following number three all right let's move number nine up following 00:02:45.860 --> 00:02:51.600 - number three is that the general consensus there all right so we're gonna 00:02:51.600 --> 00:02:57.240 - approve that so we're gonna approve the summary and minutes right so we have 00:02:57.240 --> 00:03:04.120 - minutes here to approve from me look at the dates here we need a voice vote to 00:03:04.120 --> 00:03:10.040 - amend the okay all right in the please all those in favor of moving number nine 00:03:10.040 --> 00:03:17.440 - up after number three on the agenda please signify by saying aye aye 00:03:17.440 --> 00:03:29.320 - any opposed no sorry any opposed motion passes thank you all right so now we 00:03:29.320 --> 00:03:40.960 - have approval of the summary minutes one dated April 24th and yes so and if 00:03:40.960 --> 00:03:45.480 - anybody have any additions or correcting or corrections to the minutes for April 00:03:45.480 --> 00:04:03.840 - 24th move to approve I'll second voice vote all those in favor aye aye all those 00:04:03.840 --> 00:04:12.200 - opposed so that passes right yes all right so now I think we have number nine 00:04:12.200 --> 00:04:15.840 - coming up is that correct am I following the the grand scheme of things here 00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:21.840 - today yes and I think I think Dennis Jeff and I'll kind of tag team on this 00:04:21.840 --> 00:04:29.280 - okay and I'll let you Jeff yes with Senate bill one we saw some changes in 00:04:29.280 --> 00:04:34.520 - how we do general obligation bonds traditionally the county has done one 00:04:34.520 --> 00:04:38.600 - general obligation bond every year for three million dollars that covers a 00:04:38.600 --> 00:04:48.260 - variety of capital expenses and so that will not be a straightforward of an 00:04:48.260 --> 00:04:55.120 - option this year and so I think Dennis and I have discussed a couple of 00:04:55.120 --> 00:04:59.720 - different options that may be available to the county and so I would turn it 00:04:59.720 --> 00:05:04.680 - over to Dennis to kind of walk us through them and Dennis remind me and 00:05:04.680 --> 00:05:11.080 - others if necessary who you are yeah thank you can you all hear me yes yes 00:05:11.080 --> 00:05:17.560 - okay yeah yes good morning committee members my name is Dennis Sonten I'm a 00:05:17.560 --> 00:05:23.080 - lawyer with a law firm of Bose McKinney and Evans you've been working with Jeff 00:05:23.080 --> 00:05:27.440 - and Greg and his team in the county for years now doing this annual a general 00:05:27.440 --> 00:05:30.880 - obligation bond issue and we've done some other projects for the county over 00:05:30.880 --> 00:05:36.360 - the years but this morning Jeff had asked me to be here to talk with you 00:05:36.360 --> 00:05:40.960 - about some of the changes from SB 1 that impact the process to do general 00:05:40.960 --> 00:05:46.600 - obligation bonds in Indiana now not just for for your county but you know for 00:05:46.600 --> 00:05:53.760 - cities towns counties and schools throughout the state and I'll back up 00:05:53.760 --> 00:05:58.840 - and just tell you about the process that we're accustomed to doing and what the 00:05:58.840 --> 00:06:03.680 - changes now with SB 1 in place if the county wants to continue to do short 00:06:03.680 --> 00:06:09.040 - term general obligation bonds what the options are and the differences 00:06:09.040 --> 00:06:15.240 - historically when the county's done a one-year general obligation bond we were 00:06:15.240 --> 00:06:19.160 - able to get that approved by a resolution of the county commissioners a 00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:25.400 - bond ordinance by the county council and an appropriation ordinance by the county 00:06:25.400 --> 00:06:32.640 - council for the appropriation pretty straightforward process and that was 00:06:32.640 --> 00:06:36.400 - because the size of the bonds and the term of the bonds just didn't necessitate 00:06:36.400 --> 00:06:42.520 - any additional requirements under Indiana law under the new procedures 00:06:42.520 --> 00:06:50.600 - with SB 1 the county is not able to do that type of bond issue there's a 00:06:50.600 --> 00:06:55.560 - cooling off period that's been put in place under the statute and what the 00:06:55.560 --> 00:07:00.880 - statute basically says is that if you've issued a general obligation bond before 00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:07.000 - May 21 of this year that has a two-year maturity or less then you can't issue 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:13.680 - another general obligation bond until after a year after that bond expires 00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:19.840 - and that's for projects that are not control projects and I'll explain that 00:07:19.840 --> 00:07:24.680 - here in a second or for bond issues that would have a term greater than five 00:07:24.680 --> 00:07:31.560 - years so we've been talking with Jeff and Greg and his team about options to 00:07:31.560 --> 00:07:38.280 - allow the county to continue to be doing what it's done historically and also be 00:07:38.280 --> 00:07:44.560 - able to do it while complying with Indiana law under the new SB 1 provisions 00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:49.880 - so we know we can't just do a spot one general obligation bond like we've done 00:07:49.880 --> 00:08:00.440 - before so the options are we can do we can authorize a larger bond issue with 00:08:00.440 --> 00:08:08.960 - multiple series that would fund a what we call a control project and then issue 00:08:08.960 --> 00:08:14.600 - those bonds each year in series to meet the county's needs to ultimately fully 00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:21.520 - fund the project over a period of time say three or four years under that 00:08:21.520 --> 00:08:28.760 - prospect prospect process we'd have two additional hearings and there would be 00:08:28.760 --> 00:08:34.080 - an objecting period a 30-day objecting period where taxpayers or registered 00:08:34.080 --> 00:08:39.120 - voters could circulate a petition asking what's called a petition or monstrance 00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:44.920 - process to apply now that would need to be signed by 500 or more people to 00:08:44.920 --> 00:08:49.920 - trigger that process so it's a pretty high threshold you know we wouldn't 00:08:49.920 --> 00:08:53.880 - expect it to happen but it's just a procedure that we've not had to do on 00:08:53.880 --> 00:09:02.440 - the prior bond issues if we went that direction we could do these procedures 00:09:02.440 --> 00:09:08.640 - this year get it approved do a bond issue this year and then do bond issues 00:09:08.640 --> 00:09:12.760 - next year and the following year without having to go through additional 00:09:12.760 --> 00:09:21.160 - procedures because we would have approved everything this year so that 00:09:21.160 --> 00:09:27.400 - that's sort of option one I will talk about another option and I'm not certain 00:09:27.400 --> 00:09:30.680 - whether the county would want to do this I've talked about it with Jeff and 00:09:30.680 --> 00:09:36.160 - Greg and his team there's the ability for governments to issue what are called 00:09:36.160 --> 00:09:42.480 - improvement notes they have a term of not more than ten years they can't be 00:09:42.480 --> 00:09:47.040 - issued from more than two million dollars but they're payable just like a 00:09:47.040 --> 00:09:51.240 - general obligation bond and we're not precluded from doing those under the new 00:09:51.240 --> 00:09:58.920 - statute the one drawback to those is they need to be used on improvements to 00:09:58.920 --> 00:10:04.520 - buildings and structures and I know that historically the county has used some of 00:10:04.520 --> 00:10:08.600 - the geo bond proceeds for funding equipment that may not necessarily 00:10:08.600 --> 00:10:14.040 - qualify so if we were to pursue that we'd want to identify projects that were 00:10:14.040 --> 00:10:19.160 - kind of the building improvements building structures as opposed to things 00:10:19.160 --> 00:10:29.440 - like pickup trucks vehicles street sweepers and I'm going to stop there a second and 00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:33.920 - see if you all have any questions I had provided a timetable I don't know if 00:10:33.920 --> 00:10:38.440 - that's been circulated to you but let me take a pause real quick and see if you 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:43.320 - have questions and if not if Greg or Jeff want to interject anything that I 00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:54.080 - may have missed so if he pauses for a second I guess Dennis one other option 00:10:54.080 --> 00:11:04.360 - is is it not that the county could do a general obligation bond of up to six and 00:11:04.360 --> 00:11:13.960 - a half million as a non-controlled project correct and we would week would then in 00:11:13.960 --> 00:11:22.560 - order to not have a roadblock because of SB 1 we could amortize that over five and 00:11:22.560 --> 00:11:28.880 - a half years we have to be beyond the five correct and that's correct Greg yeah 00:11:28.880 --> 00:11:33.440 - I didn't mention that that is an option yeah and so this is something I've done 00:11:33.440 --> 00:11:39.520 - in Hancock County each and every year because quite frankly we weren't going 00:11:39.520 --> 00:11:48.960 - to our current tax levy right now is 3.0 three million zero but what we could do 00:11:48.960 --> 00:11:55.040 - is six million in essence I'm just going to use this over example six for six six 00:11:55.040 --> 00:12:02.560 - million over six years we could then use that six million the limit right now is 00:12:02.560 --> 00:12:07.880 - six and a half but I'm you know I'm not worrying about the half and we could use 00:12:07.880 --> 00:12:15.720 - that on any type of project and we would amortize it over not you know five and 00:12:15.720 --> 00:12:23.280 - a half or six years I was just making six for six and we can do that going 00:12:23.280 --> 00:12:31.440 - forward without much many issues is that correct Dennis yeah because it would be 00:12:31.440 --> 00:12:36.760 - outside the five-year or less threshold under the new SB 1 cooling off statute 00:12:36.760 --> 00:12:44.240 - that's our third in maybe one of the easier options but you know something we 00:12:44.240 --> 00:12:52.840 - wanted to chitchat about and I would just say that this option to the 00:12:52.840 --> 00:12:57.680 - definition of what you can utilize those funds for is a lot more restrictive than 00:12:57.680 --> 00:13:02.000 - what we've traditionally used our our general obligation bonds for it has to 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:06.640 - be for a specific building a specific project and if you look in historically 00:13:06.640 --> 00:13:11.200 - we've used these funds from everything from highway truck purchases to police 00:13:11.200 --> 00:13:17.280 - vehicles which wouldn't qualify under at least my reading is it wouldn't 00:13:17.280 --> 00:13:21.640 - necessarily qualify under that so if that were a route that we would look at 00:13:21.640 --> 00:13:28.200 - we would have to really seriously take a hard look on over the next year or so 00:13:28.200 --> 00:13:31.760 - you know what buildings are we actually doing up to two million dollars of 00:13:31.760 --> 00:13:37.920 - improvements I'm not really aware of any at this point so that one in my mind 00:13:37.920 --> 00:13:47.300 - would probably be the least likely to accomplish replacing the normal three 00:13:47.300 --> 00:13:52.920 - million dollar geo bond I also think that if you want he said six for six you could 00:13:52.920 --> 00:13:57.520 - do three for six so if you wanted to maintain that current level you could do 00:13:57.520 --> 00:14:02.600 - three a three million dollar bond paid over six years if you'd wish I mean the 00:14:02.600 --> 00:14:11.040 - six is the maximum in from the overall schematic design of the tax rate keep in 00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:17.280 - mind the six for six would then yield us a savings of two million but because we'll 00:14:17.280 --> 00:14:23.760 - be putting in the new levy that will if that gets installed that will be three 00:14:23.760 --> 00:14:29.680 - million so we will have you so one's going up one's going down right and so 00:14:29.680 --> 00:14:37.720 - that will have some leveling effect so I kind of liked it not only from a 00:14:37.720 --> 00:14:47.200 - standpoint Dennis it gives us maximum flexibility it also gives us a good 00:14:47.200 --> 00:14:53.320 - strategic impact on the tax rate in total remember we only have 30 pennies 00:14:53.320 --> 00:14:58.760 - here to deal with so we got to use our pennies wisely and so you know this 00:14:58.760 --> 00:15:07.760 - would help us yield that result already do you have anything what are you 00:15:07.760 --> 00:15:14.440 - thinking I'm looking at this and hoping that this is going to be able to be 00:15:14.440 --> 00:15:22.600 - printed out as soon as this meeting's over this being recorded I hope and we 00:15:22.600 --> 00:15:27.760 - need to just push a button and and print it out for all of us to see what's 00:15:27.760 --> 00:15:33.640 - being discussed here so that we'll have time to review it and think about it I 00:15:33.640 --> 00:15:42.040 - think it might be difficult to pass a six million dollar bond on top of 00:15:42.040 --> 00:15:49.360 - passing it a jail bond I just think we have to look at that and we have become 00:15:49.360 --> 00:15:55.680 - rather addicted to doing a bond every year and so we generally are telling our 00:15:55.680 --> 00:16:01.200 - departments not to put anything under their at that what we call the four 00:16:01.200 --> 00:16:06.400 - category for so they can have the category to cover some of their 00:16:06.400 --> 00:16:13.080 - equipment and so forth so this is something that would be of interesting 00:16:13.080 --> 00:16:18.920 - discussion by the entire council this is certainly not this body's decision but I 00:16:18.920 --> 00:16:24.360 - appreciate the information we can study it and be prepared for a decision at 00:16:24.360 --> 00:16:31.720 - such time that we're asked to do that keep in mind again we can go zero to six 00:16:31.720 --> 00:16:37.800 - so you can go anywhere that's million dollars right zero see like as Jeff 00:16:37.800 --> 00:16:42.720 - pointed out we could go but we would want to probably keep it within the five 00:16:42.720 --> 00:16:48.920 - and a half years for amortization right and it doesn't mean it will preclude it 00:16:48.920 --> 00:16:54.000 - will open the door in the future for whatever we need to do so it won't close 00:16:54.000 --> 00:16:59.320 - any doors at that point in time so we wanted to give you the two or three 00:16:59.320 --> 00:17:05.320 - options as the finance team and remember as your independent financial advisor my 00:17:05.320 --> 00:17:11.400 - role and responsibilities pull up point out all that negatives and positive and 00:17:11.400 --> 00:17:17.240 - that and I I like this positive of doing it as a third option 00:17:17.240 --> 00:17:22.480 - Genesis actually has great one in two options that's not a problem but this is 00:17:22.480 --> 00:17:31.360 - probably overall maybe a path of that we can do some equalization also and as I 00:17:31.360 --> 00:17:40.440 - understand what so far I've been trying thought if we tied it to the three over 00:17:40.440 --> 00:17:47.200 - six years the tax per the taxpayer will be less for every one of those six years 00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:53.280 - because are you saying we would it be three million dollar bond but it wouldn't 00:17:53.280 --> 00:17:57.840 - be paid off it would be paid off in increments or are you saying it'll be an 00:17:57.840 --> 00:18:02.960 - extra three million every year no ma'am it would be what you said at first so 00:18:02.960 --> 00:18:08.680 - right now we have a three million dollar levy if we took three million over six 00:18:08.680 --> 00:18:13.760 - years what that's a half a million dollars a year so we're going down in 00:18:13.760 --> 00:18:20.800 - our debt service levy we only have one bond so we're not excessively under debt 00:18:20.800 --> 00:18:27.960 - so we would really cut that so that's where I was saying yes you can do three 00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:35.240 - over six it really cut it once six over six still really cuts it by almost two 00:18:35.240 --> 00:18:43.200 - million and then we have room for the new levy coming from what we need to 00:18:43.200 --> 00:18:50.240 - make up for this year and it kind of evens out so we wanted to introduce the 00:18:50.240 --> 00:18:56.000 - concept and at some point then we need to get on a pathway if you want to do a 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:04.800 - pathway if not we won't discuss it so having not discussed this before of 00:19:04.800 --> 00:19:12.320 - course my mind's going on but what if we say you you you can't do like a two 00:19:12.320 --> 00:19:18.480 - million over four or something like that it's gonna be the six yeah and it's you 00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:27.920 - want to respond legally yeah in this case it would need to be under the 00:19:27.920 --> 00:19:33.960 - scenario that Greg is mentioning here it would need to be at least five years 00:19:33.960 --> 00:19:41.960 - amortization pay off remember we send this any of our geo bonds we send out to 00:19:41.960 --> 00:19:47.520 - the investing public you know a hundred people get the information and we've 00:19:47.520 --> 00:19:53.480 - gotten real good response from your local bank you know and they've really 00:19:53.480 --> 00:19:58.880 - give us a fabulous interest rate over the last several years we still believe 00:19:58.880 --> 00:20:03.960 - that even this type of structure because we preliminarily talked to them and they 00:20:03.960 --> 00:20:10.280 - said oh yeah it wouldn't bother us at all so I think the the if you chose this 00:20:10.280 --> 00:20:20.080 - route our same competitive nature of selling the bond is alive and well so 00:20:20.080 --> 00:20:28.880 - may I yes first of all is there any kind of prepayment penalty or what if we 00:20:28.880 --> 00:20:34.640 - decided we want to do something other than what was covered in the bond you 00:20:34.640 --> 00:20:38.040 - know ten years out we don't know what's going to be happening here in Monroe 00:20:38.040 --> 00:20:44.280 - County so I'm wondering let's say if you've paid down the bond by a certain 00:20:44.280 --> 00:20:50.160 - amount can you reauthorize it and stretch out another six six years like 00:20:50.160 --> 00:20:56.560 - if you've paid off a million dollars of a two million dollar bond and you've 00:20:56.560 --> 00:21:01.720 - paid it paid it down a million can you then re-app it and take out another six 00:21:01.720 --> 00:21:06.080 - years or you can re-app it and take it out for the remaining part of the six 00:21:06.080 --> 00:21:10.760 - years or let me answer because you and I've done this many many times and and 00:21:10.760 --> 00:21:15.640 - we've done exactly what you've said so Dennis the the one question I've got 00:21:15.640 --> 00:21:24.320 - from a legal perspective if we issue a 5.5 but have a redemption in the fourth 00:21:24.320 --> 00:21:31.680 - year would that cause us a problem under SB 1 remember we're coming here because 00:21:31.680 --> 00:21:37.560 - of SB 1 and suggesting these options otherwise we do what we always did okay 00:21:37.560 --> 00:21:42.720 - and - and we'd go on that track Dennis do you think that would cause a problem 00:21:42.720 --> 00:21:49.880 - with a prepayment no I don't think I would and it's a fabulous question and 00:21:49.880 --> 00:21:55.980 - we all I will say this are sort of wrapping our heads around and marinating 00:21:55.980 --> 00:22:01.880 - in what is now new SB 1 language but that said I look at the statute it refers to 00:22:01.880 --> 00:22:08.360 - a bond issued with a term of five years not that the bond itself actually has to 00:22:08.360 --> 00:22:14.120 - amortize that full period when you issue it so and I I think that's deliberate 00:22:14.120 --> 00:22:18.780 - because there are circumstances where rise where a community just may need to 00:22:18.780 --> 00:22:23.440 - pay off its obligation early whether it's a funding mechanism or they're 00:22:23.440 --> 00:22:27.840 - needing to structure around something else so that's a long way of saying 00:22:27.840 --> 00:22:31.440 - Greg no problem I think doing a redemption early on if that was the 00:22:31.440 --> 00:22:37.320 - county's desire so Marty to address another question then you could 00:22:37.320 --> 00:22:43.800 - regardless if we take this option and we do it next year you can do whatever you 00:22:43.800 --> 00:22:51.000 - want this option would not preclude you from doing another bond next year okay 00:22:51.000 --> 00:22:57.560 - so I think that was one of your questions okay as long as I thought you 00:22:57.560 --> 00:23:03.160 - couldn't do like two in a row you had to give a one-year breather that's another 00:23:03.160 --> 00:23:09.760 - section of the statute that Dennis could go into but I'm gonna say Dennis this 00:23:09.760 --> 00:23:17.320 - schematic design that's not applicable correct because we're doing the terms of 00:23:17.320 --> 00:23:21.200 - greater than five years if we were proposing a term of less than five years 00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:27.900 - then we would have to take our breather so Marty I knew good and well we had to 00:23:27.900 --> 00:23:33.520 - come up with an option that kind of addressed all possible pitfalls and we 00:23:33.520 --> 00:23:38.420 - think we have now again there you know people read things differently but we 00:23:38.420 --> 00:23:46.540 - think that would be ultimate the ultra flexible way to do it and this is a 00:23:46.540 --> 00:23:53.600 - property tax levy and not then tied to our income tax at all it would be right 00:23:53.600 --> 00:24:01.040 - into the 1782 like it always is yes property tax that's the way we do our 00:24:01.040 --> 00:24:10.640 - geo bonds so you're you almost have to look at how bad the circuit breaker is 00:24:10.640 --> 00:24:15.800 - going to hit us as to how much of a geo bond we might wanted to because that's 00:24:15.800 --> 00:24:19.520 - going to make that circuit breaker hit well again you know unless Brie 00:24:19.520 --> 00:24:24.640 - disagrees with my mathematics when you take off if we did six for six and that 00:24:24.640 --> 00:24:30.760 - was a million dollars if you take a million dollars add you subtract three 00:24:30.760 --> 00:24:36.200 - million the net is two million then you've got two million offsetting your 00:24:36.200 --> 00:24:43.360 - your additional ask for levy if you've got that then that would put is probably 00:24:43.360 --> 00:24:51.220 - a million dollars back to where we are right right so that's a kind of high 00:24:51.220 --> 00:24:56.520 - level math and I would just add to that that that high level math works the 00:24:56.520 --> 00:25:01.820 - first time you do this but I think ultimately the request would probably be 00:25:01.820 --> 00:25:08.120 - made for essentially to replace the current program so after six years the 00:25:08.120 --> 00:25:12.500 - payment should kind of equalize out because you would over six years you 00:25:12.500 --> 00:25:20.760 - would have essentially the same tax rate unless there's something that I'm not 00:25:20.760 --> 00:25:28.400 - aware of but over six years you'd have 18 million dollars in in geo bonds where 00:25:28.400 --> 00:25:32.120 - right now our current process is in six years you'd have 18 million dollars over 00:25:32.120 --> 00:25:36.200 - geo bonds they're just getting paid out differently so you would see a reduction 00:25:36.200 --> 00:25:41.320 - in your in your tax rate the first five years and then six it would kind of get 00:25:41.320 --> 00:25:47.760 - back to where it is today and so I just want to be clear that then the math works 00:25:47.760 --> 00:25:52.600 - that way but if but if we're planning on continuing this three million dollar geo 00:25:52.600 --> 00:25:57.200 - bond into the future eventually that math is going to work where it levels 00:25:57.200 --> 00:26:02.880 - itself back to the current level as justice a reminder when somebody says so 00:26:02.880 --> 00:26:08.560 - the tax rates the same we all know we've learned that keeping the tax rate the 00:26:08.560 --> 00:26:13.520 - same means that we intend to raise taxes on local folks because the tax rate the 00:26:13.520 --> 00:26:21.080 - same times as growing growing assessed value will bring it that will raise some 00:26:21.080 --> 00:26:29.880 - taxes are 30.6 our 30.6 our 30 pennies right now will not be the same anymore 00:26:29.880 --> 00:26:37.360 - as AV goes down on that chart I sent you it will no longer be what we're trying 00:26:37.360 --> 00:26:45.520 - to maintain to you cannot maintain to a 30 cent tax rate more than likely so so 00:26:45.520 --> 00:26:51.520 - you said you sent a chart whatever did you send it this morning or something no 00:26:51.520 --> 00:26:56.920 - ma'am this was what I went over last meeting and may have been in your minute 00:26:56.920 --> 00:27:01.120 - minutes but it's where we showed the value of a five hundred thousand dollar 00:27:01.120 --> 00:27:10.800 - okay right right right yeah okay so this is a lot to consider yes so that's why 00:27:10.800 --> 00:27:15.280 - we said we better play is it we better give you the team concept here and and 00:27:15.280 --> 00:27:21.720 - so at this point in time Jeff maybe it's proper that we pause on this subject you 00:27:21.720 --> 00:27:28.760 - and Lizzie if you want and then we can get the full council and we can even put 00:27:28.760 --> 00:27:34.640 - together an amortization Dennis one point I wanted to ask you is when we 00:27:34.640 --> 00:27:42.880 - were doing this in an in another county they said it couldn't be six over five 00:27:42.880 --> 00:27:49.760 - years you had to at least go six over five years in one month do you agree you 00:27:49.760 --> 00:27:56.680 - need to stay away from the exact five yes I would agree with that that's the 00:27:56.680 --> 00:28:06.360 - safe approach that's why I said six for six is you can do three over five months 00:28:06.360 --> 00:28:15.560 - or two five five five years and two months or whatever right okay okay okay I 00:28:15.560 --> 00:28:20.600 - think counsel yeah as I'm not a member of the committee but I'm just a guest 00:28:20.600 --> 00:28:24.440 - starring today I guess I agree with the counselor Hawk that having I think the 00:28:24.440 --> 00:28:29.000 - written analysis will be helpful to look at the three options what I'm curious if 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:34.000 - anyone even has an estimate today of what's now prohibited under the GO bond 00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:38.600 - that we can't do that we're currently doing and what percentage of the bond is 00:28:38.600 --> 00:28:42.720 - really that we've been bonding for things we can no longer do do we have a 00:28:42.720 --> 00:28:47.560 - sense of that is it yeah is it 25 50 percent what's the ballpark of how much 00:28:47.560 --> 00:28:52.280 - we're currently bonding on that we're no longer going to be allowed to do that 00:28:52.280 --> 00:28:55.520 - that changes our number substantially and I think it's to a point that counts 00:28:55.520 --> 00:28:59.840 - counselor Hawk made that if we are bonding on what we what we are now 00:28:59.840 --> 00:29:04.280 - legally allowed to do and if it's a number that really is not significant we 00:29:04.280 --> 00:29:07.720 - could go back to looking at the general fund as opposed to bonding and I'm gonna 00:29:07.720 --> 00:29:11.760 - let dead I'm gonna try to answer this and I'm gonna let Dennis follow up yeah 00:29:11.760 --> 00:29:15.920 - because I want to be clear because I think I made the statement that the note 00:29:15.920 --> 00:29:21.360 - idea which was option two had a lot of restrictions to it and the the note is 00:29:21.360 --> 00:29:26.040 - not really a general obligation bond it is a different mechanism within state 00:29:26.040 --> 00:29:30.720 - code and so that I think if you're looking at what we currently do it's 00:29:30.720 --> 00:29:37.680 - most of it right if you were going to go to the know that is designed more for big 00:29:37.680 --> 00:29:45.560 - renovation projects in buildings right that is what that is designed for and we 00:29:45.560 --> 00:29:48.600 - just haven't done that with our geo bonds right I mean you might be able to 00:29:48.600 --> 00:29:54.080 - fit something in each year that would follow that but it but it really it 00:29:54.080 --> 00:29:58.400 - would be probably 90% of what we've issued geo bonds for would not be 00:29:58.400 --> 00:30:03.240 - eligible under that note idea I think the general obligation bonds Dennis 00:30:03.240 --> 00:30:06.280 - correct me if I'm wrong but what you could utilize those for really hasn't 00:30:06.280 --> 00:30:12.240 - changed so we really could use them for the same manners the note one has a much 00:30:12.240 --> 00:30:16.880 - more restricted use and the definition of what it can be used for which makes 00:30:16.880 --> 00:30:20.800 - sense because there's less process involved yeah that's good enough for 00:30:20.800 --> 00:30:24.840 - today but definitely needed you've got ready to that in writing just to look at 00:30:24.840 --> 00:30:29.720 - I think so thank you for that and I'll just sort of to follow up on Jeff's 00:30:29.720 --> 00:30:34.840 - point and in regards to the other thing under new SB 1 the real restriction is 00:30:34.840 --> 00:30:40.360 - you can't do a general obligation bond for a term of less than five years 00:30:40.360 --> 00:30:44.760 - without the cooling off period unless that general obligation bond funds 00:30:44.760 --> 00:30:48.480 - what's called a control project meaning you know you're issuing seven million 00:30:48.480 --> 00:30:53.320 - dollars or more of bonds then it's exempted but we've not been doing that 00:30:53.320 --> 00:30:57.160 - there in the county we've been doing smaller bond issues and so that's why 00:30:57.160 --> 00:31:01.640 - kind of as Greg mentioned we're looking at this sort of three for six six for 00:31:01.640 --> 00:31:04.280 - six option 00:31:04.280 --> 00:31:13.960 - Marty or counselor Mark excuse me so just to be clear we could continue to do as 00:31:13.960 --> 00:31:17.680 - we're doing right now we just can't do it every year we'd have to do it every 00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:22.600 - other year is that correct so to be specific on that and help me out Dennis 00:31:22.600 --> 00:31:27.480 - if I if I get this wrong but so let's say today we would or you know in that 00:31:27.480 --> 00:31:33.840 - sometime this year we would authorize our one-year geo we would then amortize 00:31:33.840 --> 00:31:42.640 - it over next year 26 we would be required to cool off or 27 we could come 00:31:42.640 --> 00:31:48.960 - back at 28 and I think that's your option one right Dennis that's what the state 00:31:48.960 --> 00:31:55.000 - no we can't we can't we can't even do option one because we were we've got a 00:31:55.000 --> 00:32:01.600 - geo out there that puts us in that boat and just to be clear the the geo bond 00:32:01.600 --> 00:32:06.720 - that we have out right now would prohibit us from issuing a new geo bond 00:32:06.720 --> 00:32:15.200 - this year and next year or just this year I'd have to look at the amortization 00:32:15.200 --> 00:32:20.480 - great do you have the when when the one we just issued when that matures at the 00:32:20.480 --> 00:32:28.400 - end of this year so we need to back up what I said one more year right yeah so 00:32:28.400 --> 00:32:32.440 - we would have to wait a year from when this one expires before we could do 00:32:32.440 --> 00:32:39.800 - another one it was my understanding to Dennis I thought and again it it takes 00:32:39.800 --> 00:32:45.720 - reading so let's say it does pay off it Brie you agree it pays off the end of 00:32:45.720 --> 00:32:51.120 - this year correct we're finding the schedule right now but that is what I 00:32:51.120 --> 00:32:59.920 - wanted to be correct so if we we cannot we cannot authorize then it pays off I'm 00:32:59.920 --> 00:33:09.920 - sorry I do need to be corrected 115 2026 so we back it up 115 2026 so at that 00:33:09.920 --> 00:33:16.040 - point since this is a one year one year when do we have to wait till Dennis 00:33:16.040 --> 00:33:22.240 - legally I just quickly add the county traditionally pays those after 00:33:22.240 --> 00:33:26.160 - settlements we will be paying it off this year but the schedule notes I'm 00:33:26.160 --> 00:33:33.680 - always used to but the actual term is 115 2026 yeah so we'd have to wait till 00:33:33.680 --> 00:33:42.520 - 115 2027 before we can issue it's that one year period you're talking about 00:33:42.520 --> 00:33:55.840 - yeah from now and if we chose to do that then we could use it in the same manner 00:33:55.840 --> 00:34:00.880 - that we're using right now we could use it for highway trucks or whatever we 00:34:00.880 --> 00:34:12.720 - want to use it for a 2027 yeah well that's enough anything else from 00:34:12.720 --> 00:34:22.480 - counselor hulk no oh since counselor Henry is here anything else from you so I 00:34:22.480 --> 00:34:27.160 - would really like to know what each of you really prefers that have talked to 00:34:27.160 --> 00:34:31.880 - us about this what are your best recommendations as we consider this 00:34:31.880 --> 00:34:37.680 - personally I like the five over five-year option because I think it 00:34:37.680 --> 00:34:43.840 - allows for projects to reviewed on a on an annual basis I think in the short 00:34:43.840 --> 00:34:49.960 - term you property tax payers would see a reduction in the rate associated with a 00:34:49.960 --> 00:34:55.360 - reduction in the amount of funds necessary to support the payment of 00:34:55.360 --> 00:35:02.540 - that bond per year and and I think those two I think the first one particularly 00:35:02.540 --> 00:35:06.960 - fits into how we've always looked at it we've always looked at it every year we 00:35:06.960 --> 00:35:09.880 - are going to prepare a list for the council to review and then they would 00:35:09.880 --> 00:35:15.000 - make this the decision to utilize those funds on that and I think that has 00:35:15.000 --> 00:35:20.440 - worked out I think pretty well it's always a struggle every year which makes 00:35:20.440 --> 00:35:24.640 - me think it's a good thing to do but I always think that that process I think 00:35:24.640 --> 00:35:30.560 - the the other one the other ones would have the council issue a larger amount 00:35:30.560 --> 00:35:35.780 - option three would have them issue our option I guess one I've had an option 00:35:35.780 --> 00:35:41.120 - where we would issue a series of bonds based upon one decision to me has been 00:35:41.120 --> 00:35:45.600 - kind of counter to what the council is always expected and I don't think the 00:35:45.600 --> 00:35:51.600 - note works at all so I would recommend the third option which is the one year 00:35:51.600 --> 00:35:57.360 - or the same size or maybe a little up the it could be more that would be the 00:35:57.360 --> 00:36:02.040 - council's decision but have that over a six-year payback period as opposed to 00:36:02.040 --> 00:36:08.400 - the other two options okay and you have a recommendation for us 00:36:08.400 --> 00:36:16.640 - I'm sorry was that directed to me is there a recommendation from you Dennis 00:36:16.640 --> 00:36:25.900 - yeah I think what Jeff said I would agree with given what the county's procedures 00:36:25.900 --> 00:36:28.840 - and how they've operated in the past I think that's going to allow you to kind 00:36:28.840 --> 00:36:36.260 - of take a look at these each time and give you flexibility and keep things the 00:36:36.260 --> 00:36:40.560 - way that they've been and I I think it's not just you Greg mentioned he's working 00:36:40.560 --> 00:36:44.000 - with another county they're sort of having this discussion with a lot of our 00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:48.360 - issuers that have been doing the same thing the county has and I think we're 00:36:48.360 --> 00:36:52.480 - going to see most of them are going to continue to do obligations but just do 00:36:52.480 --> 00:36:56.640 - them with longer terms I think the net effect over the long term may be that 00:36:56.640 --> 00:37:01.200 - there are fewer geo bond issuances just because people are doing them over a 00:37:01.200 --> 00:37:05.920 - longer maturity but they're keeping that sort of same capital planning in place 00:37:05.920 --> 00:37:15.600 - by doing that thank you and Greg maximum flexibility zero to six over over five 00:37:15.600 --> 00:37:23.640 - years or beyond that's the option three six for six okay I want everybody 00:37:23.640 --> 00:37:31.920 - understand up to right all right so do we since I'm still pretty new at this 00:37:31.920 --> 00:37:37.120 - do we take a vote on our recommendation I would not expect you to vote on this 00:37:37.120 --> 00:37:40.880 - this is new to you guys you guys need some time to digest it and we need to 00:37:40.880 --> 00:37:55.800 - put okay so then we're back on number four is that right thank you Dennis all 00:37:55.800 --> 00:37:59.440 - right thank you all have a good afternoon yeah thank you for being here 00:37:59.440 --> 00:38:09.160 - for us back on number four is that correct approval of a recommendation by 00:38:09.160 --> 00:38:16.360 - County Council regarding 2026 minimum fund balance resolution so we had that 00:38:16.360 --> 00:38:25.760 - good I believe hi Liz it's Molly I'm online and I did make a slight change to 00:38:25.760 --> 00:38:31.800 - it so I'm going to display it on the screen as well okay thank you 00:38:31.800 --> 00:38:47.920 - can you guys see it yeah okay really the only changes I added a title that 00:38:47.920 --> 00:38:53.400 - includes the year for which this is applicable because it sometimes gets 00:38:53.400 --> 00:38:57.180 - confusing that it's a 2025 resolution that's applicable in a different year 00:38:57.180 --> 00:39:03.960 - and then I changed the date on which this would be adopted to the correct 00:39:03.960 --> 00:39:10.600 - year so it's pretty minor changes this resolution in body is very similar to 00:39:10.600 --> 00:39:15.640 - the one that was passed next year the main difference is last year's had a 00:39:15.640 --> 00:39:22.560 - minimum cash balance and a target cash or target fund balance and when the 00:39:22.560 --> 00:39:27.920 - auditor's office and council discussed this that we there is a decision to just 00:39:27.920 --> 00:39:36.880 - have one fund or one column so now it's just the 20-26 month of minimum fund 00:39:36.880 --> 00:39:44.320 - balance and so I believe that council office and auditor's office work to come 00:39:44.320 --> 00:39:49.840 - up with these numbers and so if there's questions regarding the actual numbers 00:39:49.840 --> 00:39:59.760 - in that chart I would defer to the auditor's office any questions here in 00:39:59.760 --> 00:40:12.120 - the room like for the highway department to comment on what about it seems to me 00:40:12.120 --> 00:40:17.720 - last year when we were discussing this that you had a concern that there would 00:40:17.720 --> 00:40:24.640 - be some kind of a fun balance okay you want to step up here so we can hear you 00:40:24.640 --> 00:40:31.600 - I certainly don't want to say yes this sounds good then if everybody say later 00:40:31.600 --> 00:40:38.200 - this doesn't work yeah thank you sorry hadn't planned on talking but we've never 00:40:38.200 --> 00:40:43.760 - maintained a two million dollar balance never been able to I don't know what the 00:40:43.760 --> 00:40:49.120 - circumstances are if you don't have a two million dollar balance in your MVH we 00:40:49.120 --> 00:40:53.760 - try and keep it at a million right now I think we're at 1.3 we were going to go in 00:40:53.760 --> 00:40:59.520 - for an additional but we didn't because of this resolution because I don't know 00:40:59.520 --> 00:41:03.760 - what happens being under that two million dollar recommended balance I 00:41:03.760 --> 00:41:09.360 - it's never been a discussion that I've ever had with anybody so I would just 00:41:09.360 --> 00:41:15.420 - say that we know that their revenue comes in different than some of the revenue 00:41:15.420 --> 00:41:20.520 - like for instance with general fund and they cannot spend any more than what the 00:41:20.520 --> 00:41:29.080 - revenue actually produces for them and so to put an artificial minimum fund 00:41:29.080 --> 00:41:34.040 - balance on any of these highway positions that that's just not something 00:41:34.040 --> 00:41:40.160 - I 1176 was for the first time I've ever been at the county highway was five 00:41:40.160 --> 00:41:49.720 - hundred thousand dollars over budgeted for 2025 that's we split within 1173 00:41:49.720 --> 00:41:56.320 - and 1176 we took our guidance from the auditor's office on setting those up I'm 00:41:56.320 --> 00:42:03.040 - not comfortable being over budgeted so yeah I I just kind of follow along on 00:42:03.040 --> 00:42:07.240 - what numbers are being presented beep but again I've never had any conversation 00:42:07.240 --> 00:42:16.000 - with anybody on this so I could've swore we had a conversation something you and 00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:21.520 - I oh okay I was going to say that after I saw it and all the paperwork so I just 00:42:21.520 --> 00:42:29.040 - think it's a that's overstepping what we should be doing because the highway gets 00:42:29.040 --> 00:42:33.880 - their money the state tells us what what the dollars amount that they're going to 00:42:33.880 --> 00:42:40.520 - get and they keep that in track and we don't ever want you to spend down best 00:42:40.520 --> 00:42:46.120 - as he would but you know that and for us to tell you an amount so that you can't 00:42:46.120 --> 00:42:52.680 - move those dollars around to make sure you're using a million dollar cash 00:42:52.680 --> 00:43:00.560 - balance yes there's it's just it's counter and pay active to what your 00:43:00.560 --> 00:43:05.280 - mission is so why would did you say already and I missed it is what is your 00:43:05.280 --> 00:43:10.080 - current minimum fund balance or is there one right now I think no we don't we've 00:43:10.080 --> 00:43:16.320 - never been told to a minimum so this is all new this is yeah this is all new 00:43:16.320 --> 00:43:21.680 - right now we have like 1.3 we've never tried to go under a million just in case 00:43:21.680 --> 00:43:30.320 - of emergencies yeah but we can't maintain I hear you do what we feel like 00:43:30.320 --> 00:43:36.400 - we need to do we already get council assistance that will have to continue 00:43:36.400 --> 00:43:48.360 - yes please not that I can offer amendment but you can make a suggestion 00:43:48.360 --> 00:44:06.960 - so would you be comfortable 750 or a million or 500 the goal is to have so 00:44:06.960 --> 00:44:12.480 - this is the amount that's going to be again we're trying to get get it updated 00:44:12.480 --> 00:44:17.480 - we're trying to come under a concept that when you might consider the 00:44:17.480 --> 00:44:24.080 - emergency like you said and so I'm assuming when you said it might be 00:44:24.080 --> 00:44:30.640 - emergency if I went below 1 million and we kind of considered them together but 00:44:30.640 --> 00:44:39.000 - they're separate so if we put the 200 or 2 million down to 750 that would give 00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:43.920 - you an absolute you wouldn't really go below that floor so that's what I and 00:44:43.920 --> 00:44:50.320 - again this will be updated each and every year and so we might even exclude 00:44:50.320 --> 00:44:54.800 - the highway next time so there's always I guess that would beg the question why 00:44:54.800 --> 00:45:03.780 - is it included this time to to include most of the major funds and that's the 00:45:03.780 --> 00:45:08.720 - reason there's no absolute that any fund has to be in there unless you made a 00:45:08.720 --> 00:45:13.760 - decision otherwise absolutely not and if I just made quickly I think there is 00:45:13.760 --> 00:45:20.480 - maybe between legal preparing this and the work we did in the office we 00:45:20.480 --> 00:45:29.200 - intended for the minimum balances to be and not the target and I think the 00:45:29.200 --> 00:45:35.720 - target numbers were used here oh so we there they should be lower actually so 00:45:35.720 --> 00:45:39.600 - this will need to be edited okay unless you're comfortable with these numbers 00:45:39.600 --> 00:45:44.800 - but we were not as we put it together well I I see exactly what Lisa's saying 00:45:44.800 --> 00:45:54.960 - and I agree again you know it's guidance it's set for 2026 so if I thought all 00:45:54.960 --> 00:46:02.400 - the other numbers looked awful good at this point and so if you want to say 00:46:02.400 --> 00:46:08.040 - okay let's put in the target ones which is the ones I was kind of focusing in 00:46:08.040 --> 00:46:15.560 - on but these you know we can bring it back why don't we do that okay if we're 00:46:15.560 --> 00:46:19.840 - gonna if we're not going to have the minimum versus target I'm more 00:46:19.840 --> 00:46:23.340 - comfortable with establishing the minimum however we're going to you know 00:46:23.340 --> 00:46:28.440 - we appreciate your guidance and want that and want to go with that so we'll 00:46:28.440 --> 00:46:37.920 - bring it back okay bring it back right I can see really the point in the one 00:46:37.920 --> 00:46:44.920 - that are in what I call the frozen levy so we know that we've got to keep that 00:46:44.920 --> 00:46:49.560 - frozen levy can only increase so much every year and if we see one of these 00:46:49.560 --> 00:46:53.760 - that are inside the frozen levy is dropping too far just like we did with 00:46:53.760 --> 00:46:59.200 - the health we're gonna have to make up the difference this this coming year but 00:46:59.200 --> 00:47:06.560 - it and I can understand why you would do the rainy day but I just sit in 00:47:06.560 --> 00:47:13.120 - self-insurance for certain and so you you'd want the general fund the 00:47:13.120 --> 00:47:27.080 - aviation reassessment that definitely the self-insurance a cube cap might be a but 00:47:27.080 --> 00:47:34.400 - but that's not inside that smaller frozen levy some of the others are you 00:47:34.400 --> 00:47:38.800 - can move money back and forth but with highway you don't move money back and 00:47:38.800 --> 00:47:46.960 - forth I mean highway it's not a part of the well let's find this over here under 00:47:46.960 --> 00:47:57.200 - highway so I don't know why we would why we would try to keep them from spending 00:47:57.200 --> 00:48:04.640 - in order to meet you know they sometimes move from one fund to another to fill 00:48:04.640 --> 00:48:10.960 - more potholes I just do less of something else but I you know I don't I 00:48:10.960 --> 00:48:14.120 - don't want to throw a thorn in everybody's side I'm just saying I don't 00:48:14.120 --> 00:48:21.420 - I don't see the purpose but and the lit the special purpose that's one that we 00:48:21.420 --> 00:48:27.600 - definitely this year need to take a hard look at because that's the one that we 00:48:27.600 --> 00:48:32.640 - reduced the rate going into that that what we used to call the juvenile and 00:48:32.640 --> 00:48:41.280 - captain and put that rate over into the jail fund and because it wasn't really 00:48:41.280 --> 00:48:46.320 - needed for that lit special purpose but we need to all of us be taking a look at 00:48:46.320 --> 00:48:51.660 - that and doing a look out to see when we need to change that rate or move some 00:48:51.660 --> 00:48:56.160 - and I think the auditor doesn't agree why I've been saying but whatever I'm 00:48:56.160 --> 00:49:04.400 - sorry I think differing opinions are healthy however I just I like the idea 00:49:04.400 --> 00:49:15.240 - of of these of there being a guy just you know an idea of what we feel is would 00:49:15.240 --> 00:49:19.760 - keep us the healthiest as far as fund balances so more like a guy to consider 00:49:19.760 --> 00:49:27.560 - as we move forward we have had fun bound but fun balance issues in the past with 00:49:27.560 --> 00:49:31.240 - some of these funds and I think that is probably why FSG made this 00:49:31.240 --> 00:49:34.760 - recommendation initially and also it helps with their bond rating and its 00:49:34.760 --> 00:49:40.720 - best practice yes it's best practice I'm wondering if terminology couldn't play a 00:49:40.720 --> 00:49:45.080 - factor here would it be prudent to think about calling it a suggested fund 00:49:45.080 --> 00:49:49.560 - balance rather than a minimum fund balance that's kind of why I went with 00:49:49.560 --> 00:49:56.000 - the target having done this many many times and all the different it's a 00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:01.400 - target we'd like to hit we we discuss whether we're over it or under it we do 00:50:01.400 --> 00:50:06.600 - not want to have constraints yeah I think minimum sets says to me it sets a 00:50:06.600 --> 00:50:12.160 - floor right and I think some other terminology might not be as indicative of 00:50:12.160 --> 00:50:18.880 - absoluteness so to speak or I I think what the intention was was to use the 00:50:18.880 --> 00:50:24.980 - minimum fund found fund balance numbers however as the target fund balance 00:50:24.980 --> 00:50:29.440 - but we're not saying that anywhere in the document correct right I'm somehow 00:50:29.440 --> 00:50:34.160 - working on this so there I think signals are crossed when we can change that we 00:50:34.160 --> 00:50:38.480 - can change that and absolutely say that right so that's what I'm suggesting that 00:50:38.480 --> 00:50:45.560 - we agree we explain our intent right I like intent to be clarified so would 00:50:45.560 --> 00:50:48.640 - that be good you think I agree hundred percent I think that's we're trying to 00:50:48.640 --> 00:50:55.080 - say the same thing okay now sir hunk I'm seeing that the election fund was left 00:50:55.080 --> 00:51:01.860 - off of here and I think we need to include that because what the election 00:51:01.860 --> 00:51:06.740 - fund doesn't cover we have to make up the difference how the general fund so 00:51:06.740 --> 00:51:15.520 - it's important to to think of those as working in tandem we have the intent was 00:51:15.520 --> 00:51:23.000 - to allow that election fund balance to grow so that when the when it was time 00:51:23.000 --> 00:51:28.840 - for presidential election year the fund would already be there and and we're not 00:51:28.840 --> 00:51:35.360 - spending that down every year and moving that over that levy over to the general 00:51:35.360 --> 00:51:38.260 - fund when you do that that means on that fourth year when you hit the 00:51:38.260 --> 00:51:42.240 - presidential you've got to make up a lot of money that we weren't prepared for so 00:51:42.240 --> 00:51:50.600 - I think that should be added but once again I'm not in favor of getting in the 00:51:50.600 --> 00:51:55.400 - way of the highway I mean I don't if they ever would spin down to getting us 00:51:55.400 --> 00:52:00.920 - in trouble they're the ones that be in trouble they have to watch and make sure 00:52:00.920 --> 00:52:05.040 - they can make payroll because we don't make their payroll they make their pay 00:52:05.040 --> 00:52:15.680 - yes so we I mean we're all paying for it but I just think their payroll is paid 00:52:15.680 --> 00:52:23.200 - for out of the money coming in from gas tax and wheel tax and whatever the 00:52:23.200 --> 00:52:32.520 - revenue that's get coming in there and if I've got that wrong please - what what I 00:52:32.520 --> 00:52:37.520 - what you again I would recommend we bring the highway down to a million or 00:52:37.520 --> 00:52:43.920 - 750 I would not Marty probably agree I wouldn't recommend putting the election 00:52:43.920 --> 00:52:49.560 - fund I you and I know the election fund very very well but I think you just that 00:52:49.560 --> 00:52:54.320 - might get administratively more difficult and we again we're trying to 00:52:54.320 --> 00:53:02.560 - get something in place review it each and every year and not go too low into 00:53:02.560 --> 00:53:07.480 - the fund categories what's the hesitancy of putting the election fund there I'm 00:53:07.480 --> 00:53:11.760 - not sure I heard a reason what was what's the hesitancy it becomes an evident 00:53:11.760 --> 00:53:17.880 - tide as we all know and so it'll go to a low point afterwards and then it'll 00:53:17.880 --> 00:53:25.920 - start building and so if we don't size it to the low point after the major 00:53:25.920 --> 00:53:30.120 - election then you're going to get restrictive again to a certain degree 00:53:30.120 --> 00:53:37.600 - even though this doesn't restrict and so I think it's just right now the election 00:53:37.600 --> 00:53:44.200 - fund it may be I don't even know what the balance would be and it may be a 00:53:44.200 --> 00:53:54.840 - hard one to peg so but we can sure put it if you want it what would the balance 00:53:54.840 --> 00:54:07.080 - be right now in the election fund Bree is getting it I guess maybe the city 00:54:07.080 --> 00:54:14.600 - pays us back for the cost and so forth that may be a little more tangible thing 00:54:14.600 --> 00:54:21.440 - to Greg's objection is I expect if when we do a ratings call they would ask 00:54:21.440 --> 00:54:29.280 - about a variety of things and if that election fund balance is changing 00:54:29.280 --> 00:54:35.800 - annually then I would expect to get a lot of questions about that as to why that 00:54:35.800 --> 00:54:40.080 - funding why that funding so much different the other it's explainable but 00:54:40.080 --> 00:54:45.360 - I I guess from my perspective that is one where a minimum fund balance over 00:54:45.360 --> 00:54:51.880 - time that concept doesn't doesn't really hold well I think the four-year cycle 00:54:51.880 --> 00:54:56.960 - and I think we track that for your cycle separately to begin with anyway and it 00:54:56.960 --> 00:55:01.240 - comes up every year budget time so I think looking at that we already look at 00:55:01.240 --> 00:55:05.640 - that differently because it's different and so adding it to this is trying to 00:55:05.640 --> 00:55:11.400 - almost trying to put a square peg in a round hole at least that's my impression 00:55:11.400 --> 00:55:18.800 - I think you got my attention when you talked about the ratings I do have the 00:55:18.800 --> 00:55:23.880 - cash balance in the election fund if you'd like that I'm showing it at just 00:55:23.880 --> 00:55:33.120 - over 1.2 million and 1.2 and then I checked the 1782 is projected be 1.5 so 00:55:33.120 --> 00:55:38.520 - you know if we put it in there I would suggest something like five hundred to 00:55:38.520 --> 00:55:48.920 - start with that's the first Friday I think as far as I know it's the first 00:55:48.920 --> 00:55:57.600 - Friday first Friday noon siren it's a test it's a test you folks go ahead and 00:55:57.600 --> 00:56:06.960 - move with this anyway you wish to okay so what do we need to do then about this do 00:56:06.960 --> 00:56:13.280 - we need to actually just bring it back at a later look at the next LTF meeting 00:56:13.280 --> 00:56:19.680 - okay and that's okay with everyone okay is this not something that will be 00:56:19.680 --> 00:56:27.440 - decided by the entire council just I would suggest we move this forward to the 00:56:27.440 --> 00:56:33.920 - next council and with in my opinion it should be a no recommendation if we have 00:56:33.920 --> 00:56:40.800 - any questions or move it forward with approval whichever you'd rather just 00:56:40.800 --> 00:56:45.480 - let's just move it off of our calendar and move it over to the county council 00:56:45.480 --> 00:56:51.200 - it's not our choice any council okay for it to go to does that make sense I guess 00:56:51.200 --> 00:57:02.000 - the only would like to say sorry sure so the intent today was for LTF to review 00:57:02.000 --> 00:57:07.840 - the a rec resolution which clearly needs some edits and then LTF was either going 00:57:07.840 --> 00:57:11.960 - to recommend it to full council with a positive recommendation or a negative 00:57:11.960 --> 00:57:17.000 - recommendation so if we just want to send this to full council for discussion 00:57:17.000 --> 00:57:23.520 - I think that would be appropriate it does not have to be positive or negative 00:57:23.520 --> 00:57:28.640 - you can just send for discussion just like the plan commission could do with 00:57:28.640 --> 00:57:34.040 - no recommendation and get this moving forward because you'll get them get it 00:57:34.040 --> 00:57:42.920 - all right that changes that need be made and move it forward so let's move it 00:57:42.920 --> 00:57:48.400 - forward with no recommendation at this point is that right okay do we need to 00:57:48.400 --> 00:58:00.120 - take a vote on that I would so well okay I move that we take this report and move 00:58:00.120 --> 00:58:05.680 - it on to the full council with no recommendation expecting that there will 00:58:05.680 --> 00:58:17.080 - be changes made by the council attorney I'll second that all in favor I second 00:58:17.080 --> 00:58:25.760 - yes all in favor Marty are you in favor yes yes okay we're good we're moving on 00:58:25.760 --> 00:58:32.720 - okay so now we're talking about the COLA discussion and recommendations as far as 00:58:32.720 --> 00:58:39.640 - I can tell we're number five so I think there was an intent to update Greg on 00:58:39.640 --> 00:58:47.720 - the we sent a letter to see probably saw that and get feedback on that so we're 00:58:47.720 --> 00:58:51.920 - open to hearing what you have to tell us or say about that sure I thought it was 00:58:51.920 --> 00:58:59.320 - a very well done letter I believe what I had told you before and I just want to 00:58:59.320 --> 00:59:07.080 - qualify that the growth quotient was 4% for next year now where I want to highly 00:59:07.080 --> 00:59:14.600 - caution you I've now gone into the to talking to representative Thompson and 00:59:14.600 --> 00:59:21.520 - asked about the 4% I thought it was an awful nice increase for some reason and 00:59:21.520 --> 00:59:28.240 - I was waiting for the rest of the story part of the rest of the story was it it 00:59:28.240 --> 00:59:34.480 - is my understanding that they were actually going to grant 2% they gave an 00:59:34.480 --> 00:59:45.400 - additional 2% to help offset the $300 and then so that is why it's 4% the 00:59:45.400 --> 00:59:53.920 - effective yield across the state was for should really give you 2% real dollar 00:59:53.920 --> 01:00:02.120 - more we believe it will not give Monroe County of 2% real dollars more without 01:00:02.120 --> 01:00:09.840 - the additional new the levy coming back right and so our recommendation still is 01:00:09.840 --> 01:00:18.120 - 0 to 3% do not exceed 3% I point blank asked even even representative Thompson 01:00:18.120 --> 01:00:24.720 - if I was looking at a 4% tax or increase in payroll this year would you say yes 01:00:24.720 --> 01:00:28.640 - or no and he said no I would not advise that I said good that's not what I'm 01:00:28.640 --> 01:00:38.880 - advising so 0 maximum 3% 0 to 3 any other discussion about this 01:00:38.880 --> 01:00:46.840 - counselor hunk right I think this might be a good time because always when we're 01:00:46.840 --> 01:00:51.600 - talking about what kind of a salary increase you'd be talking about what kind 01:00:51.600 --> 01:00:58.440 - of levy increase dollars that might actually represent and so this might be 01:00:58.440 --> 01:01:03.720 - a good time to talk about whether we count the levy increase if we're just 01:01:03.720 --> 01:01:09.520 - doing it by the separate funds if we did I think the general fund levy for this 01:01:09.520 --> 01:01:14.840 - year because the increase is supposed to be over the present year's levy next 01:01:14.840 --> 01:01:21.360 - year's levy if they say 4% it would be times this year's general fund levy each 01:01:21.360 --> 01:01:28.000 - of those would be come together as the frozen levy 4% would have to cover all 01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:33.080 - of it of course that also has to cover that additional amount for health which 01:01:33.080 --> 01:01:37.520 - we said was going to be but if you take let's say if you take four percent are 01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:43.760 - we are we talking about if we're just talking about the general fund and four 01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:48.720 - percent of the general fund is like right now is seventeen million something 01:01:48.720 --> 01:01:55.560 - seventeen two twenty eight one eight eight one nine so if I take my or if my 01:01:55.560 --> 01:02:02.120 - staff member has his if we take that times by the way this is take as you 01:02:02.120 --> 01:02:12.280 - know he's with me and if we take that times four percent then that's what we 01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:17.680 - are going to get my calculators not showing up here under 800,000 yeah I 01:02:17.680 --> 01:02:22.360 - think there's a there was a discrepancy between the max levy that we could have 01:02:22.360 --> 01:02:27.520 - gotten and what we actually requested last year absolutely if yeah I guess I 01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:35.320 - guess maybe the question is that's why I wanted to ask this question are we so I 01:02:35.320 --> 01:02:39.920 - can we taking that four percent times where our present levy is which is way 01:02:39.920 --> 01:02:46.360 - the legislation reads if I if I look at it right so here here's the way we've 01:02:46.360 --> 01:02:56.280 - done it so far your 24 actual levy was 21 three your 25 we believe is going to 01:02:56.280 --> 01:03:03.400 - be 17 8 you know the exact number we talked about we believe the 26 will be 01:03:03.400 --> 01:03:12.640 - 21 350 21 million 350 deep would you have a reason to disagree that's what 01:03:12.640 --> 01:03:18.640 - we've built into the sustainability that includes they give the aspect and the 01:03:18.640 --> 01:03:29.520 - four percent last me let's go back to if it's was make up a number let's say if 01:03:29.520 --> 01:03:36.800 - it's 18 which is what where are let me ask for a general right now right for 25 01:03:36.800 --> 01:03:44.140 - let's just say 18 yeah and you take four times 18 right so the actual normal 01:03:44.140 --> 01:03:52.800 - maximum levy was 25 6 which makes up the 17 and the growth on the 4% the growth 01:03:52.800 --> 01:03:58.400 - on the 4% with or without is not that great so the key is getting back the lost 01:03:58.400 --> 01:04:04.800 - levy that's the that's the meaningful number hey I mean you're talking in 01:04:04.800 --> 01:04:14.320 - circles as far as I'm concerned I just want to know if we if we are if we take the 01:04:14.320 --> 01:04:24.120 - growth allowed times our present levy our exact present levy then the growth 01:04:24.120 --> 01:04:30.480 - number is how much okay so if we take the 4% times the 17.8 it's around seven 01:04:30.480 --> 01:04:35.880 - hundred and twelve thousand but what I'm cautioning you okay is you earn you're 01:04:35.880 --> 01:04:45.160 - going to budget 712 you're not going to get 712 you're gonna get at best half 01:04:45.160 --> 01:04:53.680 - that because of the loss revenue coming in from the $300 correct okay okay thanks 01:04:53.680 --> 01:05:01.160 - all right because when we were talking about and what kind of a salary increase 01:05:01.160 --> 01:05:05.560 - and I just think it was just all happening so quick it was like okay let's 01:05:05.560 --> 01:05:12.280 - just like we got to say something and that's where that so good 3% raise came 01:05:12.280 --> 01:05:21.040 - in well the 3% raise I got a figure yesterday just for general I think was 01:05:21.040 --> 01:05:27.280 - over 800,000 they may have new numbers for us I'm working on those I will have 01:05:27.280 --> 01:05:35.720 - that later today I so I hope nobody's expecting us to make a decision without 01:05:35.720 --> 01:05:40.680 - information I mean I'm just saying and it's not fair to you to ask you to make 01:05:40.680 --> 01:05:47.420 - help us make that decision when we don't have the right numbers we're saying we 01:05:47.420 --> 01:05:51.880 - hold the course I believe the recommendation so far out of the 01:05:51.880 --> 01:05:58.400 - letter was 3% I did tell you that was the proposed percentage yes by the way I 01:05:58.400 --> 01:06:02.680 - did talk to the council president yesterday on the on the phone just kind 01:06:02.680 --> 01:06:10.040 - of in preparation for today and she also came back informed me that the step 01:06:10.040 --> 01:06:21.440 - increases had been frozen is that correct or no okay no what there is a 01:06:21.440 --> 01:06:28.200 - pause with regards to departments going to with asking for classification 01:06:28.200 --> 01:06:36.320 - reviews as well as a pause on knowledge skills and assess abilities with regards 01:06:36.320 --> 01:06:42.520 - to hiring new employees at the different step increase levels rather than the 01:06:42.520 --> 01:06:47.760 - minimum so that has all been put on pause okay yeah and that was that's so 01:06:47.760 --> 01:06:53.540 - that was the correct terms thank you and so given that I think the letter still 01:06:53.540 --> 01:07:00.760 - is is quite handy and quite let's let's begin there and as we move forward I 01:07:00.760 --> 01:07:06.440 - mean in essence don't ask for 6% right we don't have that unless there was a 01:07:06.440 --> 01:07:13.600 - special situation then my understanding is that that may come up but at this 01:07:13.600 --> 01:07:24.400 - point in time that's where we're at okay you would almost had to be there see 01:07:24.400 --> 01:07:31.240 - why how we got to where we got to I mean we were we were first of all had a 01:07:31.240 --> 01:07:36.120 - meeting and they were trying to decide what kind of a raise to give and so the 01:07:36.120 --> 01:07:43.200 - question was made by the members of the council what what is it gonna cost what's 01:07:43.200 --> 01:07:50.480 - the financial implication so we had another meeting and that it appeared that 01:07:50.480 --> 01:07:55.200 - all of it was put together no matter where the revenue was coming from and 01:07:55.200 --> 01:08:01.160 - there was major discussion going on at the council level and it was like a big 01:08:01.160 --> 01:08:05.700 - push to get that letter out from the council to so the department has to put 01:08:05.700 --> 01:08:14.240 - together budgets and and so that's just sort of the 3% came kind of out of some 01:08:14.240 --> 01:08:22.160 - kind of a the cost of living report from wherever but we didn't really have the 01:08:22.160 --> 01:08:27.200 - numbers so we were just voting to like I said we don't even have the numbers to 01:08:27.200 --> 01:08:32.480 - know what we're voting on here to really understand by fun because as far as I'm 01:08:32.480 --> 01:08:38.060 - concerned you have to look at it by fun because that the revenue comes in by 01:08:38.060 --> 01:08:46.480 - fun actually I recommended in the prior meeting not exceed 3% because I said 01:08:46.480 --> 01:08:51.360 - that would be we'll be lucky to even get there so actually I've said and I've 01:08:51.360 --> 01:08:59.960 - said across the state don't go more than 3% would I like to see to sure yeah you 01:08:59.960 --> 01:09:04.160 - know but to be able to give and I've worked with salary committees and other 01:09:04.160 --> 01:09:08.840 - counties Hancock County and I said do not get 5% and they were like we'll get 5% 01:09:08.840 --> 01:09:15.320 - now and we'll say zero in the future no what makes more sense is some now and I 01:09:15.320 --> 01:09:21.200 - said this before at this meeting let's give some to maybe 2% 2% next year 2% 01:09:21.200 --> 01:09:28.160 - after that that to me makes more sense okay and what you said earlier was we're 01:09:28.160 --> 01:09:35.600 - not really going to get for we're going to get how much to at best at so I think 01:09:35.600 --> 01:09:46.040 - it is very irresponsible to say going in and figure a 3% raise if all of our new 01:09:46.040 --> 01:09:52.160 - revenue is not going to be more than two would seem to me we don't even have the 01:09:52.160 --> 01:09:56.240 - numbers right I agree and but I think for me the key language in that letter 01:09:56.240 --> 01:10:01.160 - said proposed 3% so that to me that indicated that it might go up to that 01:10:01.160 --> 01:10:05.200 - but it could be something different than that that's how I interpreted it right 01:10:05.200 --> 01:10:12.920 - it's just that we know our first of all it's up to the council and this all this 01:10:12.920 --> 01:10:17.360 - is beginning to sound like a budget meeting and this is not supposed to be a 01:10:17.360 --> 01:10:22.400 - budget meeting this is supposed to be long-term finance and so this decision 01:10:22.400 --> 01:10:28.760 - should not be made by two people on sitting here on this long-term finance 01:10:28.760 --> 01:10:35.400 - committee because it's budget but when we get more information and I'm hoping 01:10:35.400 --> 01:10:40.760 - that council will take another look at this but it really as council member 01:10:40.760 --> 01:10:44.840 - will said they're going to have all these departments are going to have to 01:10:44.840 --> 01:10:48.520 - rework all their budgets and they're in the process right now trying to put 01:10:48.520 --> 01:10:55.840 - budgets together and if we think 3% is really not sustainable or we're really 01:10:55.840 --> 01:11:00.280 - spending down our cash just to make this work what we're going to do we don't have 01:11:00.280 --> 01:11:06.760 - it for the following year I just have concerns I voted in favor to just send it 01:11:06.760 --> 01:11:13.200 - forward so the departments could start working but but once again I think this 01:11:13.200 --> 01:11:21.560 - is a budget issue and not a long-term range finance issue so will we then is 01:11:21.560 --> 01:11:29.160 - it the the will of these two here today to move forward with a discussion and no 01:11:29.160 --> 01:11:35.480 - recommendation is that right right but before we go there I just want to make 01:11:35.480 --> 01:11:41.360 - sure that I'm understanding the information we're receiving if we are to 01:11:41.360 --> 01:11:49.200 - look at our projected revenue and including our levy growth a four but 01:11:49.200 --> 01:11:56.480 - really is going to end up with two we look at what our approved maximum levy 01:11:56.480 --> 01:12:01.960 - what we were approved this year and that means we had a three point eight 01:12:01.960 --> 01:12:10.680 - million dollar less so we figure out what it is times this year we don't just 01:12:10.680 --> 01:12:16.040 - like bump it up to three point eight and put another four on top of that is that 01:12:16.040 --> 01:12:22.440 - do I understand you correctly so you're gonna use the maximum levy that is in 01:12:22.440 --> 01:12:28.680 - the 1782 to the best of my knowledge this doesn't happen very often that's 01:12:28.680 --> 01:12:35.000 - what I see and the difference is eight fifty four versus seven twelve so you're 01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:40.880 - talking about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars that you probably won't ever get 01:12:40.880 --> 01:12:48.600 - either so or it'll be cut in half at best too so that's that and now remember 01:12:48.600 --> 01:12:54.560 - it's divvied up the way it was divvied up you're making an assumption that it's 01:12:54.560 --> 01:13:01.640 - divvied up in twenty five twenty six the same way it's divvied up in 25 and what 01:13:01.640 --> 01:13:06.840 - I've said in the sustainability I know the writings on the wall we need that 01:13:06.840 --> 01:13:13.520 - levy back in the general fund otherwise the report I showed you last year where 01:13:13.520 --> 01:13:20.560 - cash was going like that okay it's really going like that so keep that in 01:13:20.560 --> 01:13:27.240 - mind okay we got to have that levy back in the general fund otherwise we're out 01:13:27.240 --> 01:13:34.240 - of balance and I still have us out of balance on a 26 estimated basis but I 01:13:34.240 --> 01:13:41.280 - need we need the 26 budgeted numbers from the department hats before we can 01:13:41.280 --> 01:13:49.960 - move solidly ahead what about the 3.8 million that was short that's what I 01:13:49.960 --> 01:13:55.800 - said I I have projected most of that will go into the general fund that's 01:13:55.800 --> 01:14:03.200 - where we needed it and that's where it was I just asked a clarifying question 01:14:03.200 --> 01:14:10.320 - because I'm getting a little lost over here last year 1782 came back with 17 01:14:10.320 --> 01:14:15.960 - plus million as our general fund levy yes all right so when the council goes 01:14:15.960 --> 01:14:21.720 - to approve the tax rates and levies for next year they should include the 3.8 01:14:21.720 --> 01:14:27.440 - plus 4% on top of that in what they approve knowing that it'll probably get 01:14:27.440 --> 01:14:32.320 - kept at because of various SP1 factors am I right or wrong on absolutely matter 01:14:32.320 --> 01:14:42.320 - of fact I might even put in 5% just for factors unknown to us today and taxpayers 01:14:42.320 --> 01:14:49.800 - I hope you guys all understand what the taxpayers this year more than one of them 01:14:49.800 --> 01:14:53.960 - come up to me and say I thought my taxes were going to go down because of that 01:14:53.960 --> 01:14:59.000 - 3.8 million wasn't on there and my taxes didn't go down a bit well that was 01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:03.960 - because you know the school and whatever ate up what what we might have lost but 01:15:03.960 --> 01:15:10.920 - if you put that on top of where people are this year on top of that and put 01:15:10.920 --> 01:15:22.620 - another 4% on top of that folks I mean are we really gonna do that because we 01:15:22.620 --> 01:15:27.480 - are here not just to represent can a government but to represent the people 01:15:27.480 --> 01:15:32.480 - who support kind of government but that's just me anyway it's not our 01:15:32.480 --> 01:15:41.160 - choice yeah so our tax rate in 24 was 35.7 point three five seven pennies our 01:15:41.160 --> 01:15:52.160 - tax rate for 25 was 0.3064 we have gone to the lowest tax rate in the last ten 01:15:52.160 --> 01:16:00.720 - years for Monroe County itself okay and now Marty you also see why the geo 01:16:00.720 --> 01:16:09.000 - discussion became a interrogate why I said six for six because I'm looking at 01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:14.480 - the totality I'm not looking at geo versus whatever I'm looking at the 01:16:14.480 --> 01:16:21.080 - total picture okay and trying to achieve where you're trying to go but keep in 01:16:21.080 --> 01:16:28.120 - mind we had a significant reduction I call that very material reduction in our 01:16:28.120 --> 01:16:34.920 - Monroe County tax rate we can't help what others did but the writings on the 01:16:34.920 --> 01:16:39.800 - writings in the numbers it's in the numbers and and is that the one that I 01:16:39.800 --> 01:16:46.240 - think that legislation starts right now if that when we do that we have to have 01:16:46.240 --> 01:16:52.480 - a special meeting set aside just for that nothing else on that and to say to 01:16:52.480 --> 01:16:58.900 - the taxpayer that we are going to raise this this tax higher than the four 01:16:58.900 --> 01:17:04.120 - percent over our present tax level ma'am that is not my understanding that it's 01:17:04.120 --> 01:17:13.920 - in play this year it comes later you do not have to have any special hearings 01:17:13.920 --> 01:17:27.360 - this year being twenty twenty five for twenty twenty six and I'm staff all 01:17:27.360 --> 01:17:29.840 - agrees 01:17:29.840 --> 01:17:40.000 - today at the meeting we attended so that it's not for this coming budget year 01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:49.760 - hey being on I think we might need to move on right but I don't know about a 01:17:49.760 --> 01:17:53.600 - recommendation what are we doing here counsel hawk about that what are you 01:17:53.600 --> 01:17:58.480 - feeling what are you thinking it says Cola discussion and recommendations 01:17:58.480 --> 01:18:04.040 - it's a we don't have the numbers anyway how do we make a recommendation so I 01:18:04.040 --> 01:18:09.040 - think without the numbers we will just be neutral on that recommendation and 01:18:09.040 --> 01:18:15.280 - forward it on to the council is that right wait till we get exactly what 01:18:15.280 --> 01:18:20.160 - it's going on with us perfect so do we need a vote on the the neutral 01:18:20.160 --> 01:18:26.200 - recommendation then we need a vote on the new neutral recommendation you want 01:18:26.200 --> 01:18:29.080 - me to make a motion I don't know if we need money or do we just need to have a 01:18:29.080 --> 01:18:33.880 - discussion honestly without the numbers I'm not even sure what you're forwarding 01:18:33.880 --> 01:18:38.800 - to them we're just we just look forwarding the fact that we had this 01:18:38.800 --> 01:18:42.800 - discussion and it will come up again right but that I think that may be 01:18:42.800 --> 01:18:46.880 - obvious right the fact that it's gonna come up again at the council so maybe we 01:18:46.880 --> 01:18:52.920 - don't need to have I guess if it were me and again I'm not on the council is that 01:18:52.920 --> 01:18:58.580 - I I don't I think until you have what you consider adequate information for a 01:18:58.580 --> 01:19:02.080 - decision to be made I don't think you have anything really to forward on to 01:19:02.080 --> 01:19:05.480 - just looking at the agenda where it said recommendation so I was just trying to 01:19:05.480 --> 01:19:08.720 - find recommendation would be that you look at this at your next meeting and 01:19:08.720 --> 01:19:12.480 - hopefully you'll have more information okay so do we need to have a vote to do 01:19:12.480 --> 01:19:19.400 - that that's the question no no vote necessary further I would just like for 01:19:19.400 --> 01:19:23.680 - us to take another look at what our mission is here and I do not think we're 01:19:23.680 --> 01:19:31.880 - budgeting year-by-year a committee but if we have changed the rule and the role 01:19:31.880 --> 01:19:38.360 - of what the long-term finance committee is supposed to be doing then I don't 01:19:38.360 --> 01:19:41.280 - want us to be the budget committee because I want to pick up a phone call 01:19:41.280 --> 01:19:48.280 - you whenever I want to to discuss the budgets which I could not do if we are 01:19:48.280 --> 01:19:53.720 - now the budget committee said so that it was never set up to be that way so I 01:19:53.720 --> 01:20:01.720 - think that any two or three of us could get together and discuss budgets and we 01:20:01.720 --> 01:20:08.380 - don't have to do that in public and we can meet with others whatever but if for 01:20:08.380 --> 01:20:14.560 - a formal committee such as this then if it is suddenly the budget committee I 01:20:14.560 --> 01:20:21.800 - can't talk with you about budgets anymore that's not acceptable I think at 01:20:21.800 --> 01:20:26.880 - this point we're moving on to number six is that right so all right so that says 01:20:26.880 --> 01:20:32.680 - self-insurance budgets and item a is self-insurance operating funds so Bree 01:20:32.680 --> 01:20:37.840 - is going to take I think a and give us kind of an update on where we are on 6b 01:20:37.840 --> 01:20:41.600 - I'm running into people on vacation at the State Board of Accountants the 01:20:41.600 --> 01:20:47.200 - answer is the self-insurance reserve fund is going to be recommended it is 01:20:47.200 --> 01:20:51.640 - recommended by me for the long-term financial health of the county that has 01:20:51.640 --> 01:20:57.000 - been done in many many places I've got three million in Hendrix I've got three 01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:02.520 - million in Hancock I've got five hundred thousand in Shelby the State Board of 01:21:02.520 --> 01:21:07.680 - Accounts is kind of just saying hey we don't know why you're doing it and I'm 01:21:07.680 --> 01:21:13.120 - going to explain why we're doing it and it makes good financial sense when you 01:21:13.120 --> 01:21:20.200 - have something go awry in your and you get something way over your stop-loss 01:21:20.200 --> 01:21:27.560 - you got to have a way to do it as money gets tighter and tighter so from will be 01:21:27.560 --> 01:21:34.600 - coming back 6b after I discuss it with the State Board of Accounts and saying 01:21:34.600 --> 01:21:39.720 - really this is not an audit this is not they're trying to play kind of like 01:21:39.720 --> 01:21:44.840 - financial advisor and and I want to just assure them there's financial reasons to 01:21:44.840 --> 01:21:48.840 - do it and it's not an audit should not be an audit the issue in any way shape 01:21:48.840 --> 01:21:54.160 - perform so 6a no wait when will it come back then I missed that next meeting 01:21:54.160 --> 01:22:02.400 - thank you thank you this is this is absolutely essential that we do not let 01:22:02.400 --> 01:22:11.360 - that fund be reduced too far because it only takes just one one big turn this 01:22:11.360 --> 01:22:18.320 - upside down so we simply can't do that yep we need the what-if okay so a thank 01:22:18.320 --> 01:22:26.160 - you there has been an extensive review of the self insurance fund recently we're 01:22:26.160 --> 01:22:30.840 - currently sitting at a four point nine million dollar balance in a billion 01:22:30.840 --> 01:22:36.240 - pardon million or billion million thank you certainly not billion just one to 01:22:36.240 --> 01:22:42.400 - make that clarification thank you that'd be nice however we've noticed that this 01:22:42.400 --> 01:22:50.760 - fund has been trending down where it appears that health care has gotten more 01:22:50.760 --> 01:22:55.240 - expensive the county is expending the funding more quickly we've been very 01:22:55.240 --> 01:23:00.920 - conservative with the budgeting in the past where we probably should have raised 01:23:00.920 --> 01:23:11.440 - that a little bit more however we are focused on that at this time the 01:23:11.440 --> 01:23:17.720 - president's letter asked that we budget eighteen thousand dollars per position 01:23:17.720 --> 01:23:23.000 - which will help us go into the right direction I had a great conversation 01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:27.560 - with the commissioners administrator recently and she has been communicating 01:23:27.560 --> 01:23:36.360 - with our vendors and getting some some financial information on what to expect 01:23:36.360 --> 01:23:44.280 - moving forward and I know that FSG has also been very involved in this so my 01:23:44.280 --> 01:23:47.400 - current level this year and I believe that's the same for the commissioners 01:23:47.400 --> 01:23:53.520 - administrator is that the council consider an additional appropriation 01:23:53.520 --> 01:24:05.640 - budgeting maybe around 15 to 1600 so 1600 per employee to to address any 01:24:05.640 --> 01:24:13.480 - potential shortfalls in this fund for 2025 it's it seems that we start to 01:24:13.480 --> 01:24:17.360 - trend lower and more and more expenses come through toward the end of the year 01:24:17.360 --> 01:24:22.760 - as you know people meet their deductibles and so forth so that would 01:24:22.760 --> 01:24:27.800 - just be a safety net for the county and then with the anticipated much larger 01:24:27.800 --> 01:24:34.080 - budget per position we anticipate being in much better shape in this fund and 01:24:34.080 --> 01:24:43.720 - for 2026 and so this 1600 is in addition to the 18 it is I we need to address and 01:24:43.720 --> 01:24:48.960 - you know this work we're simply analyzing expenses right now and 01:24:48.960 --> 01:24:52.440 - projecting so I can't tell you for certain where we'll be at the end of the 01:24:52.440 --> 01:24:59.680 - year however some projections have have indicated that the fun will either be 01:24:59.680 --> 01:25:04.560 - very low or even in the red at the end of 25 and so so that I understand it 01:25:04.560 --> 01:25:10.920 - since I'm pretty new if this operating fund then needs other monies does it come 01:25:10.920 --> 01:25:15.200 - out of this the self-insurance reserve fund or where does it come out of we 01:25:15.200 --> 01:25:19.600 - currently do not have a reserve fund and there needs to be more conversation with 01:25:19.600 --> 01:25:25.400 - the State Board of Accounts because they currently indicate that that is not a 01:25:25.400 --> 01:25:29.720 - possibility however I think other counties may have that so we're gonna 01:25:29.720 --> 01:25:34.280 - work with State Board of Accounts and and see whether or not that would be a 01:25:34.280 --> 01:25:38.560 - possibility more conversation needs to be had however regardless of where the 01:25:38.560 --> 01:25:44.000 - funding lies we need to have a healthy operating balance and I think our 01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:49.080 - comfort level for the immediate future is about 1.5 million and we need to 01:25:49.080 --> 01:25:55.520 - significantly increase that in the future I see a hand over here Michelle yes I 01:25:55.520 --> 01:26:00.520 - just spoke with the Commissioner's administrator we want to make sure that 01:26:00.520 --> 01:26:05.180 - you understand that the additional amount that they're asking for is for 01:26:05.180 --> 01:26:18.440 - 2025 and that additional amount will be either 1,500 or 1,600 right pardon okay 01:26:18.440 --> 01:26:26.720 - that is not to be included for the 2026 amount that's just a that amount that 01:26:26.720 --> 01:26:31.560 - they're asking is the additional amount for this year the current year correct 01:26:31.560 --> 01:26:36.320 - am I correct in that Angie is that what you're saying okay I just want to 01:26:36.320 --> 01:26:46.720 - make sure that there's two different things yes and just for for us to 01:26:46.720 --> 01:26:52.600 - remember the reason why the state has problem with having this reserve fund is 01:26:52.600 --> 01:26:58.360 - because they continue to remind us we're only allowed one rainy day fund and if 01:26:58.360 --> 01:27:02.680 - they consider this to be more like a rainy day fund if they're gonna say no 01:27:02.680 --> 01:27:07.360 - no you can't have two rainy day funds but if you recall my guidance from the 01:27:07.360 --> 01:27:14.000 - get-go was you can you would not call it a rainy day fund we we did we do not do 01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:18.640 - that you know in the counties that we have it we call it a reserve fund and 01:27:18.640 --> 01:27:24.360 - that's why I specifically called it a reserve fund and they don't they're there 01:27:24.360 --> 01:27:29.560 - if you read their their email very very carefully it's they want to know why we 01:27:29.560 --> 01:27:36.720 - just don't keep it in 6a and the I'm going to say the track record speaks for 01:27:36.720 --> 01:27:45.560 - itself and if we didn't do it like in a reserve fund we would just need to keep 01:27:45.560 --> 01:27:53.160 - that the operating fund much higher and watch it very very carefully yes I mean 01:27:53.160 --> 01:27:58.920 - some some way or the other we have to just yeah well we have to pay the bills 01:27:58.920 --> 01:28:07.120 - right yes just add to it so how how much is that total that we need for additional 01:28:07.120 --> 01:28:13.800 - for this year and the other question is which we've had some response from some 01:28:13.800 --> 01:28:21.720 - of the department heads especially maybe some with the grants or whatever if they 01:28:21.720 --> 01:28:27.760 - know they don't have if their employees are not using the insurance they still 01:28:27.760 --> 01:28:33.880 - have to count in their budget for so many people and I would assume first of 01:28:33.880 --> 01:28:38.080 - all that sort of helps spread the insurance cost around but in addition to 01:28:38.080 --> 01:28:42.960 - which if they have one person leave and another person comes in and needs the 01:28:42.960 --> 01:28:47.920 - insurance of their their budget would be you know the whole thing would be off so 01:28:47.920 --> 01:28:53.840 - I think I hope that they have received an answer to their questions I think 01:28:53.840 --> 01:28:57.560 - that was at that meeting was that just yesterday it seems like three years ago 01:28:57.560 --> 01:29:06.760 - now when they were questioning whether or not they would have to include everyone 01:29:06.760 --> 01:29:11.760 - so but what do we have a dollar amount of what the total amount of the 01:29:11.760 --> 01:29:16.360 - additional is going to be asked for I think our we're comfortable with and 01:29:16.360 --> 01:29:20.520 - obviously it's worth the mercy of the council here but around 1 million which 01:29:20.520 --> 01:29:25.120 - works out to over fifteen hundred per employee right in between fifteen and 01:29:25.120 --> 01:29:40.160 - sixteen is that the discussion I'm recalling Angie so sorry can you come to 01:29:40.160 --> 01:29:46.040 - the mic so that everybody else can hear what's going on thank you thank you 01:29:46.040 --> 01:29:57.560 - there's a whole row at table left over you can sign right up here all right 01:29:57.560 --> 01:30:04.000 - thanks so part of this is kind of somewhat dependent on how badly this 01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:13.120 - fund does for this particular year but I had in my mind in order for us to end 01:30:13.120 --> 01:30:22.480 - the year with with a balance of 1.5 million we would need an additional 1 01:30:22.480 --> 01:30:25.880 - million five hundred seventy three thousand six hundred thirty six dollars 01:30:25.880 --> 01:30:31.480 - and twenty seven cents which is equated to two thousand four hundred fifty eight 01:30:31.480 --> 01:30:36.400 - dollars and eighty one cents per full-time employee of Monroe County is 01:30:36.400 --> 01:30:42.080 - that different than what you were talking about it is I when we spoke 01:30:42.080 --> 01:30:46.840 - yesterday I thought we were talking about a 1 million dollar considering a 1 01:30:46.840 --> 01:30:51.640 - million dollar appropriation this year so um I'm whatever the recommendation is 01:30:51.640 --> 01:30:58.640 - I I'm conversation I but I thought we were talking in general generalities 01:30:58.640 --> 01:31:03.720 - because they didn't have the actual amount so yeah it was a million but that 01:31:03.720 --> 01:31:09.720 - is the the recommendation so give us again the more specific numbers if you 01:31:09.720 --> 01:31:16.580 - please so we're not talking about 1600 per employee we're talking about a 01:31:16.580 --> 01:31:21.480 - different number is that right can you tell us that different amount now you 01:31:21.480 --> 01:31:25.680 - want it per employee or you want a total amount I want both of them okay so the 01:31:25.680 --> 01:31:34.080 - total amount is one five seven three six three six point two seven that's the 01:31:34.080 --> 01:31:38.960 - total amount that is recommended for the fund uh-huh to be sustainable through 01:31:38.960 --> 01:31:47.240 - this year to end the year with a balance of one point five million okay and that 01:31:47.240 --> 01:31:56.320 - equates to yes two thousand four hundred five eight point eight one per full-time 01:31:56.320 --> 01:32:07.200 - employee in the budget again we're kind of playing with crystal balls I get you 01:32:07.200 --> 01:32:12.320 - okay yeah it's not absolute until you spend the money yeah as far as I can 01:32:12.320 --> 01:32:20.920 - tell right mm-hmm could I ask the the additional money we got for the 01:32:20.920 --> 01:32:29.360 - supplemental was that that still setting in the general fund right yes you should 01:32:29.360 --> 01:32:35.120 - answer specifically the supplemental associated with the general fund 01:32:35.120 --> 01:32:41.280 - because they're supplementals on all lids right I just made the general fund 01:32:41.280 --> 01:32:47.800 - supplemental has not been moved over we had talked at one time moving money over 01:32:47.800 --> 01:32:52.640 - into the rainy day have we moved any to the rainy day yet this year no council 01:32:52.640 --> 01:33:03.600 - would have to approve that yeah I have is one million two sixty in to the 01:33:03.600 --> 01:33:15.880 - general fund now but that sounds accurate okay thank you and that's a 01:33:15.880 --> 01:33:21.840 - budget question all right anything else on six a or B or we covered that well 01:33:21.840 --> 01:33:32.040 - enough seven are we on Senate bill one now that that one I think we kind of did 01:33:32.040 --> 01:33:39.880 - Senate bill one all all morning long yeah exactly and Brie has put together 01:33:39.880 --> 01:33:46.280 - another spreadsheet that shows the tax impact of the lit I think you just look 01:33:46.280 --> 01:33:52.960 - that over in light of it almost being quarter one and then we can move to 01:33:52.960 --> 01:33:58.320 - number eight being on to number eight you're right what's going on 01:33:58.320 --> 01:34:07.400 - counselor hug okay so we've got Senate bill 1b which is fiscal impact to 01:34:07.400 --> 01:34:12.000 - taxpayers what do we have there it says that information we received this 01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:16.560 - morning that was on the first one he just talked about that he talked about 01:34:16.560 --> 01:34:24.680 - the chart we received where you put together yeah yeah at this point do you 01:34:24.680 --> 01:34:30.120 - have any recommendations or thoughts you want to share with council about fully 01:34:30.120 --> 01:34:38.240 - utilizing the lid or any or is it too soon so the only other discussion we may 01:34:38.240 --> 01:34:51.480 - want to if you'll pass this out so the council and we've made Jeff aware of 01:34:51.480 --> 01:34:57.520 - this and this was not discussed yesterday but the County Council has the 01:34:57.520 --> 01:35:09.120 - right to replace some of the lost revenue as a result of the $300 it 01:35:09.120 --> 01:35:16.440 - specifically falls under the County Council it's specifically if you notice 01:35:16.440 --> 01:35:22.200 - here is not defined should not be defined but we put it in the bucket of 01:35:22.200 --> 01:35:28.720 - circuit breaker so representative Thompson told me Monday it is not 01:35:28.720 --> 01:35:37.400 - circuit breaker I agree it's a credit to the taxpayer the $300 so you'll you'll 01:35:37.400 --> 01:35:46.600 - both get a $300 credit right off your tax bill okay that will be lost revenue to 01:35:46.600 --> 01:35:52.720 - the county if you recall I said that's why the growth quotient was for to make 01:35:52.720 --> 01:35:59.120 - up for some of that but here we've calculated out Brie with your help 1 01:35:59.120 --> 01:36:08.760 - million 610 is the lost revenue to the county's portion which were 17.5 of the 01:36:08.760 --> 01:36:16.000 - tax rate so you you have the County Council has the ability and I discussed 01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:24.320 - this with this Crosley yesterday and we have this possibility in the statute 01:36:24.320 --> 01:36:28.560 - most people haven't even read that little section because it was it 01:36:28.560 --> 01:36:32.880 - discussed yesterday I brought it up to barn one of the Barnes and Thornburg 01:36:32.880 --> 01:36:39.320 - attorneys and they're looking at it it's been sent to Jeff he's looking at it it 01:36:39.320 --> 01:36:45.360 - was buried okay it has some indications what it would do is basically give a 01:36:45.360 --> 01:36:51.360 - taxpayer more of a credit which would relieve some circuit breaker so if you 01:36:51.360 --> 01:36:57.400 - really want to get complicated I am but one goes down one goes up okay right now 01:36:57.400 --> 01:37:06.000 - you can see that we're dealing with 1.6 million so it as Jeff gets educated on 01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:11.200 - this section and again everybody comes back to me and says well wait a minute 01:37:11.200 --> 01:37:16.920 - we got a Cajet County here with a with a what I call the phantom tax council 01:37:16.920 --> 01:37:23.560 - that's this point part of the statute I'm the CPA I'm not the attorney that's 01:37:23.560 --> 01:37:27.720 - why the attorney's got to give you the opinion it does say the County Council 01:37:27.720 --> 01:37:33.960 - doesn't say anything else so this is a section that I want Jeff to get educated 01:37:33.960 --> 01:37:40.660 - on Brie you probably need to look at it and maybe the overall possibility if we 01:37:40.660 --> 01:37:47.240 - want but I'm not advising anything yet at this point in time I want everybody to 01:37:47.240 --> 01:37:52.960 - get satisfied that is something we can use now I will put you on an all points 01:37:52.960 --> 01:38:00.460 - bulletin notice that by August 1 if you were I believe this is going to be 01:38:00.460 --> 01:38:06.400 - applicable on this section August 1 if you're going to change the lit and do 01:38:06.400 --> 01:38:14.880 - migration for juvenile detention Marty as you had indicated or anyone anything 01:38:14.880 --> 01:38:21.520 - like that we must give notice by August 1 keep in mind I have counties that issue 01:38:21.520 --> 01:38:25.760 - that notice every year in January 1 and say you know we think we're gonna do it 01:38:25.760 --> 01:38:30.480 - and that's that's again I think you've done that before in the past Jeff 01:38:30.480 --> 01:38:35.680 - you've given that notice haven't you if not we can provide you with it I will 01:38:35.680 --> 01:38:39.880 - check with Molly because she would have been the one who okay that show that's 01:38:39.880 --> 01:38:45.520 - your deadline coming and you need to make these decisions by October 1 for it 01:38:45.520 --> 01:38:53.840 - to be in place for 26 so I just discussed this in Hancock County this 01:38:53.840 --> 01:38:59.160 - week and everybody's like we thought maybe it was July 1 it is not it's 01:38:59.160 --> 01:39:08.720 - August 1 give notice adjust your lits by October 1 and maybe the city is going to 01:39:08.720 --> 01:39:16.880 - be adjusting lit also so we're really going to have to really get our ducks 01:39:16.880 --> 01:39:24.760 - in a row if we're going to do certain things so at this point in time I miss 01:39:24.760 --> 01:39:32.120 - Crosley I'd said I would just bring this section of the code up tell everybody 01:39:32.120 --> 01:39:38.520 - let's look at this little section that's in the SB one and let's give it some 01:39:38.520 --> 01:39:46.560 - thought that's about where I want to leave it I asked a question that may 01:39:46.560 --> 01:39:53.800 - bring up something earlier that we talked the of me the increase to the 01:39:53.800 --> 01:39:58.240 - county share circuit breaker you have 1.6 million yes is that when when you were 01:39:58.240 --> 01:40:01.560 - saying they named the four but we're only going to get two because of the 01:40:01.560 --> 01:40:08.200 - 300 is that kind of the 2% that you were talking about it sir okay because LSA is 01:40:08.200 --> 01:40:15.920 - 2.3 okay down see my footnote there and that's what the county share of the 9 01:40:15.920 --> 01:40:23.020 - million right Brie and so assumed within a couple things were assumed within the 01:40:23.020 --> 01:40:30.080 - 2.3 now remember when the LSA estimates were run they were run you know they 01:40:30.080 --> 01:40:34.640 - were run county by county but they were at the the facts and the figures that 01:40:34.640 --> 01:40:39.040 - existed you know LSA does a fabulous job I'm not gonna you know I'm not gonna bad 01:40:39.040 --> 01:40:43.600 - mouth them and all I'm not not doing that you know they did a good job with 01:40:43.600 --> 01:40:48.580 - the facts and figures they had it there at the moment they did it and it you 01:40:48.580 --> 01:40:55.640 - know they were pretty tight on time but now we're specific to Monroe with your 01:40:55.640 --> 01:41:02.440 - homesteads using the most of the 300 not all matter of fact we did another 01:41:02.440 --> 01:41:06.520 - calculation yesterday and said based upon some of the numbers that you've 01:41:06.520 --> 01:41:12.240 - given us that that may yield it down to an average for the county of two maybe 01:41:12.240 --> 01:41:19.960 - 250,000 and I had another county it's 275 so but we are estimating on the high 01:41:19.960 --> 01:41:26.600 - side so that was rolled up according to representative Thompson there I he told 01:41:26.600 --> 01:41:32.100 - me there was a report specifically on the 300 but I don't think it exists they 01:41:32.100 --> 01:41:39.120 - they may have had it at that night but that's rolls up to the 2.3 and I'm 01:41:39.120 --> 01:41:44.720 - worried that maybe the 2.3 is not high enough but maybe we were a little too 01:41:44.720 --> 01:41:51.240 - conservative or too much on the 1.6 so that's the answer your question I'm 01:41:51.240 --> 01:41:58.200 - sorry if I confuse you further no no I think that number the increase in county 01:41:58.200 --> 01:42:01.900 - share of CV that's what we're talking when we talked about hey they gave us 01:42:01.900 --> 01:42:06.600 - four percent but they really only gave us two percent that number is the 01:42:06.600 --> 01:42:10.640 - hypothetical difference knowing every county is different and it's never going 01:42:10.640 --> 01:42:15.200 - to be exactly four or two percent and I I call it circuit breaker and I was 01:42:15.200 --> 01:42:19.480 - corrected several times earlier this week it's not circuit breaker it's lost 01:42:19.480 --> 01:42:24.440 - revenue I understand I just put it in the total bucket of we don't get that 01:42:24.440 --> 01:42:34.560 - money as a county okay so yes counselor hunk right I would think that also the 01:42:34.560 --> 01:42:40.140 - cause of the change in the circuit breaker rules for the over 65 and if you 01:42:40.140 --> 01:42:45.920 - look at our circuit breaker report you'll see a large number of the loss of 01:42:45.920 --> 01:42:52.800 - circuit breakers is for those over 65 and because that legislation changed and 01:42:52.800 --> 01:42:57.680 - it will affect what we receive or will not be receiving next year it's great 01:42:57.680 --> 01:43:03.280 - for the taxpayer but it will be less dollars for us because they raised the 01:43:03.280 --> 01:43:08.600 - revenue of how much people could make and they also took away any ceiling of 01:43:08.600 --> 01:43:16.600 - how much the assessed value could be for the property so understand that yes so 01:43:16.600 --> 01:43:21.120 - if you looked at our circuit breaker report and you looked at how many were 01:43:21.120 --> 01:43:28.600 - over 65 and you recognize that's good that dollar amounts could be greater if 01:43:28.600 --> 01:43:35.120 - more more people apply for because more people will be qualified to receive it 01:43:35.120 --> 01:43:40.800 - right and it is my understanding that LSA used that in the 2.3 there is a lot 01:43:40.800 --> 01:43:45.360 - going on in that - okay now I'm and see I know you had discussion with others 01:43:45.360 --> 01:43:49.120 - evidently you had a meeting yesterday I wasn't a part of that well no no no 01:43:49.120 --> 01:43:54.960 - there wasn't a meeting the only I called oh the one that is miss Crosley about 01:43:54.960 --> 01:44:01.200 - anything else I needed to cover today that was it okay and I'm hearing you say 01:44:01.200 --> 01:44:06.540 - something about 2.3 and not what are you talking about that is the LSA number at 01:44:06.540 --> 01:44:12.560 - the very bottom of this page that is the LSA number that's been in print for 2 01:44:12.560 --> 01:44:18.160 - million 300 I was looking for something I said 2.3 as okay okay million three 01:44:18.160 --> 01:44:36.960 - okay estimated by everybody okay and this is based on their on the existing 1782 01:44:36.960 --> 01:44:48.880 - notice which you're suggesting that I looked at that made me think something 01:44:48.880 --> 01:45:01.080 - else as well because our revenue source for our income tax is tied to our 01:45:01.080 --> 01:45:13.080 - property tax levy and so our share was 3.8 million less than and we would be 01:45:13.080 --> 01:45:18.800 - receiving because that is a part of the way they compute how much we're going 01:45:18.800 --> 01:45:25.400 - to get at the income tax certified shared distribution well so I think one 01:45:25.400 --> 01:45:30.760 - of your taxes actually population-based correct and so the other ones are 01:45:30.760 --> 01:45:37.120 - levy based so yes in your hypothetical if the levy goes up the income taxes 01:45:37.120 --> 01:45:46.120 - will go up and for one year in 2027 you look at the distribution numbers of the 01:45:46.120 --> 01:45:53.440 - certified share income tax distribution if you look what I certified share is 01:45:53.440 --> 01:46:00.740 - for this year because that was based on numbers previous years numbers next year 01:46:00.740 --> 01:46:07.760 - numbers will be based on this year's levy numbers 25 numbers seem to me a good way 01:46:07.760 --> 01:46:11.840 - to look at that because we don't have that information back in the state we 01:46:11.840 --> 01:46:19.120 - could take like maybe the the four highest units that receive a distribution 01:46:19.120 --> 01:46:28.160 - of their certified shares that would be the city the county library and the fire 01:46:28.160 --> 01:46:35.440 - district and you could look to see what what their property tax levy was 01:46:35.440 --> 01:46:44.680 - approved on their 1782s and see which of those were higher or less and it come up 01:46:44.680 --> 01:46:53.560 - with an amount that we could see how much higher and where we are now and I 01:46:53.560 --> 01:46:57.440 - mean I could almost see it in my head how to do it I'm not making a lot of 01:46:57.440 --> 01:47:04.280 - sense but with you the four higher ones we can figure out where we stand stack 01:47:04.280 --> 01:47:09.140 - up with it then you can make up a number put a hundred and see what our 01:47:09.140 --> 01:47:15.040 - percentages of the hundred and then we would know what our percentage up or 01:47:15.040 --> 01:47:22.000 - down might be for our total once we get I mean just just as a way to make an 01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:31.720 - estimate so in just simply say it 26 income taxes that you receive are based 01:47:31.720 --> 01:47:38.320 - upon the prior years levy in the ones that are not population-based yeah yeah 01:47:38.320 --> 01:47:47.720 - that's a certified share and since 25 levy was less then we will have less a 01:47:47.720 --> 01:47:55.280 - little less than 26 then it will go up in 26 which will get a little bit more in 01:47:55.280 --> 01:48:00.960 - 27 and after that it's all done I'm just saying when we're looking at our 01:48:00.960 --> 01:48:08.160 - revenue for our budgets for 2026 and we always count on this is how much for 01:48:08.160 --> 01:48:12.640 - property tax this is how much for miscellaneous revenue and that income tax 01:48:12.640 --> 01:48:20.360 - that certified chairs is in that miscellaneous we need to kind of estimate what that 01:48:20.360 --> 01:48:28.960 - difference might be some way so that we'll know what in the long-term 01:48:28.960 --> 01:48:34.240 - financial plan we've already taken a stab at it so so we've got some estimates 01:48:34.240 --> 01:48:40.480 - and we'll be addressing that as we go forward with the 26 budget and the 26 01:48:40.480 --> 01:48:48.440 - miscellaneous revenues right yep so do you think let's just look at those four 01:48:48.440 --> 01:48:57.260 - highest ones that where we are right now if you look at at the distribution if we 01:48:57.260 --> 01:49:02.900 - have six different lids one of them is ours correctional facility oh when you 01:49:02.900 --> 01:49:07.960 - want to look at it right now is the certified chair one well is what we call 01:49:07.960 --> 01:49:17.760 - old gadget which is 0.94 so yes we will look at that that's the one we've 01:49:17.760 --> 01:49:21.080 - already preliminary looked at 01:49:26.800 --> 01:49:49.560 - okay all right so what else do we have in 7b nothing at this time I think number 01:49:49.560 --> 01:49:53.400 - eight will be fairly easy okay well I think there needs to be a health break 01:49:53.400 --> 01:49:58.120 - here I don't know if everybody needs a health break make do we want to recess 01:49:58.120 --> 01:50:04.000 - for ten minutes or five ten minutes sure we can and then we can probably get this 01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:14.160 - one pretty quick come right back and get right at the last thing okay so I think 01:50:14.160 --> 01:50:20.480 - we're ready to call this back to order okay so we have number eight on the 01:50:20.480 --> 01:50:25.160 - agenda here to complete and the title is jail financing I'm sure that someone 01:50:25.160 --> 01:50:29.220 - here attending today knows what we're talking about Jeff's going to take the 01:50:29.220 --> 01:50:33.560 - lead first thank you I will take the lead as we all know Senate bill one 01:50:33.560 --> 01:50:39.720 - created problems right and I think at this point and we talked with I talked 01:50:39.720 --> 01:50:47.000 - with the bond council this morning we think that unless there is a legislative 01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:54.040 - change it is likely that we would not be able to issue bonds until 2028 which 01:50:54.040 --> 01:51:01.680 - would put the project in a couple year delay and so we've been talking about 01:51:01.680 --> 01:51:07.080 - you know what kinds of legislative changes we should be looking at and 01:51:07.080 --> 01:51:12.520 - starting those conversations and so I guess Greg do you want to kind of walk 01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:15.800 - through those so you have a piece of paper in front of you that shows the 01:51:15.800 --> 01:51:21.760 - amortization schedule of the what was estimated at this point in time the 225 01:51:21.760 --> 01:51:29.680 - million dollar number so you know we just use that as a number so that would 01:51:29.680 --> 01:51:38.400 - require 17.9 million dollars LIT to support it right now that would be over 01:51:38.400 --> 01:51:47.180 - the Senate bill 1 cap of 25% of your lit cannot be obligated to that service so 01:51:47.180 --> 01:52:00.360 - that number would be obviously under this so that's the way we understand it 01:52:00.360 --> 01:52:08.400 - the total lit received by the county but not but it's not but it includes all the 01:52:08.400 --> 01:52:12.400 - different lit sources right so it would include edit lit as well as public safety 01:52:12.400 --> 01:52:17.220 - lit in and every lit source but it that's all received by the county is my 01:52:17.220 --> 01:52:23.240 - understanding yeah that's not my question I'm sorry okay that 25% I think 01:52:23.240 --> 01:52:29.760 - was tied to the economic development that's what we were talking about using 01:52:29.760 --> 01:52:35.480 - it for it but we only get a portion of that so are they talking about 25% of 01:52:35.480 --> 01:52:43.400 - the entire economic development revenue including the city it it doesn't matter 01:52:43.400 --> 01:52:48.160 - really the way we're doing the calculation at this point in time if the 01:52:48.160 --> 01:52:57.440 - county is receiving 42 million in total lit the 25% I mentioned has nothing to 01:52:57.440 --> 01:53:05.840 - do with seed at 25% total lit 40 million you cannot use more than 25% of that 40 01:53:05.840 --> 01:53:18.460 - million for any debt right now in 25 26 and 27 special law special sentence okay 01:53:18.460 --> 01:53:29.160 - so given that then we are going to we cannot we're in a pause Jeff corrected 01:53:29.160 --> 01:53:35.000 - me when I said we're stopped no we're in a pause period so we will not be able to 01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:44.680 - do it as we said using the the jail correctional facility and seed it so at 01:53:44.680 --> 01:53:48.980 - this point in time we've got to come up with an option and the options are a 01:53:48.980 --> 01:53:59.760 - legislative fix option one you go to the legislature and ask for a special lit to 01:53:59.760 --> 01:54:09.520 - pay this bond of 17.9 annually and that be granted sometime next year by the 01:54:09.520 --> 01:54:15.000 - state it would be what we can would consider title seven and there's about 01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:21.400 - 15 of them that are out there that are specifically done that way and are still 01:54:21.400 --> 01:54:26.920 - in existence as we understand it and not being eliminated so those are happening 01:54:26.920 --> 01:54:32.800 - right now so so no we would ask during the next section of the legislature 01:54:32.800 --> 01:54:38.400 - right Monroe County would like to be added to title seven a special lit 01:54:38.400 --> 01:54:42.360 - dedicated only for this all right but I thought you said there was something 01:54:42.360 --> 01:54:47.440 - about counties were already doing that yeah I'm sorry there are about 17 that 01:54:47.440 --> 01:54:52.280 - already have special and I was talking about you have a special lit right right 01:54:52.280 --> 01:54:59.040 - so so in this would be a new revised special lit right so and and so that's 01:54:59.040 --> 01:55:06.640 - option one option two that I discussed specifically with representative 01:55:06.640 --> 01:55:11.320 - Thompson because Jeff wrote up the paragraph and I shared it with him is 01:55:11.320 --> 01:55:19.440 - that what we do is have a technical correction in next year's legislature 01:55:19.440 --> 01:55:32.400 - that says the 25 percent maximum would not apply to a county that has a agreed 01:55:32.400 --> 01:55:38.760 - order agreed order as a what agreed to order for our current jail is under an 01:55:38.760 --> 01:55:42.720 - agreed order with Indiana Civil Liberties Union yes that's the order 01:55:42.720 --> 01:55:48.000 - you're talking about thank you yeah so we would ask for a special exception to 01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:53.160 - the 25% cap again nothing to do with that it nothing to do with any of that 01:55:53.160 --> 01:55:58.960 - it's the artificial cap that was put into place for these years and I would 01:55:58.960 --> 01:56:07.860 - also like to ask for a bond up to 25 years okay that would be what I consider 01:56:07.860 --> 01:56:15.440 - a good option representative Thompson heard me said it might be a possibility 01:56:15.440 --> 01:56:22.040 - didn't say yes or no we then I then also told him that we would want to and we've 01:56:22.040 --> 01:56:26.800 - discussed this with Jeff and bond counsel we would also want to get your 01:56:26.800 --> 01:56:34.480 - legislators backing this plan if we want either plan either one or two if we want 01:56:34.480 --> 01:56:43.200 - to do it we also would a option number three I'm not trying to muddy the water 01:56:43.200 --> 01:56:48.960 - with this and I might still just make an option to the 25 year backup with 01:56:48.960 --> 01:56:56.380 - property taxes eliminate the 25% cap and then also if we don't get the special 01:56:56.380 --> 01:57:01.360 - legislation under option one we also eliminate the fact that if you have a 01:57:01.360 --> 01:57:08.520 - debt outstanding payable by lit you don't annually renew that because 01:57:08.520 --> 01:57:15.800 - everybody I've seen people miss publications something happened and I 01:57:15.800 --> 01:57:20.400 - don't want a bond default and I don't want this standard employers to come 01:57:20.400 --> 01:57:27.120 - back and say well what if you some there's a taxpayer revolting you never 01:57:27.120 --> 01:57:33.360 - you don't get that lit approved that's a real possibility so we need a 01:57:33.360 --> 01:57:42.720 - legislative fix otherwise we cannot move off the pause period the team believes 01:57:42.720 --> 01:57:50.200 - that we need to make a recommendation so we want you to think about this we're 01:57:50.200 --> 01:57:55.560 - asking for no movement on this but we're giving you the update you're in a pause 01:57:55.560 --> 01:58:01.760 - until we get a legislative fix at this point did I say that correctly Jeff I 01:58:01.760 --> 01:58:11.800 - think you said that correctly I understand I think we're working really 01:58:11.800 --> 01:58:19.840 - hard and then our team and FSG is coming up with these suggestions or this 01:58:19.840 --> 01:58:25.200 - because not only and by the way next week I'm trying to do a 50 million dollar 01:58:25.200 --> 01:58:30.520 - bond for a road project with Hendricks County and we're gonna have representative 01:58:30.520 --> 01:58:36.400 - Thompson there and we're gonna address that 25% cap and the annual the annual 01:58:36.400 --> 01:58:42.880 - amount cause at the annual revisiting that lit rate when it's dedicated to a 01:58:42.880 --> 01:58:49.320 - bond is going to be a ratings issue this seems to me like a lot of these are 01:58:49.320 --> 01:58:55.120 - unintended consequences yes that's how I would phrase it so if it if it is 01:58:55.120 --> 01:59:02.880 - included with a special purpose that set outside the dollar amount the person has 01:59:02.880 --> 01:59:13.640 - it sets completely aside from the other lit distributions and so forth and since 01:59:13.640 --> 01:59:17.680 - we already have one special purpose you're saying they would try to 01:59:17.680 --> 01:59:22.240 - incorporate that oh no no no no I'm not incorporating anything all I'm saying is 01:59:22.240 --> 01:59:29.440 - just give me the right to levy a lit for the next 25 years to pay this bond off 01:59:29.440 --> 01:59:36.640 - and have it dedicated for the to this bond and nothing else okay so it it 01:59:36.640 --> 01:59:48.360 - would be a second special purpose yes so think about it which one that which one 01:59:48.360 --> 01:59:54.800 - is you think will be the most difficult to get through I have no idea I will 01:59:54.800 --> 02:00:02.320 - tell you over the next week or two as I dress option two with specific issues we 02:00:02.320 --> 02:00:08.440 - have with specific counties maybe the door garage door gets a little bit opened 02:00:08.440 --> 02:00:16.360 - right now there's not a crack in neither of them the team to me it might be better 02:00:16.360 --> 02:00:24.840 - if you would tie it to like something major which would include courthouses or 02:00:24.840 --> 02:00:29.040 - something of the sort that way you'll get more votes for it because if you tie 02:00:29.040 --> 02:00:36.240 - it just to jails you won't have as many people there that might support it 02:00:36.240 --> 02:00:41.680 - legislative point I'm the financial guy I'll leave that up to your lobbyist in 02:00:41.680 --> 02:00:48.780 - your legal and you know but I do know I work in the trenches with representatives 02:00:48.780 --> 02:00:55.860 - and senators on specifically problems specific dilemmas and you know they were 02:00:55.860 --> 02:01:03.960 - not as you said you said it very well it's an unintense unintentional consequence 02:01:03.960 --> 02:01:10.120 - thank you and you know here we are and and that's why we knocked on his door 02:01:10.120 --> 02:01:16.160 - and we want to knock on other stores how many do you know how many counties are 02:01:16.160 --> 02:01:26.680 - under the ACLU legislation problem no ma'am so I have no idea we don't know a 02:01:26.680 --> 02:01:30.920 - total why we think there's at least one other but they are further along I think 02:01:30.920 --> 02:01:38.480 - in their process oh okay yeah that type of ACLU so there is one county that's 02:01:38.480 --> 02:01:48.800 - under a agreed order and a consent decree and must do the project and so but if 02:01:48.800 --> 02:01:54.800 - you're under those situations then there's a whole another set of rules 02:01:54.800 --> 02:02:00.400 - you're basically able to do you can even do a general obligation bond with no 02:02:00.400 --> 02:02:08.440 - remonstrance so but we're not at that level according to your attorney so one 02:02:08.440 --> 02:02:13.760 - in a farther level we're in the mid-level I don't believe there's 02:02:13.760 --> 02:02:22.360 - anybody else in the mid-level that I know of that's it anything else from 02:02:22.360 --> 02:02:33.080 - anyone else over there okay so what how far behind the maybe this is question of 02:02:33.080 --> 02:02:37.840 - ship how far behind the schedule of where we thought we would be will this 02:02:37.840 --> 02:02:45.240 - put us I think if everything goes ideally and we get we get a legislative 02:02:45.240 --> 02:02:49.800 - change and we get it done by March I think the bonding process is typically 02:02:49.800 --> 02:02:56.240 - three months so we were originally planning on breaking ground in June so 02:02:56.240 --> 02:03:01.880 - if we did March April May June we could probably time it so that we get going in 02:03:01.880 --> 02:03:10.160 - July or August so a couple months if all goes well we bond council said they 02:03:10.160 --> 02:03:14.200 - could work up a schedule but at this point in time it's too early to work up 02:03:14.200 --> 02:03:20.800 - a schedule again we would like direction from the county as a whole on what they 02:03:20.800 --> 02:03:27.200 - would like the team to go after that's what from the way I read the 02:03:27.200 --> 02:03:33.680 - legislation that said that we couldn't do any more than 25% for a debt didn't 02:03:33.680 --> 02:03:45.720 - say for jail for a debt and that if we didn't put in a lit that they would put 02:03:45.720 --> 02:03:51.800 - the lid in for us just enough to cover that debt but is this like that's a part 02:03:51.800 --> 02:03:57.560 - of the Senate bill one and this is so I'm totally familiar with what you said 02:03:57.560 --> 02:04:02.000 - because Jeff and I also had represented Thompson and I also had this discussion 02:04:02.000 --> 02:04:09.920 - and the key is yes if you have a jail lit a jail bond right now that's covered 02:04:09.920 --> 02:04:18.280 - by lit that the state does not mean to bankrupt those that lit will be imposed 02:04:18.280 --> 02:04:24.600 - to pay that debt in in the event you don't and you know your funds could be 02:04:24.600 --> 02:04:31.240 - intercepted to do that so you know but those are pre-existing we do not have 02:04:31.240 --> 02:04:42.440 - any of those so you can't our present income from the economic development and 02:04:42.440 --> 02:04:48.840 - the jail is not enough to cover the bond no ma'am would mean no increase to the 02:04:48.840 --> 02:04:53.800 - taxpayer so we we ran those numbers quite a while ago and I don't know I 02:04:53.800 --> 02:04:59.640 - don't know it was running short but it was close yeah I don't I don't I get not 02:04:59.640 --> 02:05:05.160 - at the 225 yeah I'm just saying it was running close but it would not require 02:05:05.160 --> 02:05:11.600 - an increase in the tax base because that's already that that tax is already 02:05:11.600 --> 02:05:20.440 - there it's already I don't think under any scenario we've talked about we've 02:05:20.440 --> 02:05:26.160 - really I don't think we're trying to look at increasing any income tax beyond 02:05:26.160 --> 02:05:31.840 - what is currently in place now the state is kind of making us have to rethink 02:05:31.840 --> 02:05:38.080 - that but I think for the jail I think our we've always wanted to keep the 02:05:38.080 --> 02:05:44.360 - project budget in line with what the income tax from the edit and the 02:05:44.360 --> 02:05:52.880 - correctionals tax would create plus what cash on hand we had namely the the the 02:05:52.880 --> 02:05:59.120 - the ban we issued for the purchase of the property so I think that was always 02:05:59.120 --> 02:06:05.840 - the funding mechanisms we looked at in order to do this project and so that 02:06:05.840 --> 02:06:11.760 - that's kind of been how we've internally have looked at hey what what what's the 02:06:11.760 --> 02:06:18.120 - upper limit of the budget is going to be now the state's done some things that we 02:06:18.120 --> 02:06:21.000 - didn't we haven't really known how to react to so we've kind of kept that 02:06:21.000 --> 02:06:29.640 - original spirit in place but I I'm just saying that because if we did a special 02:06:29.640 --> 02:06:34.960 - purpose and had that completely set aside from what our other revenue we're 02:06:34.960 --> 02:06:39.680 - really doing a double dip from what we had told the taxpayer was going to be 02:06:39.680 --> 02:06:45.320 - we had told the taxpayer as as we were moving along we were going to pay for 02:06:45.320 --> 02:06:52.040 - the jail with it but the economic development tax but we could only use a 02:06:52.040 --> 02:06:59.760 - portion of each because we had leave some for you know so I don't think Jeff 02:06:59.760 --> 02:07:04.940 - we talked about under option one there could be an increase and a delete in the 02:07:04.940 --> 02:07:10.920 - income tax offsetting and remember anything we would even get 02:07:10.920 --> 02:07:16.880 - authorization for next year wouldn't be would have to be enacted next year 02:07:16.880 --> 02:07:24.280 - wouldn't be in place for more than or before 27 anyways when we're starting to 02:07:24.280 --> 02:07:32.160 - get ready to go into 28 with our Monroe counties knew what what do we want as a 02:07:32.160 --> 02:07:37.880 - new tax rate for lit 1.2 or lower I'm just trying to figure out a way to make 02:07:37.880 --> 02:07:42.640 - sure that in order to make this thing move forward we're not setting up a 02:07:42.640 --> 02:07:50.960 - situation we're literally going to be putting in place a brand new tax on top 02:07:50.960 --> 02:07:55.560 - of the other 1.2 that we're counting on getting and then we're going to have 02:07:55.560 --> 02:08:02.840 - this on top of that this is just going to be out a lot more and then originally 02:08:02.840 --> 02:08:07.520 - discussed and I my mind jumped when you were speaking to if we have a lit rate 02:08:07.520 --> 02:08:13.220 - an edit rate in place and a correctional tax in like in place and then we got 02:08:13.220 --> 02:08:19.760 - this new legislation that there may be a way to explore how to the new 02:08:19.760 --> 02:08:26.160 - legislation would would utilize the edit in the correctional tax first and then 02:08:26.160 --> 02:08:31.840 - anything in addition to those which you know would hopefully be nothing would 02:08:31.840 --> 02:08:37.560 - then would been then be made that's where that tax would would pick up and 02:08:37.560 --> 02:08:47.960 - it would remain in place past the 2027 2028 transition so in until that's even 02:08:47.960 --> 02:08:54.400 - written we you know we're just this is a discussion point I'm hypothetical yeah 02:08:54.400 --> 02:09:00.040 - and so what would be the timeline if you were asking for this legislative fix 02:09:00.040 --> 02:09:04.760 - what timeline would that go on next spring that's what I was thinking okay 02:09:04.760 --> 02:09:09.800 - thank you next session next session earlier the better yeah short session so 02:09:09.800 --> 02:09:19.580 - I believe they go in January and come back out okay okay and the same way with 02:09:19.580 --> 02:09:25.520 - option two if there was a fix yes I get the fixed timeline any more from 02:09:25.520 --> 02:09:41.760 - counselor hunk we're not asking for a recommendation yeah okay I think we just 02:09:41.760 --> 02:09:49.360 - say we'll take that okay so I think that's the last thing on the agenda I see 02:09:49.360 --> 02:09:57.640 - so I believe we'll call this meeting a done deal right we're going to adjourn 02:10:27.640 --> 02:10:32.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 02:10:32.640 --> 02:10:37.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 02:10:37.640 --> 02:10:42.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 02:10:42.640 --> 02:10:47.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 02:10:47.640 --> 02:10:52.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 02:10:52.640 --> 02:10:57.640 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)