- first time so bear with me so we have an agenda I'm gonna call the meeting to
- order my name is Liz vital I'm part of the long-term finance planning committee
- with me today I have a counselor Marty Hawk also on the committee and
- counselor David Henry who is joining us as he is just joining us just right so
- welcome so we need to adopt the agenda hopefully you have all seen that I would
- like to think about getting number six and number seven moved up so we can hear
- from FSG first if that's a possibility would that work for FSG yeah and if it's
- that Jeff's going to start off on the general obligation bond well I wanted to
- hear from you first because for which one I want to move you up on the agenda
- if it's we're paying by hour to get them yeah so I want to move you up because I
- think some of these other things we're gonna hear about some of the things you
- may tell us may be impacted by what you're gonna tell us okay because most
- of the things we're gonna play a role in on the agenda so okay oh so you'll chime
- in as needed absolutely on there almost every one of them yes okay so you're
- telling me there may be not a need to move you up think I would suggest that
- okay so is that okay with you Marty I really think it should be the bottom
- person first though the body because Greg's gotta stay here okay so Jeff is
- asking you to be moved up right which one you're asking to be moved up I'm
- asking for number nine to be moved up because Dennis Alton who is the bond
- counsel for general obligation bonds is on the call and want to be sensitive to
- his time okay all right with everybody all right so you want to make a motion
- Marty or Marty you want to make a motion stop the agenda that way okay so we're
- gonna move along and move number nine up to the top and then I guess well where
- please pardon me where are you putting it on the top top being top being right
- after the adoption of the agenda right or do you want well see that do you want
- to approve the minutes and then and then have it follow the approval of the
- minutes so just tell me where to put it what number is it gonna be now I would
- move it to them following number three all right let's move number nine up following
- number three is that the general consensus there all right so we're gonna
- approve that so we're gonna approve the summary and minutes right so we have
- minutes here to approve from me look at the dates here we need a voice vote to
- amend the okay all right in the please all those in favor of moving number nine
- up after number three on the agenda please signify by saying aye aye
- any opposed no sorry any opposed motion passes thank you all right so now we
- have approval of the summary minutes one dated April 24th and yes so and if
- anybody have any additions or correcting or corrections to the minutes for April
- 24th move to approve I'll second voice vote all those in favor aye aye all those
- opposed so that passes right yes all right so now I think we have number nine
- coming up is that correct am I following the the grand scheme of things here
- today yes and I think I think Dennis Jeff and I'll kind of tag team on this
- okay and I'll let you Jeff yes with Senate bill one we saw some changes in
- how we do general obligation bonds traditionally the county has done one
- general obligation bond every year for three million dollars that covers a
- variety of capital expenses and so that will not be a straightforward of an
- option this year and so I think Dennis and I have discussed a couple of
- different options that may be available to the county and so I would turn it
- over to Dennis to kind of walk us through them and Dennis remind me and
- others if necessary who you are yeah thank you can you all hear me yes yes
- okay yeah yes good morning committee members my name is Dennis Sonten I'm a
- lawyer with a law firm of Bose McKinney and Evans you've been working with Jeff
- and Greg and his team in the county for years now doing this annual a general
- obligation bond issue and we've done some other projects for the county over
- the years but this morning Jeff had asked me to be here to talk with you
- about some of the changes from SB 1 that impact the process to do general
- obligation bonds in Indiana now not just for for your county but you know for
- cities towns counties and schools throughout the state and I'll back up
- and just tell you about the process that we're accustomed to doing and what the
- changes now with SB 1 in place if the county wants to continue to do short
- term general obligation bonds what the options are and the differences
- historically when the county's done a one-year general obligation bond we were
- able to get that approved by a resolution of the county commissioners a
- bond ordinance by the county council and an appropriation ordinance by the county
- council for the appropriation pretty straightforward process and that was
- because the size of the bonds and the term of the bonds just didn't necessitate
- any additional requirements under Indiana law under the new procedures
- with SB 1 the county is not able to do that type of bond issue there's a
- cooling off period that's been put in place under the statute and what the
- statute basically says is that if you've issued a general obligation bond before
- May 21 of this year that has a two-year maturity or less then you can't issue
- another general obligation bond until after a year after that bond expires
- and that's for projects that are not control projects and I'll explain that
- here in a second or for bond issues that would have a term greater than five
- years so we've been talking with Jeff and Greg and his team about options to
- allow the county to continue to be doing what it's done historically and also be
- able to do it while complying with Indiana law under the new SB 1 provisions
- so we know we can't just do a spot one general obligation bond like we've done
- before so the options are we can do we can authorize a larger bond issue with
- multiple series that would fund a what we call a control project and then issue
- those bonds each year in series to meet the county's needs to ultimately fully
- fund the project over a period of time say three or four years under that
- prospect prospect process we'd have two additional hearings and there would be
- an objecting period a 30-day objecting period where taxpayers or registered
- voters could circulate a petition asking what's called a petition or monstrance
- process to apply now that would need to be signed by 500 or more people to
- trigger that process so it's a pretty high threshold you know we wouldn't
- expect it to happen but it's just a procedure that we've not had to do on
- the prior bond issues if we went that direction we could do these procedures
- this year get it approved do a bond issue this year and then do bond issues
- next year and the following year without having to go through additional
- procedures because we would have approved everything this year so that
- that's sort of option one I will talk about another option and I'm not certain
- whether the county would want to do this I've talked about it with Jeff and
- Greg and his team there's the ability for governments to issue what are called
- improvement notes they have a term of not more than ten years they can't be
- issued from more than two million dollars but they're payable just like a
- general obligation bond and we're not precluded from doing those under the new
- statute the one drawback to those is they need to be used on improvements to
- buildings and structures and I know that historically the county has used some of
- the geo bond proceeds for funding equipment that may not necessarily
- qualify so if we were to pursue that we'd want to identify projects that were
- kind of the building improvements building structures as opposed to things
- like pickup trucks vehicles street sweepers and I'm going to stop there a second and
- see if you all have any questions I had provided a timetable I don't know if
- that's been circulated to you but let me take a pause real quick and see if you
- have questions and if not if Greg or Jeff want to interject anything that I
- may have missed so if he pauses for a second I guess Dennis one other option
- is is it not that the county could do a general obligation bond of up to six and
- a half million as a non-controlled project correct and we would week would then in
- order to not have a roadblock because of SB 1 we could amortize that over five and
- a half years we have to be beyond the five correct and that's correct Greg yeah
- I didn't mention that that is an option yeah and so this is something I've done
- in Hancock County each and every year because quite frankly we weren't going
- to our current tax levy right now is 3.0 three million zero but what we could do
- is six million in essence I'm just going to use this over example six for six six
- million over six years we could then use that six million the limit right now is
- six and a half but I'm you know I'm not worrying about the half and we could use
- that on any type of project and we would amortize it over not you know five and
- a half or six years I was just making six for six and we can do that going
- forward without much many issues is that correct Dennis yeah because it would be
- outside the five-year or less threshold under the new SB 1 cooling off statute
- that's our third in maybe one of the easier options but you know something we
- wanted to chitchat about and I would just say that this option to the
- definition of what you can utilize those funds for is a lot more restrictive than
- what we've traditionally used our our general obligation bonds for it has to
- be for a specific building a specific project and if you look in historically
- we've used these funds from everything from highway truck purchases to police
- vehicles which wouldn't qualify under at least my reading is it wouldn't
- necessarily qualify under that so if that were a route that we would look at
- we would have to really seriously take a hard look on over the next year or so
- you know what buildings are we actually doing up to two million dollars of
- improvements I'm not really aware of any at this point so that one in my mind
- would probably be the least likely to accomplish replacing the normal three
- million dollar geo bond I also think that if you want he said six for six you could
- do three for six so if you wanted to maintain that current level you could do
- three a three million dollar bond paid over six years if you'd wish I mean the
- six is the maximum in from the overall schematic design of the tax rate keep in
- mind the six for six would then yield us a savings of two million but because we'll
- be putting in the new levy that will if that gets installed that will be three
- million so we will have you so one's going up one's going down right and so
- that will have some leveling effect so I kind of liked it not only from a
- standpoint Dennis it gives us maximum flexibility it also gives us a good
- strategic impact on the tax rate in total remember we only have 30 pennies
- here to deal with so we got to use our pennies wisely and so you know this
- would help us yield that result already do you have anything what are you
- thinking I'm looking at this and hoping that this is going to be able to be
- printed out as soon as this meeting's over this being recorded I hope and we
- need to just push a button and and print it out for all of us to see what's
- being discussed here so that we'll have time to review it and think about it I
- think it might be difficult to pass a six million dollar bond on top of
- passing it a jail bond I just think we have to look at that and we have become
- rather addicted to doing a bond every year and so we generally are telling our
- departments not to put anything under their at that what we call the four
- category for so they can have the category to cover some of their
- equipment and so forth so this is something that would be of interesting
- discussion by the entire council this is certainly not this body's decision but I
- appreciate the information we can study it and be prepared for a decision at
- such time that we're asked to do that keep in mind again we can go zero to six
- so you can go anywhere that's million dollars right zero see like as Jeff
- pointed out we could go but we would want to probably keep it within the five
- and a half years for amortization right and it doesn't mean it will preclude it
- will open the door in the future for whatever we need to do so it won't close
- any doors at that point in time so we wanted to give you the two or three
- options as the finance team and remember as your independent financial advisor my
- role and responsibilities pull up point out all that negatives and positive and
- that and I I like this positive of doing it as a third option
- Genesis actually has great one in two options that's not a problem but this is
- probably overall maybe a path of that we can do some equalization also and as I
- understand what so far I've been trying thought if we tied it to the three over
- six years the tax per the taxpayer will be less for every one of those six years
- because are you saying we would it be three million dollar bond but it wouldn't
- be paid off it would be paid off in increments or are you saying it'll be an
- extra three million every year no ma'am it would be what you said at first so
- right now we have a three million dollar levy if we took three million over six
- years what that's a half a million dollars a year so we're going down in
- our debt service levy we only have one bond so we're not excessively under debt
- so we would really cut that so that's where I was saying yes you can do three
- over six it really cut it once six over six still really cuts it by almost two
- million and then we have room for the new levy coming from what we need to
- make up for this year and it kind of evens out so we wanted to introduce the
- concept and at some point then we need to get on a pathway if you want to do a
- pathway if not we won't discuss it so having not discussed this before of
- course my mind's going on but what if we say you you you can't do like a two
- million over four or something like that it's gonna be the six yeah and it's you
- want to respond legally yeah in this case it would need to be under the
- scenario that Greg is mentioning here it would need to be at least five years
- amortization pay off remember we send this any of our geo bonds we send out to
- the investing public you know a hundred people get the information and we've
- gotten real good response from your local bank you know and they've really
- give us a fabulous interest rate over the last several years we still believe
- that even this type of structure because we preliminarily talked to them and they
- said oh yeah it wouldn't bother us at all so I think the the if you chose this
- route our same competitive nature of selling the bond is alive and well so
- may I yes first of all is there any kind of prepayment penalty or what if we
- decided we want to do something other than what was covered in the bond you
- know ten years out we don't know what's going to be happening here in Monroe
- County so I'm wondering let's say if you've paid down the bond by a certain
- amount can you reauthorize it and stretch out another six six years like
- if you've paid off a million dollars of a two million dollar bond and you've
- paid it paid it down a million can you then re-app it and take out another six
- years or you can re-app it and take it out for the remaining part of the six
- years or let me answer because you and I've done this many many times and and
- we've done exactly what you've said so Dennis the the one question I've got
- from a legal perspective if we issue a 5.5 but have a redemption in the fourth
- year would that cause us a problem under SB 1 remember we're coming here because
- of SB 1 and suggesting these options otherwise we do what we always did okay
- and - and we'd go on that track Dennis do you think that would cause a problem
- with a prepayment no I don't think I would and it's a fabulous question and
- we all I will say this are sort of wrapping our heads around and marinating
- in what is now new SB 1 language but that said I look at the statute it refers to
- a bond issued with a term of five years not that the bond itself actually has to
- amortize that full period when you issue it so and I I think that's deliberate
- because there are circumstances where rise where a community just may need to
- pay off its obligation early whether it's a funding mechanism or they're
- needing to structure around something else so that's a long way of saying
- Greg no problem I think doing a redemption early on if that was the
- county's desire so Marty to address another question then you could
- regardless if we take this option and we do it next year you can do whatever you
- want this option would not preclude you from doing another bond next year okay
- so I think that was one of your questions okay as long as I thought you
- couldn't do like two in a row you had to give a one-year breather that's another
- section of the statute that Dennis could go into but I'm gonna say Dennis this
- schematic design that's not applicable correct because we're doing the terms of
- greater than five years if we were proposing a term of less than five years
- then we would have to take our breather so Marty I knew good and well we had to
- come up with an option that kind of addressed all possible pitfalls and we
- think we have now again there you know people read things differently but we
- think that would be ultimate the ultra flexible way to do it and this is a
- property tax levy and not then tied to our income tax at all it would be right
- into the 1782 like it always is yes property tax that's the way we do our
- geo bonds so you're you almost have to look at how bad the circuit breaker is
- going to hit us as to how much of a geo bond we might wanted to because that's
- going to make that circuit breaker hit well again you know unless Brie
- disagrees with my mathematics when you take off if we did six for six and that
- was a million dollars if you take a million dollars add you subtract three
- million the net is two million then you've got two million offsetting your
- your additional ask for levy if you've got that then that would put is probably
- a million dollars back to where we are right right so that's a kind of high
- level math and I would just add to that that that high level math works the
- first time you do this but I think ultimately the request would probably be
- made for essentially to replace the current program so after six years the
- payment should kind of equalize out because you would over six years you
- would have essentially the same tax rate unless there's something that I'm not
- aware of but over six years you'd have 18 million dollars in in geo bonds where
- right now our current process is in six years you'd have 18 million dollars over
- geo bonds they're just getting paid out differently so you would see a reduction
- in your in your tax rate the first five years and then six it would kind of get
- back to where it is today and so I just want to be clear that then the math works
- that way but if but if we're planning on continuing this three million dollar geo
- bond into the future eventually that math is going to work where it levels
- itself back to the current level as justice a reminder when somebody says so
- the tax rates the same we all know we've learned that keeping the tax rate the
- same means that we intend to raise taxes on local folks because the tax rate the
- same times as growing growing assessed value will bring it that will raise some
- taxes are 30.6 our 30.6 our 30 pennies right now will not be the same anymore
- as AV goes down on that chart I sent you it will no longer be what we're trying
- to maintain to you cannot maintain to a 30 cent tax rate more than likely so so
- you said you sent a chart whatever did you send it this morning or something no
- ma'am this was what I went over last meeting and may have been in your minute
- minutes but it's where we showed the value of a five hundred thousand dollar
- okay right right right yeah okay so this is a lot to consider yes so that's why
- we said we better play is it we better give you the team concept here and and
- so at this point in time Jeff maybe it's proper that we pause on this subject you
- and Lizzie if you want and then we can get the full council and we can even put
- together an amortization Dennis one point I wanted to ask you is when we
- were doing this in an in another county they said it couldn't be six over five
- years you had to at least go six over five years in one month do you agree you
- need to stay away from the exact five yes I would agree with that that's the
- safe approach that's why I said six for six is you can do three over five months
- or two five five five years and two months or whatever right okay okay okay I
- think counsel yeah as I'm not a member of the committee but I'm just a guest
- starring today I guess I agree with the counselor Hawk that having I think the
- written analysis will be helpful to look at the three options what I'm curious if
- anyone even has an estimate today of what's now prohibited under the GO bond
- that we can't do that we're currently doing and what percentage of the bond is
- really that we've been bonding for things we can no longer do do we have a
- sense of that is it yeah is it 25 50 percent what's the ballpark of how much
- we're currently bonding on that we're no longer going to be allowed to do that
- that changes our number substantially and I think it's to a point that counts
- counselor Hawk made that if we are bonding on what we what we are now
- legally allowed to do and if it's a number that really is not significant we
- could go back to looking at the general fund as opposed to bonding and I'm gonna
- let dead I'm gonna try to answer this and I'm gonna let Dennis follow up yeah
- because I want to be clear because I think I made the statement that the note
- idea which was option two had a lot of restrictions to it and the the note is
- not really a general obligation bond it is a different mechanism within state
- code and so that I think if you're looking at what we currently do it's
- most of it right if you were going to go to the know that is designed more for big
- renovation projects in buildings right that is what that is designed for and we
- just haven't done that with our geo bonds right I mean you might be able to
- fit something in each year that would follow that but it but it really it
- would be probably 90% of what we've issued geo bonds for would not be
- eligible under that note idea I think the general obligation bonds Dennis
- correct me if I'm wrong but what you could utilize those for really hasn't
- changed so we really could use them for the same manners the note one has a much
- more restricted use and the definition of what it can be used for which makes
- sense because there's less process involved yeah that's good enough for
- today but definitely needed you've got ready to that in writing just to look at
- I think so thank you for that and I'll just sort of to follow up on Jeff's
- point and in regards to the other thing under new SB 1 the real restriction is
- you can't do a general obligation bond for a term of less than five years
- without the cooling off period unless that general obligation bond funds
- what's called a control project meaning you know you're issuing seven million
- dollars or more of bonds then it's exempted but we've not been doing that
- there in the county we've been doing smaller bond issues and so that's why
- kind of as Greg mentioned we're looking at this sort of three for six six for
- six option
- Marty or counselor Mark excuse me so just to be clear we could continue to do as
- we're doing right now we just can't do it every year we'd have to do it every
- other year is that correct so to be specific on that and help me out Dennis
- if I if I get this wrong but so let's say today we would or you know in that
- sometime this year we would authorize our one-year geo we would then amortize
- it over next year 26 we would be required to cool off or 27 we could come
- back at 28 and I think that's your option one right Dennis that's what the state
- no we can't we can't we can't even do option one because we were we've got a
- geo out there that puts us in that boat and just to be clear the the geo bond
- that we have out right now would prohibit us from issuing a new geo bond
- this year and next year or just this year I'd have to look at the amortization
- great do you have the when when the one we just issued when that matures at the
- end of this year so we need to back up what I said one more year right yeah so
- we would have to wait a year from when this one expires before we could do
- another one it was my understanding to Dennis I thought and again it it takes
- reading so let's say it does pay off it Brie you agree it pays off the end of
- this year correct we're finding the schedule right now but that is what I
- wanted to be correct so if we we cannot we cannot authorize then it pays off I'm
- sorry I do need to be corrected 115 2026 so we back it up 115 2026 so at that
- point since this is a one year one year when do we have to wait till Dennis
- legally I just quickly add the county traditionally pays those after
- settlements we will be paying it off this year but the schedule notes I'm
- always used to but the actual term is 115 2026 yeah so we'd have to wait till
- 115 2027 before we can issue it's that one year period you're talking about
- yeah from now and if we chose to do that then we could use it in the same manner
- that we're using right now we could use it for highway trucks or whatever we
- want to use it for a 2027 yeah well that's enough anything else from
- counselor hulk no oh since counselor Henry is here anything else from you so I
- would really like to know what each of you really prefers that have talked to
- us about this what are your best recommendations as we consider this
- personally I like the five over five-year option because I think it
- allows for projects to reviewed on a on an annual basis I think in the short
- term you property tax payers would see a reduction in the rate associated with a
- reduction in the amount of funds necessary to support the payment of
- that bond per year and and I think those two I think the first one particularly
- fits into how we've always looked at it we've always looked at it every year we
- are going to prepare a list for the council to review and then they would
- make this the decision to utilize those funds on that and I think that has
- worked out I think pretty well it's always a struggle every year which makes
- me think it's a good thing to do but I always think that that process I think
- the the other one the other ones would have the council issue a larger amount
- option three would have them issue our option I guess one I've had an option
- where we would issue a series of bonds based upon one decision to me has been
- kind of counter to what the council is always expected and I don't think the
- note works at all so I would recommend the third option which is the one year
- or the same size or maybe a little up the it could be more that would be the
- council's decision but have that over a six-year payback period as opposed to
- the other two options okay and you have a recommendation for us
- I'm sorry was that directed to me is there a recommendation from you Dennis
- yeah I think what Jeff said I would agree with given what the county's procedures
- and how they've operated in the past I think that's going to allow you to kind
- of take a look at these each time and give you flexibility and keep things the
- way that they've been and I I think it's not just you Greg mentioned he's working
- with another county they're sort of having this discussion with a lot of our
- issuers that have been doing the same thing the county has and I think we're
- going to see most of them are going to continue to do obligations but just do
- them with longer terms I think the net effect over the long term may be that
- there are fewer geo bond issuances just because people are doing them over a
- longer maturity but they're keeping that sort of same capital planning in place
- by doing that thank you and Greg maximum flexibility zero to six over over five
- years or beyond that's the option three six for six okay I want everybody
- understand up to right all right so do we since I'm still pretty new at this
- do we take a vote on our recommendation I would not expect you to vote on this
- this is new to you guys you guys need some time to digest it and we need to
- put okay so then we're back on number four is that right thank you Dennis all
- right thank you all have a good afternoon yeah thank you for being here
- for us back on number four is that correct approval of a recommendation by
- County Council regarding 2026 minimum fund balance resolution so we had that
- good I believe hi Liz it's Molly I'm online and I did make a slight change to
- it so I'm going to display it on the screen as well okay thank you
- can you guys see it yeah okay really the only changes I added a title that
- includes the year for which this is applicable because it sometimes gets
- confusing that it's a 2025 resolution that's applicable in a different year
- and then I changed the date on which this would be adopted to the correct
- year so it's pretty minor changes this resolution in body is very similar to
- the one that was passed next year the main difference is last year's had a
- minimum cash balance and a target cash or target fund balance and when the
- auditor's office and council discussed this that we there is a decision to just
- have one fund or one column so now it's just the 20-26 month of minimum fund
- balance and so I believe that council office and auditor's office work to come
- up with these numbers and so if there's questions regarding the actual numbers
- in that chart I would defer to the auditor's office any questions here in
- the room like for the highway department to comment on what about it seems to me
- last year when we were discussing this that you had a concern that there would
- be some kind of a fun balance okay you want to step up here so we can hear you
- I certainly don't want to say yes this sounds good then if everybody say later
- this doesn't work yeah thank you sorry hadn't planned on talking but we've never
- maintained a two million dollar balance never been able to I don't know what the
- circumstances are if you don't have a two million dollar balance in your MVH we
- try and keep it at a million right now I think we're at 1.3 we were going to go in
- for an additional but we didn't because of this resolution because I don't know
- what happens being under that two million dollar recommended balance I
- it's never been a discussion that I've ever had with anybody so I would just
- say that we know that their revenue comes in different than some of the revenue
- like for instance with general fund and they cannot spend any more than what the
- revenue actually produces for them and so to put an artificial minimum fund
- balance on any of these highway positions that that's just not something
- I 1176 was for the first time I've ever been at the county highway was five
- hundred thousand dollars over budgeted for 2025 that's we split within 1173
- and 1176 we took our guidance from the auditor's office on setting those up I'm
- not comfortable being over budgeted so yeah I I just kind of follow along on
- what numbers are being presented beep but again I've never had any conversation
- with anybody on this so I could've swore we had a conversation something you and
- I oh okay I was going to say that after I saw it and all the paperwork so I just
- think it's a that's overstepping what we should be doing because the highway gets
- their money the state tells us what what the dollars amount that they're going to
- get and they keep that in track and we don't ever want you to spend down best
- as he would but you know that and for us to tell you an amount so that you can't
- move those dollars around to make sure you're using a million dollar cash
- balance yes there's it's just it's counter and pay active to what your
- mission is so why would did you say already and I missed it is what is your
- current minimum fund balance or is there one right now I think no we don't we've
- never been told to a minimum so this is all new this is yeah this is all new
- right now we have like 1.3 we've never tried to go under a million just in case
- of emergencies yeah but we can't maintain I hear you do what we feel like
- we need to do we already get council assistance that will have to continue
- yes please not that I can offer amendment but you can make a suggestion
- so would you be comfortable 750 or a million or 500 the goal is to have so
- this is the amount that's going to be again we're trying to get get it updated
- we're trying to come under a concept that when you might consider the
- emergency like you said and so I'm assuming when you said it might be
- emergency if I went below 1 million and we kind of considered them together but
- they're separate so if we put the 200 or 2 million down to 750 that would give
- you an absolute you wouldn't really go below that floor so that's what I and
- again this will be updated each and every year and so we might even exclude
- the highway next time so there's always I guess that would beg the question why
- is it included this time to to include most of the major funds and that's the
- reason there's no absolute that any fund has to be in there unless you made a
- decision otherwise absolutely not and if I just made quickly I think there is
- maybe between legal preparing this and the work we did in the office we
- intended for the minimum balances to be and not the target and I think the
- target numbers were used here oh so we there they should be lower actually so
- this will need to be edited okay unless you're comfortable with these numbers
- but we were not as we put it together well I I see exactly what Lisa's saying
- and I agree again you know it's guidance it's set for 2026 so if I thought all
- the other numbers looked awful good at this point and so if you want to say
- okay let's put in the target ones which is the ones I was kind of focusing in
- on but these you know we can bring it back why don't we do that okay if we're
- gonna if we're not going to have the minimum versus target I'm more
- comfortable with establishing the minimum however we're going to you know
- we appreciate your guidance and want that and want to go with that so we'll
- bring it back okay bring it back right I can see really the point in the one
- that are in what I call the frozen levy so we know that we've got to keep that
- frozen levy can only increase so much every year and if we see one of these
- that are inside the frozen levy is dropping too far just like we did with
- the health we're gonna have to make up the difference this this coming year but
- it and I can understand why you would do the rainy day but I just sit in
- self-insurance for certain and so you you'd want the general fund the
- aviation reassessment that definitely the self-insurance a cube cap might be a but
- but that's not inside that smaller frozen levy some of the others are you
- can move money back and forth but with highway you don't move money back and
- forth I mean highway it's not a part of the well let's find this over here under
- highway so I don't know why we would why we would try to keep them from spending
- in order to meet you know they sometimes move from one fund to another to fill
- more potholes I just do less of something else but I you know I don't I
- don't want to throw a thorn in everybody's side I'm just saying I don't
- I don't see the purpose but and the lit the special purpose that's one that we
- definitely this year need to take a hard look at because that's the one that we
- reduced the rate going into that that what we used to call the juvenile and
- captain and put that rate over into the jail fund and because it wasn't really
- needed for that lit special purpose but we need to all of us be taking a look at
- that and doing a look out to see when we need to change that rate or move some
- and I think the auditor doesn't agree why I've been saying but whatever I'm
- sorry I think differing opinions are healthy however I just I like the idea
- of of these of there being a guy just you know an idea of what we feel is would
- keep us the healthiest as far as fund balances so more like a guy to consider
- as we move forward we have had fun bound but fun balance issues in the past with
- some of these funds and I think that is probably why FSG made this
- recommendation initially and also it helps with their bond rating and its
- best practice yes it's best practice I'm wondering if terminology couldn't play a
- factor here would it be prudent to think about calling it a suggested fund
- balance rather than a minimum fund balance that's kind of why I went with
- the target having done this many many times and all the different it's a
- target we'd like to hit we we discuss whether we're over it or under it we do
- not want to have constraints yeah I think minimum sets says to me it sets a
- floor right and I think some other terminology might not be as indicative of
- absoluteness so to speak or I I think what the intention was was to use the
- minimum fund found fund balance numbers however as the target fund balance
- but we're not saying that anywhere in the document correct right I'm somehow
- working on this so there I think signals are crossed when we can change that we
- can change that and absolutely say that right so that's what I'm suggesting that
- we agree we explain our intent right I like intent to be clarified so would
- that be good you think I agree hundred percent I think that's we're trying to
- say the same thing okay now sir hunk I'm seeing that the election fund was left
- off of here and I think we need to include that because what the election
- fund doesn't cover we have to make up the difference how the general fund so
- it's important to to think of those as working in tandem we have the intent was
- to allow that election fund balance to grow so that when the when it was time
- for presidential election year the fund would already be there and and we're not
- spending that down every year and moving that over that levy over to the general
- fund when you do that that means on that fourth year when you hit the
- presidential you've got to make up a lot of money that we weren't prepared for so
- I think that should be added but once again I'm not in favor of getting in the
- way of the highway I mean I don't if they ever would spin down to getting us
- in trouble they're the ones that be in trouble they have to watch and make sure
- they can make payroll because we don't make their payroll they make their pay
- yes so we I mean we're all paying for it but I just think their payroll is paid
- for out of the money coming in from gas tax and wheel tax and whatever the
- revenue that's get coming in there and if I've got that wrong please - what what I
- what you again I would recommend we bring the highway down to a million or
- 750 I would not Marty probably agree I wouldn't recommend putting the election
- fund I you and I know the election fund very very well but I think you just that
- might get administratively more difficult and we again we're trying to
- get something in place review it each and every year and not go too low into
- the fund categories what's the hesitancy of putting the election fund there I'm
- not sure I heard a reason what was what's the hesitancy it becomes an evident
- tide as we all know and so it'll go to a low point afterwards and then it'll
- start building and so if we don't size it to the low point after the major
- election then you're going to get restrictive again to a certain degree
- even though this doesn't restrict and so I think it's just right now the election
- fund it may be I don't even know what the balance would be and it may be a
- hard one to peg so but we can sure put it if you want it what would the balance
- be right now in the election fund Bree is getting it I guess maybe the city
- pays us back for the cost and so forth that may be a little more tangible thing
- to Greg's objection is I expect if when we do a ratings call they would ask
- about a variety of things and if that election fund balance is changing
- annually then I would expect to get a lot of questions about that as to why that
- funding why that funding so much different the other it's explainable but
- I I guess from my perspective that is one where a minimum fund balance over
- time that concept doesn't doesn't really hold well I think the four-year cycle
- and I think we track that for your cycle separately to begin with anyway and it
- comes up every year budget time so I think looking at that we already look at
- that differently because it's different and so adding it to this is trying to
- almost trying to put a square peg in a round hole at least that's my impression
- I think you got my attention when you talked about the ratings I do have the
- cash balance in the election fund if you'd like that I'm showing it at just
- over 1.2 million and 1.2 and then I checked the 1782 is projected be 1.5 so
- you know if we put it in there I would suggest something like five hundred to
- start with that's the first Friday I think as far as I know it's the first
- Friday first Friday noon siren it's a test it's a test you folks go ahead and
- move with this anyway you wish to okay so what do we need to do then about this do
- we need to actually just bring it back at a later look at the next LTF meeting
- okay and that's okay with everyone okay is this not something that will be
- decided by the entire council just I would suggest we move this forward to the
- next council and with in my opinion it should be a no recommendation if we have
- any questions or move it forward with approval whichever you'd rather just
- let's just move it off of our calendar and move it over to the county council
- it's not our choice any council okay for it to go to does that make sense I guess
- the only would like to say sorry sure so the intent today was for LTF to review
- the a rec resolution which clearly needs some edits and then LTF was either going
- to recommend it to full council with a positive recommendation or a negative
- recommendation so if we just want to send this to full council for discussion
- I think that would be appropriate it does not have to be positive or negative
- you can just send for discussion just like the plan commission could do with
- no recommendation and get this moving forward because you'll get them get it
- all right that changes that need be made and move it forward so let's move it
- forward with no recommendation at this point is that right okay do we need to
- take a vote on that I would so well okay I move that we take this report and move
- it on to the full council with no recommendation expecting that there will
- be changes made by the council attorney I'll second that all in favor I second
- yes all in favor Marty are you in favor yes yes okay we're good we're moving on
- okay so now we're talking about the COLA discussion and recommendations as far as
- I can tell we're number five so I think there was an intent to update Greg on
- the we sent a letter to see probably saw that and get feedback on that so we're
- open to hearing what you have to tell us or say about that sure I thought it was
- a very well done letter I believe what I had told you before and I just want to
- qualify that the growth quotient was 4% for next year now where I want to highly
- caution you I've now gone into the to talking to representative Thompson and
- asked about the 4% I thought it was an awful nice increase for some reason and
- I was waiting for the rest of the story part of the rest of the story was it it
- is my understanding that they were actually going to grant 2% they gave an
- additional 2% to help offset the $300 and then so that is why it's 4% the
- effective yield across the state was for should really give you 2% real dollar
- more we believe it will not give Monroe County of 2% real dollars more without
- the additional new the levy coming back right and so our recommendation still is
- 0 to 3% do not exceed 3% I point blank asked even even representative Thompson
- if I was looking at a 4% tax or increase in payroll this year would you say yes
- or no and he said no I would not advise that I said good that's not what I'm
- advising so 0 maximum 3% 0 to 3 any other discussion about this
- counselor hunk right I think this might be a good time because always when we're
- talking about what kind of a salary increase you'd be talking about what kind
- of levy increase dollars that might actually represent and so this might be
- a good time to talk about whether we count the levy increase if we're just
- doing it by the separate funds if we did I think the general fund levy for this
- year because the increase is supposed to be over the present year's levy next
- year's levy if they say 4% it would be times this year's general fund levy each
- of those would be come together as the frozen levy 4% would have to cover all
- of it of course that also has to cover that additional amount for health which
- we said was going to be but if you take let's say if you take four percent are
- we are we talking about if we're just talking about the general fund and four
- percent of the general fund is like right now is seventeen million something
- seventeen two twenty eight one eight eight one nine so if I take my or if my
- staff member has his if we take that times by the way this is take as you
- know he's with me and if we take that times four percent then that's what we
- are going to get my calculators not showing up here under 800,000 yeah I
- think there's a there was a discrepancy between the max levy that we could have
- gotten and what we actually requested last year absolutely if yeah I guess I
- guess maybe the question is that's why I wanted to ask this question are we so I
- can we taking that four percent times where our present levy is which is way
- the legislation reads if I if I look at it right so here here's the way we've
- done it so far your 24 actual levy was 21 three your 25 we believe is going to
- be 17 8 you know the exact number we talked about we believe the 26 will be
- 21 350 21 million 350 deep would you have a reason to disagree that's what
- we've built into the sustainability that includes they give the aspect and the
- four percent last me let's go back to if it's was make up a number let's say if
- it's 18 which is what where are let me ask for a general right now right for 25
- let's just say 18 yeah and you take four times 18 right so the actual normal
- maximum levy was 25 6 which makes up the 17 and the growth on the 4% the growth
- on the 4% with or without is not that great so the key is getting back the lost
- levy that's the that's the meaningful number hey I mean you're talking in
- circles as far as I'm concerned I just want to know if we if we are if we take the
- growth allowed times our present levy our exact present levy then the growth
- number is how much okay so if we take the 4% times the 17.8 it's around seven
- hundred and twelve thousand but what I'm cautioning you okay is you earn you're
- going to budget 712 you're not going to get 712 you're gonna get at best half
- that because of the loss revenue coming in from the $300 correct okay okay thanks
- all right because when we were talking about and what kind of a salary increase
- and I just think it was just all happening so quick it was like okay let's
- just like we got to say something and that's where that so good 3% raise came
- in well the 3% raise I got a figure yesterday just for general I think was
- over 800,000 they may have new numbers for us I'm working on those I will have
- that later today I so I hope nobody's expecting us to make a decision without
- information I mean I'm just saying and it's not fair to you to ask you to make
- help us make that decision when we don't have the right numbers we're saying we
- hold the course I believe the recommendation so far out of the
- letter was 3% I did tell you that was the proposed percentage yes by the way I
- did talk to the council president yesterday on the on the phone just kind
- of in preparation for today and she also came back informed me that the step
- increases had been frozen is that correct or no okay no what there is a
- pause with regards to departments going to with asking for classification
- reviews as well as a pause on knowledge skills and assess abilities with regards
- to hiring new employees at the different step increase levels rather than the
- minimum so that has all been put on pause okay yeah and that was that's so
- that was the correct terms thank you and so given that I think the letter still
- is is quite handy and quite let's let's begin there and as we move forward I
- mean in essence don't ask for 6% right we don't have that unless there was a
- special situation then my understanding is that that may come up but at this
- point in time that's where we're at okay you would almost had to be there see
- why how we got to where we got to I mean we were we were first of all had a
- meeting and they were trying to decide what kind of a raise to give and so the
- question was made by the members of the council what what is it gonna cost what's
- the financial implication so we had another meeting and that it appeared that
- all of it was put together no matter where the revenue was coming from and
- there was major discussion going on at the council level and it was like a big
- push to get that letter out from the council to so the department has to put
- together budgets and and so that's just sort of the 3% came kind of out of some
- kind of a the cost of living report from wherever but we didn't really have the
- numbers so we were just voting to like I said we don't even have the numbers to
- know what we're voting on here to really understand by fun because as far as I'm
- concerned you have to look at it by fun because that the revenue comes in by
- fun actually I recommended in the prior meeting not exceed 3% because I said
- that would be we'll be lucky to even get there so actually I've said and I've
- said across the state don't go more than 3% would I like to see to sure yeah you
- know but to be able to give and I've worked with salary committees and other
- counties Hancock County and I said do not get 5% and they were like we'll get 5%
- now and we'll say zero in the future no what makes more sense is some now and I
- said this before at this meeting let's give some to maybe 2% 2% next year 2%
- after that that to me makes more sense okay and what you said earlier was we're
- not really going to get for we're going to get how much to at best at so I think
- it is very irresponsible to say going in and figure a 3% raise if all of our new
- revenue is not going to be more than two would seem to me we don't even have the
- numbers right I agree and but I think for me the key language in that letter
- said proposed 3% so that to me that indicated that it might go up to that
- but it could be something different than that that's how I interpreted it right
- it's just that we know our first of all it's up to the council and this all this
- is beginning to sound like a budget meeting and this is not supposed to be a
- budget meeting this is supposed to be long-term finance and so this decision
- should not be made by two people on sitting here on this long-term finance
- committee because it's budget but when we get more information and I'm hoping
- that council will take another look at this but it really as council member
- will said they're going to have all these departments are going to have to
- rework all their budgets and they're in the process right now trying to put
- budgets together and if we think 3% is really not sustainable or we're really
- spending down our cash just to make this work what we're going to do we don't have
- it for the following year I just have concerns I voted in favor to just send it
- forward so the departments could start working but but once again I think this
- is a budget issue and not a long-term range finance issue so will we then is
- it the the will of these two here today to move forward with a discussion and no
- recommendation is that right right but before we go there I just want to make
- sure that I'm understanding the information we're receiving if we are to
- look at our projected revenue and including our levy growth a four but
- really is going to end up with two we look at what our approved maximum levy
- what we were approved this year and that means we had a three point eight
- million dollar less so we figure out what it is times this year we don't just
- like bump it up to three point eight and put another four on top of that is that
- do I understand you correctly so you're gonna use the maximum levy that is in
- the 1782 to the best of my knowledge this doesn't happen very often that's
- what I see and the difference is eight fifty four versus seven twelve so you're
- talking about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars that you probably won't ever get
- either so or it'll be cut in half at best too so that's that and now remember
- it's divvied up the way it was divvied up you're making an assumption that it's
- divvied up in twenty five twenty six the same way it's divvied up in 25 and what
- I've said in the sustainability I know the writings on the wall we need that
- levy back in the general fund otherwise the report I showed you last year where
- cash was going like that okay it's really going like that so keep that in
- mind okay we got to have that levy back in the general fund otherwise we're out
- of balance and I still have us out of balance on a 26 estimated basis but I
- need we need the 26 budgeted numbers from the department hats before we can
- move solidly ahead what about the 3.8 million that was short that's what I
- said I I have projected most of that will go into the general fund that's
- where we needed it and that's where it was I just asked a clarifying question
- because I'm getting a little lost over here last year 1782 came back with 17
- plus million as our general fund levy yes all right so when the council goes
- to approve the tax rates and levies for next year they should include the 3.8
- plus 4% on top of that in what they approve knowing that it'll probably get
- kept at because of various SP1 factors am I right or wrong on absolutely matter
- of fact I might even put in 5% just for factors unknown to us today and taxpayers
- I hope you guys all understand what the taxpayers this year more than one of them
- come up to me and say I thought my taxes were going to go down because of that
- 3.8 million wasn't on there and my taxes didn't go down a bit well that was
- because you know the school and whatever ate up what what we might have lost but
- if you put that on top of where people are this year on top of that and put
- another 4% on top of that folks I mean are we really gonna do that because we
- are here not just to represent can a government but to represent the people
- who support kind of government but that's just me anyway it's not our
- choice yeah so our tax rate in 24 was 35.7 point three five seven pennies our
- tax rate for 25 was 0.3064 we have gone to the lowest tax rate in the last ten
- years for Monroe County itself okay and now Marty you also see why the geo
- discussion became a interrogate why I said six for six because I'm looking at
- the totality I'm not looking at geo versus whatever I'm looking at the
- total picture okay and trying to achieve where you're trying to go but keep in
- mind we had a significant reduction I call that very material reduction in our
- Monroe County tax rate we can't help what others did but the writings on the
- writings in the numbers it's in the numbers and and is that the one that I
- think that legislation starts right now if that when we do that we have to have
- a special meeting set aside just for that nothing else on that and to say to
- the taxpayer that we are going to raise this this tax higher than the four
- percent over our present tax level ma'am that is not my understanding that it's
- in play this year it comes later you do not have to have any special hearings
- this year being twenty twenty five for twenty twenty six and I'm staff all
- agrees
- today at the meeting we attended so that it's not for this coming budget year
- hey being on I think we might need to move on right but I don't know about a
- recommendation what are we doing here counsel hawk about that what are you
- feeling what are you thinking it says Cola discussion and recommendations
- it's a we don't have the numbers anyway how do we make a recommendation so I
- think without the numbers we will just be neutral on that recommendation and
- forward it on to the council is that right wait till we get exactly what
- it's going on with us perfect so do we need a vote on the the neutral
- recommendation then we need a vote on the new neutral recommendation you want
- me to make a motion I don't know if we need money or do we just need to have a
- discussion honestly without the numbers I'm not even sure what you're forwarding
- to them we're just we just look forwarding the fact that we had this
- discussion and it will come up again right but that I think that may be
- obvious right the fact that it's gonna come up again at the council so maybe we
- don't need to have I guess if it were me and again I'm not on the council is that
- I I don't I think until you have what you consider adequate information for a
- decision to be made I don't think you have anything really to forward on to
- just looking at the agenda where it said recommendation so I was just trying to
- find recommendation would be that you look at this at your next meeting and
- hopefully you'll have more information okay so do we need to have a vote to do
- that that's the question no no vote necessary further I would just like for
- us to take another look at what our mission is here and I do not think we're
- budgeting year-by-year a committee but if we have changed the rule and the role
- of what the long-term finance committee is supposed to be doing then I don't
- want us to be the budget committee because I want to pick up a phone call
- you whenever I want to to discuss the budgets which I could not do if we are
- now the budget committee said so that it was never set up to be that way so I
- think that any two or three of us could get together and discuss budgets and we
- don't have to do that in public and we can meet with others whatever but if for
- a formal committee such as this then if it is suddenly the budget committee I
- can't talk with you about budgets anymore that's not acceptable I think at
- this point we're moving on to number six is that right so all right so that says
- self-insurance budgets and item a is self-insurance operating funds so Bree
- is going to take I think a and give us kind of an update on where we are on 6b
- I'm running into people on vacation at the State Board of Accountants the
- answer is the self-insurance reserve fund is going to be recommended it is
- recommended by me for the long-term financial health of the county that has
- been done in many many places I've got three million in Hendrix I've got three
- million in Hancock I've got five hundred thousand in Shelby the State Board of
- Accounts is kind of just saying hey we don't know why you're doing it and I'm
- going to explain why we're doing it and it makes good financial sense when you
- have something go awry in your and you get something way over your stop-loss
- you got to have a way to do it as money gets tighter and tighter so from will be
- coming back 6b after I discuss it with the State Board of Accounts and saying
- really this is not an audit this is not they're trying to play kind of like
- financial advisor and and I want to just assure them there's financial reasons to
- do it and it's not an audit should not be an audit the issue in any way shape
- perform so 6a no wait when will it come back then I missed that next meeting
- thank you thank you this is this is absolutely essential that we do not let
- that fund be reduced too far because it only takes just one one big turn this
- upside down so we simply can't do that yep we need the what-if okay so a thank
- you there has been an extensive review of the self insurance fund recently we're
- currently sitting at a four point nine million dollar balance in a billion
- pardon million or billion million thank you certainly not billion just one to
- make that clarification thank you that'd be nice however we've noticed that this
- fund has been trending down where it appears that health care has gotten more
- expensive the county is expending the funding more quickly we've been very
- conservative with the budgeting in the past where we probably should have raised
- that a little bit more however we are focused on that at this time the
- president's letter asked that we budget eighteen thousand dollars per position
- which will help us go into the right direction I had a great conversation
- with the commissioners administrator recently and she has been communicating
- with our vendors and getting some some financial information on what to expect
- moving forward and I know that FSG has also been very involved in this so my
- current level this year and I believe that's the same for the commissioners
- administrator is that the council consider an additional appropriation
- budgeting maybe around 15 to 1600 so 1600 per employee to to address any
- potential shortfalls in this fund for 2025 it's it seems that we start to
- trend lower and more and more expenses come through toward the end of the year
- as you know people meet their deductibles and so forth so that would
- just be a safety net for the county and then with the anticipated much larger
- budget per position we anticipate being in much better shape in this fund and
- for 2026 and so this 1600 is in addition to the 18 it is I we need to address and
- you know this work we're simply analyzing expenses right now and
- projecting so I can't tell you for certain where we'll be at the end of the
- year however some projections have have indicated that the fun will either be
- very low or even in the red at the end of 25 and so so that I understand it
- since I'm pretty new if this operating fund then needs other monies does it come
- out of this the self-insurance reserve fund or where does it come out of we
- currently do not have a reserve fund and there needs to be more conversation with
- the State Board of Accounts because they currently indicate that that is not a
- possibility however I think other counties may have that so we're gonna
- work with State Board of Accounts and and see whether or not that would be a
- possibility more conversation needs to be had however regardless of where the
- funding lies we need to have a healthy operating balance and I think our
- comfort level for the immediate future is about 1.5 million and we need to
- significantly increase that in the future I see a hand over here Michelle yes I
- just spoke with the Commissioner's administrator we want to make sure that
- you understand that the additional amount that they're asking for is for
- 2025 and that additional amount will be either 1,500 or 1,600 right pardon okay
- that is not to be included for the 2026 amount that's just a that amount that
- they're asking is the additional amount for this year the current year correct
- am I correct in that Angie is that what you're saying okay I just want to
- make sure that there's two different things yes and just for for us to
- remember the reason why the state has problem with having this reserve fund is
- because they continue to remind us we're only allowed one rainy day fund and if
- they consider this to be more like a rainy day fund if they're gonna say no
- no you can't have two rainy day funds but if you recall my guidance from the
- get-go was you can you would not call it a rainy day fund we we did we do not do
- that you know in the counties that we have it we call it a reserve fund and
- that's why I specifically called it a reserve fund and they don't they're there
- if you read their their email very very carefully it's they want to know why we
- just don't keep it in 6a and the I'm going to say the track record speaks for
- itself and if we didn't do it like in a reserve fund we would just need to keep
- that the operating fund much higher and watch it very very carefully yes I mean
- some some way or the other we have to just yeah well we have to pay the bills
- right yes just add to it so how how much is that total that we need for additional
- for this year and the other question is which we've had some response from some
- of the department heads especially maybe some with the grants or whatever if they
- know they don't have if their employees are not using the insurance they still
- have to count in their budget for so many people and I would assume first of
- all that sort of helps spread the insurance cost around but in addition to
- which if they have one person leave and another person comes in and needs the
- insurance of their their budget would be you know the whole thing would be off so
- I think I hope that they have received an answer to their questions I think
- that was at that meeting was that just yesterday it seems like three years ago
- now when they were questioning whether or not they would have to include everyone
- so but what do we have a dollar amount of what the total amount of the
- additional is going to be asked for I think our we're comfortable with and
- obviously it's worth the mercy of the council here but around 1 million which
- works out to over fifteen hundred per employee right in between fifteen and
- sixteen is that the discussion I'm recalling Angie so sorry can you come to
- the mic so that everybody else can hear what's going on thank you thank you
- there's a whole row at table left over you can sign right up here all right
- thanks so part of this is kind of somewhat dependent on how badly this
- fund does for this particular year but I had in my mind in order for us to end
- the year with with a balance of 1.5 million we would need an additional 1
- million five hundred seventy three thousand six hundred thirty six dollars
- and twenty seven cents which is equated to two thousand four hundred fifty eight
- dollars and eighty one cents per full-time employee of Monroe County is
- that different than what you were talking about it is I when we spoke
- yesterday I thought we were talking about a 1 million dollar considering a 1
- million dollar appropriation this year so um I'm whatever the recommendation is
- I I'm conversation I but I thought we were talking in general generalities
- because they didn't have the actual amount so yeah it was a million but that
- is the the recommendation so give us again the more specific numbers if you
- please so we're not talking about 1600 per employee we're talking about a
- different number is that right can you tell us that different amount now you
- want it per employee or you want a total amount I want both of them okay so the
- total amount is one five seven three six three six point two seven that's the
- total amount that is recommended for the fund uh-huh to be sustainable through
- this year to end the year with a balance of one point five million okay and that
- equates to yes two thousand four hundred five eight point eight one per full-time
- employee in the budget again we're kind of playing with crystal balls I get you
- okay yeah it's not absolute until you spend the money yeah as far as I can
- tell right mm-hmm could I ask the the additional money we got for the
- supplemental was that that still setting in the general fund right yes you should
- answer specifically the supplemental associated with the general fund
- because they're supplementals on all lids right I just made the general fund
- supplemental has not been moved over we had talked at one time moving money over
- into the rainy day have we moved any to the rainy day yet this year no council
- would have to approve that yeah I have is one million two sixty in to the
- general fund now but that sounds accurate okay thank you and that's a
- budget question all right anything else on six a or B or we covered that well
- enough seven are we on Senate bill one now that that one I think we kind of did
- Senate bill one all all morning long yeah exactly and Brie has put together
- another spreadsheet that shows the tax impact of the lit I think you just look
- that over in light of it almost being quarter one and then we can move to
- number eight being on to number eight you're right what's going on
- counselor hug okay so we've got Senate bill 1b which is fiscal impact to
- taxpayers what do we have there it says that information we received this
- morning that was on the first one he just talked about that he talked about
- the chart we received where you put together yeah yeah at this point do you
- have any recommendations or thoughts you want to share with council about fully
- utilizing the lid or any or is it too soon so the only other discussion we may
- want to if you'll pass this out so the council and we've made Jeff aware of
- this and this was not discussed yesterday but the County Council has the
- right to replace some of the lost revenue as a result of the $300 it
- specifically falls under the County Council it's specifically if you notice
- here is not defined should not be defined but we put it in the bucket of
- circuit breaker so representative Thompson told me Monday it is not
- circuit breaker I agree it's a credit to the taxpayer the $300 so you'll you'll
- both get a $300 credit right off your tax bill okay that will be lost revenue to
- the county if you recall I said that's why the growth quotient was for to make
- up for some of that but here we've calculated out Brie with your help 1
- million 610 is the lost revenue to the county's portion which were 17.5 of the
- tax rate so you you have the County Council has the ability and I discussed
- this with this Crosley yesterday and we have this possibility in the statute
- most people haven't even read that little section because it was it
- discussed yesterday I brought it up to barn one of the Barnes and Thornburg
- attorneys and they're looking at it it's been sent to Jeff he's looking at it it
- was buried okay it has some indications what it would do is basically give a
- taxpayer more of a credit which would relieve some circuit breaker so if you
- really want to get complicated I am but one goes down one goes up okay right now
- you can see that we're dealing with 1.6 million so it as Jeff gets educated on
- this section and again everybody comes back to me and says well wait a minute
- we got a Cajet County here with a with a what I call the phantom tax council
- that's this point part of the statute I'm the CPA I'm not the attorney that's
- why the attorney's got to give you the opinion it does say the County Council
- doesn't say anything else so this is a section that I want Jeff to get educated
- on Brie you probably need to look at it and maybe the overall possibility if we
- want but I'm not advising anything yet at this point in time I want everybody to
- get satisfied that is something we can use now I will put you on an all points
- bulletin notice that by August 1 if you were I believe this is going to be
- applicable on this section August 1 if you're going to change the lit and do
- migration for juvenile detention Marty as you had indicated or anyone anything
- like that we must give notice by August 1 keep in mind I have counties that issue
- that notice every year in January 1 and say you know we think we're gonna do it
- and that's that's again I think you've done that before in the past Jeff
- you've given that notice haven't you if not we can provide you with it I will
- check with Molly because she would have been the one who okay that show that's
- your deadline coming and you need to make these decisions by October 1 for it
- to be in place for 26 so I just discussed this in Hancock County this
- week and everybody's like we thought maybe it was July 1 it is not it's
- August 1 give notice adjust your lits by October 1 and maybe the city is going to
- be adjusting lit also so we're really going to have to really get our ducks
- in a row if we're going to do certain things so at this point in time I miss
- Crosley I'd said I would just bring this section of the code up tell everybody
- let's look at this little section that's in the SB one and let's give it some
- thought that's about where I want to leave it I asked a question that may
- bring up something earlier that we talked the of me the increase to the
- county share circuit breaker you have 1.6 million yes is that when when you were
- saying they named the four but we're only going to get two because of the
- 300 is that kind of the 2% that you were talking about it sir okay because LSA is
- 2.3 okay down see my footnote there and that's what the county share of the 9
- million right Brie and so assumed within a couple things were assumed within the
- 2.3 now remember when the LSA estimates were run they were run you know they
- were run county by county but they were at the the facts and the figures that
- existed you know LSA does a fabulous job I'm not gonna you know I'm not gonna bad
- mouth them and all I'm not not doing that you know they did a good job with
- the facts and figures they had it there at the moment they did it and it you
- know they were pretty tight on time but now we're specific to Monroe with your
- homesteads using the most of the 300 not all matter of fact we did another
- calculation yesterday and said based upon some of the numbers that you've
- given us that that may yield it down to an average for the county of two maybe
- 250,000 and I had another county it's 275 so but we are estimating on the high
- side so that was rolled up according to representative Thompson there I he told
- me there was a report specifically on the 300 but I don't think it exists they
- they may have had it at that night but that's rolls up to the 2.3 and I'm
- worried that maybe the 2.3 is not high enough but maybe we were a little too
- conservative or too much on the 1.6 so that's the answer your question I'm
- sorry if I confuse you further no no I think that number the increase in county
- share of CV that's what we're talking when we talked about hey they gave us
- four percent but they really only gave us two percent that number is the
- hypothetical difference knowing every county is different and it's never going
- to be exactly four or two percent and I I call it circuit breaker and I was
- corrected several times earlier this week it's not circuit breaker it's lost
- revenue I understand I just put it in the total bucket of we don't get that
- money as a county okay so yes counselor hunk right I would think that also the
- cause of the change in the circuit breaker rules for the over 65 and if you
- look at our circuit breaker report you'll see a large number of the loss of
- circuit breakers is for those over 65 and because that legislation changed and
- it will affect what we receive or will not be receiving next year it's great
- for the taxpayer but it will be less dollars for us because they raised the
- revenue of how much people could make and they also took away any ceiling of
- how much the assessed value could be for the property so understand that yes so
- if you looked at our circuit breaker report and you looked at how many were
- over 65 and you recognize that's good that dollar amounts could be greater if
- more more people apply for because more people will be qualified to receive it
- right and it is my understanding that LSA used that in the 2.3 there is a lot
- going on in that - okay now I'm and see I know you had discussion with others
- evidently you had a meeting yesterday I wasn't a part of that well no no no
- there wasn't a meeting the only I called oh the one that is miss Crosley about
- anything else I needed to cover today that was it okay and I'm hearing you say
- something about 2.3 and not what are you talking about that is the LSA number at
- the very bottom of this page that is the LSA number that's been in print for 2
- million 300 I was looking for something I said 2.3 as okay okay million three
- okay estimated by everybody okay and this is based on their on the existing 1782
- notice which you're suggesting that I looked at that made me think something
- else as well because our revenue source for our income tax is tied to our
- property tax levy and so our share was 3.8 million less than and we would be
- receiving because that is a part of the way they compute how much we're going
- to get at the income tax certified shared distribution well so I think one
- of your taxes actually population-based correct and so the other ones are
- levy based so yes in your hypothetical if the levy goes up the income taxes
- will go up and for one year in 2027 you look at the distribution numbers of the
- certified share income tax distribution if you look what I certified share is
- for this year because that was based on numbers previous years numbers next year
- numbers will be based on this year's levy numbers 25 numbers seem to me a good way
- to look at that because we don't have that information back in the state we
- could take like maybe the the four highest units that receive a distribution
- of their certified shares that would be the city the county library and the fire
- district and you could look to see what what their property tax levy was
- approved on their 1782s and see which of those were higher or less and it come up
- with an amount that we could see how much higher and where we are now and I
- mean I could almost see it in my head how to do it I'm not making a lot of
- sense but with you the four higher ones we can figure out where we stand stack
- up with it then you can make up a number put a hundred and see what our
- percentages of the hundred and then we would know what our percentage up or
- down might be for our total once we get I mean just just as a way to make an
- estimate so in just simply say it 26 income taxes that you receive are based
- upon the prior years levy in the ones that are not population-based yeah yeah
- that's a certified share and since 25 levy was less then we will have less a
- little less than 26 then it will go up in 26 which will get a little bit more in
- 27 and after that it's all done I'm just saying when we're looking at our
- revenue for our budgets for 2026 and we always count on this is how much for
- property tax this is how much for miscellaneous revenue and that income tax
- that certified chairs is in that miscellaneous we need to kind of estimate what that
- difference might be some way so that we'll know what in the long-term
- financial plan we've already taken a stab at it so so we've got some estimates
- and we'll be addressing that as we go forward with the 26 budget and the 26
- miscellaneous revenues right yep so do you think let's just look at those four
- highest ones that where we are right now if you look at at the distribution if we
- have six different lids one of them is ours correctional facility oh when you
- want to look at it right now is the certified chair one well is what we call
- old gadget which is 0.94 so yes we will look at that that's the one we've
- already preliminary looked at
- okay all right so what else do we have in 7b nothing at this time I think number
- eight will be fairly easy okay well I think there needs to be a health break
- here I don't know if everybody needs a health break make do we want to recess
- for ten minutes or five ten minutes sure we can and then we can probably get this
- one pretty quick come right back and get right at the last thing okay so I think
- we're ready to call this back to order okay so we have number eight on the
- agenda here to complete and the title is jail financing I'm sure that someone
- here attending today knows what we're talking about Jeff's going to take the
- lead first thank you I will take the lead as we all know Senate bill one
- created problems right and I think at this point and we talked with I talked
- with the bond council this morning we think that unless there is a legislative
- change it is likely that we would not be able to issue bonds until 2028 which
- would put the project in a couple year delay and so we've been talking about
- you know what kinds of legislative changes we should be looking at and
- starting those conversations and so I guess Greg do you want to kind of walk
- through those so you have a piece of paper in front of you that shows the
- amortization schedule of the what was estimated at this point in time the 225
- million dollar number so you know we just use that as a number so that would
- require 17.9 million dollars LIT to support it right now that would be over
- the Senate bill 1 cap of 25% of your lit cannot be obligated to that service so
- that number would be obviously under this so that's the way we understand it
- the total lit received by the county but not but it's not but it includes all the
- different lit sources right so it would include edit lit as well as public safety
- lit in and every lit source but it that's all received by the county is my
- understanding yeah that's not my question I'm sorry okay that 25% I think
- was tied to the economic development that's what we were talking about using
- it for it but we only get a portion of that so are they talking about 25% of
- the entire economic development revenue including the city it it doesn't matter
- really the way we're doing the calculation at this point in time if the
- county is receiving 42 million in total lit the 25% I mentioned has nothing to
- do with seed at 25% total lit 40 million you cannot use more than 25% of that 40
- million for any debt right now in 25 26 and 27 special law special sentence okay
- so given that then we are going to we cannot we're in a pause Jeff corrected
- me when I said we're stopped no we're in a pause period so we will not be able to
- do it as we said using the the jail correctional facility and seed it so at
- this point in time we've got to come up with an option and the options are a
- legislative fix option one you go to the legislature and ask for a special lit to
- pay this bond of 17.9 annually and that be granted sometime next year by the
- state it would be what we can would consider title seven and there's about
- 15 of them that are out there that are specifically done that way and are still
- in existence as we understand it and not being eliminated so those are happening
- right now so so no we would ask during the next section of the legislature
- right Monroe County would like to be added to title seven a special lit
- dedicated only for this all right but I thought you said there was something
- about counties were already doing that yeah I'm sorry there are about 17 that
- already have special and I was talking about you have a special lit right right
- so so in this would be a new revised special lit right so and and so that's
- option one option two that I discussed specifically with representative
- Thompson because Jeff wrote up the paragraph and I shared it with him is
- that what we do is have a technical correction in next year's legislature
- that says the 25 percent maximum would not apply to a county that has a agreed
- order agreed order as a what agreed to order for our current jail is under an
- agreed order with Indiana Civil Liberties Union yes that's the order
- you're talking about thank you yeah so we would ask for a special exception to
- the 25% cap again nothing to do with that it nothing to do with any of that
- it's the artificial cap that was put into place for these years and I would
- also like to ask for a bond up to 25 years okay that would be what I consider
- a good option representative Thompson heard me said it might be a possibility
- didn't say yes or no we then I then also told him that we would want to and we've
- discussed this with Jeff and bond counsel we would also want to get your
- legislators backing this plan if we want either plan either one or two if we want
- to do it we also would a option number three I'm not trying to muddy the water
- with this and I might still just make an option to the 25 year backup with
- property taxes eliminate the 25% cap and then also if we don't get the special
- legislation under option one we also eliminate the fact that if you have a
- debt outstanding payable by lit you don't annually renew that because
- everybody I've seen people miss publications something happened and I
- don't want a bond default and I don't want this standard employers to come
- back and say well what if you some there's a taxpayer revolting you never
- you don't get that lit approved that's a real possibility so we need a
- legislative fix otherwise we cannot move off the pause period the team believes
- that we need to make a recommendation so we want you to think about this we're
- asking for no movement on this but we're giving you the update you're in a pause
- until we get a legislative fix at this point did I say that correctly Jeff I
- think you said that correctly I understand I think we're working really
- hard and then our team and FSG is coming up with these suggestions or this
- because not only and by the way next week I'm trying to do a 50 million dollar
- bond for a road project with Hendricks County and we're gonna have representative
- Thompson there and we're gonna address that 25% cap and the annual the annual
- amount cause at the annual revisiting that lit rate when it's dedicated to a
- bond is going to be a ratings issue this seems to me like a lot of these are
- unintended consequences yes that's how I would phrase it so if it if it is
- included with a special purpose that set outside the dollar amount the person has
- it sets completely aside from the other lit distributions and so forth and since
- we already have one special purpose you're saying they would try to
- incorporate that oh no no no no I'm not incorporating anything all I'm saying is
- just give me the right to levy a lit for the next 25 years to pay this bond off
- and have it dedicated for the to this bond and nothing else okay so it it
- would be a second special purpose yes so think about it which one that which one
- is you think will be the most difficult to get through I have no idea I will
- tell you over the next week or two as I dress option two with specific issues we
- have with specific counties maybe the door garage door gets a little bit opened
- right now there's not a crack in neither of them the team to me it might be better
- if you would tie it to like something major which would include courthouses or
- something of the sort that way you'll get more votes for it because if you tie
- it just to jails you won't have as many people there that might support it
- legislative point I'm the financial guy I'll leave that up to your lobbyist in
- your legal and you know but I do know I work in the trenches with representatives
- and senators on specifically problems specific dilemmas and you know they were
- not as you said you said it very well it's an unintense unintentional consequence
- thank you and you know here we are and and that's why we knocked on his door
- and we want to knock on other stores how many do you know how many counties are
- under the ACLU legislation problem no ma'am so I have no idea we don't know a
- total why we think there's at least one other but they are further along I think
- in their process oh okay yeah that type of ACLU so there is one county that's
- under a agreed order and a consent decree and must do the project and so but if
- you're under those situations then there's a whole another set of rules
- you're basically able to do you can even do a general obligation bond with no
- remonstrance so but we're not at that level according to your attorney so one
- in a farther level we're in the mid-level I don't believe there's
- anybody else in the mid-level that I know of that's it anything else from
- anyone else over there okay so what how far behind the maybe this is question of
- ship how far behind the schedule of where we thought we would be will this
- put us I think if everything goes ideally and we get we get a legislative
- change and we get it done by March I think the bonding process is typically
- three months so we were originally planning on breaking ground in June so
- if we did March April May June we could probably time it so that we get going in
- July or August so a couple months if all goes well we bond council said they
- could work up a schedule but at this point in time it's too early to work up
- a schedule again we would like direction from the county as a whole on what they
- would like the team to go after that's what from the way I read the
- legislation that said that we couldn't do any more than 25% for a debt didn't
- say for jail for a debt and that if we didn't put in a lit that they would put
- the lid in for us just enough to cover that debt but is this like that's a part
- of the Senate bill one and this is so I'm totally familiar with what you said
- because Jeff and I also had represented Thompson and I also had this discussion
- and the key is yes if you have a jail lit a jail bond right now that's covered
- by lit that the state does not mean to bankrupt those that lit will be imposed
- to pay that debt in in the event you don't and you know your funds could be
- intercepted to do that so you know but those are pre-existing we do not have
- any of those so you can't our present income from the economic development and
- the jail is not enough to cover the bond no ma'am would mean no increase to the
- taxpayer so we we ran those numbers quite a while ago and I don't know I
- don't know it was running short but it was close yeah I don't I don't I get not
- at the 225 yeah I'm just saying it was running close but it would not require
- an increase in the tax base because that's already that that tax is already
- there it's already I don't think under any scenario we've talked about we've
- really I don't think we're trying to look at increasing any income tax beyond
- what is currently in place now the state is kind of making us have to rethink
- that but I think for the jail I think our we've always wanted to keep the
- project budget in line with what the income tax from the edit and the
- correctionals tax would create plus what cash on hand we had namely the the the
- the ban we issued for the purchase of the property so I think that was always
- the funding mechanisms we looked at in order to do this project and so that
- that's kind of been how we've internally have looked at hey what what what's the
- upper limit of the budget is going to be now the state's done some things that we
- didn't we haven't really known how to react to so we've kind of kept that
- original spirit in place but I I'm just saying that because if we did a special
- purpose and had that completely set aside from what our other revenue we're
- really doing a double dip from what we had told the taxpayer was going to be
- we had told the taxpayer as as we were moving along we were going to pay for
- the jail with it but the economic development tax but we could only use a
- portion of each because we had leave some for you know so I don't think Jeff
- we talked about under option one there could be an increase and a delete in the
- income tax offsetting and remember anything we would even get
- authorization for next year wouldn't be would have to be enacted next year
- wouldn't be in place for more than or before 27 anyways when we're starting to
- get ready to go into 28 with our Monroe counties knew what what do we want as a
- new tax rate for lit 1.2 or lower I'm just trying to figure out a way to make
- sure that in order to make this thing move forward we're not setting up a
- situation we're literally going to be putting in place a brand new tax on top
- of the other 1.2 that we're counting on getting and then we're going to have
- this on top of that this is just going to be out a lot more and then originally
- discussed and I my mind jumped when you were speaking to if we have a lit rate
- an edit rate in place and a correctional tax in like in place and then we got
- this new legislation that there may be a way to explore how to the new
- legislation would would utilize the edit in the correctional tax first and then
- anything in addition to those which you know would hopefully be nothing would
- then would been then be made that's where that tax would would pick up and
- it would remain in place past the 2027 2028 transition so in until that's even
- written we you know we're just this is a discussion point I'm hypothetical yeah
- and so what would be the timeline if you were asking for this legislative fix
- what timeline would that go on next spring that's what I was thinking okay
- thank you next session next session earlier the better yeah short session so
- I believe they go in January and come back out okay okay and the same way with
- option two if there was a fix yes I get the fixed timeline any more from
- counselor hunk we're not asking for a recommendation yeah okay I think we just
- say we'll take that okay so I think that's the last thing on the agenda I see
- so I believe we'll call this meeting a done deal right we're going to adjourn
- ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)