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)
 ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)
 ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)
 ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)
 ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)
 ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)