Welcome, everyone. This is the Long Term Finance Committee meeting. Today is March the 31st, a Tuesday
at 1.30 p.m. here in the NatU Hill Room. And I want to acknowledge for the record that Councilmember
Crossley has stepped down from the Long Term Finance Planning Committee. And as the president pro tem
for the Monroe County Council, I will be filling that vacancy.
Given that, I would like to call today's meeting of the Long-Term Finance Planning Committee to order
this Tuesday, March 31st. I want to note for the record that we have Councilmember Liz Feidl in the
room and Councilmember Marty Hawk is yet to join us. So we'll keep an eye out for her virtually or here
in the NatU Hill Room. Does anybody wish to amend today's agenda? No.
All right. In that case, since there's no changes to today's agenda, all those in favor of adopting
today's agenda signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. The motion carries unanimous.
Next, we'll move on to the election of the chair. And since this is the first meeting of the long-term
finance for 2026, we need to elect a chair and a vice chair. Councilmember Feidl, do we have any nominations
for chair?
you. I accept that nomination and, uh. Let's see. I think we need to now have a motion to well, let's
do in turn here. A motion to accept this chair and so moved. All right. We've got a
Any other comments? Looking here to make sure that Council Member Hawke is not present. All right, and
we need to do a roll call on this. You're all present, I believe. All right, all those in favor of Peter
Iverson as Chair of the Long-Term Finance Committee, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ayes
have it unanimously. Next, I would like to nominate Council Member Liz Feidl as Vice Chair of the Long-Term
Finance Committee.
do you accept the nomination? Yes. Excellent. In that case, I move to accept Liz Fiddle as vice chair
of the Long-Term Finance Committee. Is there a second? Second. All right. Hearing a motion and a second,
are there any other comments? Again, making sure that we don't have another council member on the line.
All right, we don't. So all those in favor of Council Member Liz Fiddle as vice chair for the Long-Term
Finance Committee, please say aye.
Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. All right. Last thing before we get to our esteemed
guests is the approval of the summary minutes. I move to approve the June 6th and August 1st, 2025 long-term
finance summary meetings minutes as presented. Second. Are there any questions from the committee on
these minutes?
All right, all those in favor of approving the summary minutes as presented signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, same sign. The motion carries unanimously. All right, now we're going to move into
the meat of our conversation. The first item on our agenda is a presentation from the Monroe County
Trustees Association. We have President, is that right?
chair. I think so. All right. Of the Bloomington Township Trustee Efrat Rosser, we have Leon Gordon
from the Perry Township Trustees Office and Rita Barrow from the Van Buren Trustees Office.
So thank you, Township Trustees, for your presence here. The floor is yours. Tell us what we need to
know. Thank you so much, Chair, Chairman, and to all the committee members and council members for your
time and for being really proactive on these conversations.
We know this will all sneak up on us and we want the public to be well informed and engaged and.
you're leading the way. So I also want to acknowledge we have some colleagues joining us via Teams.
I believe Michelle Bright, the Benton Township Trustee, Joan Hall from Salt Creek Township, and Scott
Smith from Polk Township. And I apologize if I missed anyone. And while we're not here necessarily speaking
as an official organization today, we're here as a majority of the members who've had a chance to come together
around some of the information that we shared out with you in a packet. And if you don't mind, we'll
just take you through it because I think we're just concerned about our future as it relates to some
of the changes that the state mandated via SB1 and other legislation in the next couple of years and
looking for your partnership to work through these issues.
Countships, a real quick overview. We are the most localized grassroots layer of government in Indiana,
where each independent
government units that respond to our unique community needs and challenges. But the overarching themes
are that we are sort of that safety net, and in a lot of communities, the only one. Here we have a more
robust one, but we're often that final barrier between a resident in crisis and homelessness. So we
like to say that we prevent evictions and homelessness every day, every week. We keep people
safely housed with utilities and heat on. We provide food, we can provide assistance with certain medical
needs, and we help pay for the burials of folks who may not have had the means to do so themselves.
On the third slide, if you're following along, we did just want to put a chart together and I think
I want to thank Rita for pulling this together. With the scope of all of our. Combined assistance to
households and individuals in Monroe County so if you take the eleven townships and look at those totals
at the bottom combined just last year
is almost 2400 households and the value of that assistance is over 1.3 million and this doesn't capture
all the case work.
calls where people are inquiring about services, so information referral, as well as some other duties
that we statutorily have. So that's the quick overview. And then I'd love to turn it over to my colleague,
Leon Gordon, who put a lot of great work into digging into the financial picture and where we might
go from there. So Mr. Gordon?
Yes, thank you, and thank you all for having us today. As I mentioned, I wanted to take some time to
try to paint a picture of where our financial landscape lies, where our money comes from. And so I'll
start there and then kind of get into the scope of that landscape under the changes coming through legislation.
And so township funding comes from three core buckets. That's property taxes, you know, the levies.
Of course, the lit shares under the current system and smaller tax supplemental taxes like excise and
vehicle commercial taxes. And so, yes, our goal today is to hone in on what lit shares have been for us and
what we hope for them to continue to be. Moving on to the next slide, if you're following along, I chose
to hone in on Perry's Township's numbers, specifically zooming in to give a clear picture of our financials
with regard to how much we rely on it. As you could see, our property tax levy for 2025 is roughly 800,000,
and our current
Uh, lit baseline accounts for roughly, uh, 28, 28% of our, uh, operation, uh, operational revenue. Uh,
so roughly about a third.
of our operations relies on LIT to do the work that we do and the numbers that you see that are shared.
And so if we follow along to the next slide, zooming out to, we paint the same picture for our counterparts
and the landscape for contributions for property tax levy and then LIT
as well as the other smaller taxes as well. What I thought was critical here is, again, that picture
that that percentage of reliance holds true for pretty much all townships here. And so LIT has been
pretty critical to our baselines of operations. And if you could see that aggregate number there for
the total from this current distribution, it's 1.64 million.
And so we honing in on that number as a baseline as we think about the future, as that's where we currently
are. Moving on to the changes. And so what we understand, and the research that we've been digging into,
we're placed in the bucket, of course, with the non-municipal civil taxing units and that restriction of
of the total expenditure rate, which within our bucket townships have to share a maximum of 0.05% of
that lit expenditure rate. And so doing the math, what we projected, and again, I'm a little disclaimer
on the complete accuracy
of these numbers. That amount translates to a maximum available pool of roughly 2.14 million available
funds under the statute that is required by statute, the limit by statute.
And so put up against what our current numbers are, we provided you with a figure for what our needs
would be adjusted for inflation in 2028, which is roughly 1.77 million. All right. Follow that. Just
kind of to bring it home.
we're asking that take strong consideration to enact that total 0.05% percentage available to townships.
This is in the context of all the other constraints and other recent legislative changes, of course,
with the changes to how valuations happen and the property taxes that we're gonna be able to
recoup and also the distribution
that we have a strong base line to seek to do the most good with with with each other. In terms of making
sure that every. Resident moral county has access to hardship relief. And I'm
speak just a little bit more on the landscape of change with regard to additional changes that we're
expecting as a reason to again advocate for that full funding. We understand that the implementation
of SB or Senate Enroll Act 270, the township merger is coming to fruition and by December 31st we'll
know ideally if there's going to be any force or mandated
merging and so in that within that scope. There's additional changes on the horizon for the merger with
Richland Township.
and Alexville that will significantly impact distribution formula and the math involved with that.
And again, as I mentioned, the per capita distributions. And so as we navigate that change, we're hoping
that we can anchor down on having your support to the maximum amount as possible with the idea of that changing.
it's evolving, and we hope to remain present to do the work that we do. And I will move now to turn
it over to Rita, who's our veteran here among us, to just again speak to the importance of townships
and why we would hope for your continued support.
I'm Rita Barrow, Van Buren Township Trustee. And what I'm about to say to you does not really have any
impact on one, anything they've said other than what we do. As trustees, we don't look at it as an elected
official. We look at it as a job for our constituents. Therefore, we go through as
I want you to understand. Everyone has said what we do each day. What I want you to understand is. We
have an office. We have an office with an open door. Individuals come in and some of their situations
in the positions and.
and talk with them one-on-one and we get them to understand that with us we can help certain things
and there are other things that we can help them with or direct them to. But things like individuals
that come in with a disease that they are looking for disability and still haven't received it
sometimes years later. So we are looking at them, we try to keep them as close as we can without overspending
on just one individual. We have families to come in with no income because they've lost their jobs,
they've been evicted. And so now they have no place to go, no food to eat,
their clothing, heaven knows where it comes from and what it looks like. Another thing, tornadoes. And
as you guys know, we have had these issues. So we, again, are out there. For individuals, we help with
Red Cross and us to try to get them into some place until they can get the insurance
and get started or find a place that they can rent for just a short time. We use our budgets to be able
to continue our jobs and to our residents. Like I said, we'd like to help with other departments, hoping
that those individuals will help us as well.
The LID funds we received allows us to place more of our budget into township assistance instead of
township general or any other fund, in turn, keeping our team members, our employees in a job, a facility
to work in, have a place for them, for individuals to come in that's needing help, in addition to keeping
our lights and utilities
whatever else we have to do, insurance. In closing, I just want you to realize that we as trustees place
our residents first before anything else, and I would be very grateful for the County Council to consider
and continue providing LIT to use for my and your constituents. Thank you for allowing us to speak and
your consideration
1.05 in advance to continue to help townships. Thank you. Any questions? Well, before I go to my colleagues,
were there other township trustees online that had further comments? I believe we worked this out together,
but I certainly, if you want to pause and offer opportunity, I may have missed someone in my introductions.
Yeah, if you want to raise your hand on teams, if you are a township trustee and you'd like to add further
context to the data that was shared, that would be a good time to do so. All right, seeing none, let's
go to my council colleagues for questions and comments. I think I'm okay for now, but I'll continue
to listen and see if something comes up.
Mike down please. As you might know I do have questions and I apologize for not being here on time but
then you know my name is Marty and I'm like wherever I go I do too much one day can't do it. I'm seeing
that 0.05 and I'm trying to figure that out because I know that Liz and I are going to get further updates next week
when we go to the AIC meeting. It had been written before, so maybe things have definitely changed,
but it was supposed to be that the townships would be in the .02. So maybe this has all changed, something
new to me, but I've questioned it and so far I haven't seen the change. It's 1.2 for county operations,
it's .4 for fire
and EMS and 0.24 townships. Now, we can't do 100% of all that because we can't do any more than a certain
amount. We can't do any more than 1.7. So in order to hear you and
We also need to hear from the fire departments to see how that's going to work out and also to hear
from the library. But the big sticky point here is going to be from that Bloomington transportation
because they've already said they need all of the point two. And part of the legislation says that if
we should pass something that is higher than it is supposed to be, that they will take first from
the option one which is the 1.2 to operate county government. So this is for anybody to promise anything
right now would be a real mistake because we really don't have the numbers. Now I see our county legal
department getting up, I thought maybe he was, well I saw Jeff going that way, thought maybe he was
gonna correct me on that. And I'm willing to hear corrections because I don't know what is the point of,
What is the .05? Had you already explained that and I missed it? I'm sorry. I think as a simplistic
way of saying it, there are different pies within that 1.9 that you all have to figure out with different
caps, right? And we understand that we may be falling under one that includes the special districts,
but our current understanding is that within that townships alone would have 0.05. If that has changed
or you see something different, I think that's why we're here is to just talk this out. We also are
aware that you may be working with Reedy, right? Financial, is that fair to say that the county might be
that we could all go in together. Engaging a consultant. No. Okay Well, I guess there was discussion
amongst the group of if there is still analysis to be done that maybe we could all go in together. On
you know, work through a consultant to really. Put a stamp on all of this, but we were where there's a
in a part of whatever the point two is. But I hate to keep saying this, but we may not be able to do
the point two because the fire departments say we really have to have the point four and we're trying
to do ambulance service in there as well. Then the only place we could take it from would be county
operations, which is where we have to pay for the jail debt.
bond and I questioned that yesterday just to make sure we were still on track and yes, whatever we commit
to for the bond and repay whatever the assets set within that 1.2. I know that may not be what you want
to hear, but I think we all need to operate from this is where we sit right now.
And now there may be those who say, well, look, let's go ahead and pass the thing that the city wants
us to do, which is tax all the people who don't live in the city and send the majority of that money
to the city. You might know that I represent people who are in more rural areas, and they're not gonna
support that, nor will I.
But that doesn't mean it might not pass. There's a small amount of that money that might be coming back
to county government. So maybe they could figure out some way to move those dollars around.
I don't know, but I would not want to count on that happening because there's gonna be a major pushback.
That was what Senate Bill 1 was to begin with, was to quit taxing the people who live outside of
where they can vote, you know, if they can't vote for how it's going to be spent. So I wanted to share
that with you because I think we all need to be coming from the table of reality and then see where
we go. I think we fully understand the dilemma you're placed in in terms of there's more
the amount available to you to disperse, and you have some hard choices to make. So we can only be here
as township saying you should. This is this is what we need. And in fact, more because we're barely
keeping up some days with the demand out there.
understand this the rest is sort of up to up to you to get pen and paper out and do that hard work and
you'll have some difficult choices to make and there's a lot in motion like you said with the city and
their choices then you have the Richland-Ellisville merger that might take Richland out of the pie that
gets shared by township so I you know there's all these different things in play. And if I could
Just reiterate, today is not the day to make decisions. We are going to take the data that you've so
carefully put together and share it with our council colleagues, and this is gonna be built into the
decision-making calculus that we'll make closer to budget time. But when, you know, I just wanna remind
everybody that the timeline here is that you all had come to a county council meeting and said, we need
to have this conversation
Because this is happening whether you want it to or not. This is happening And so today is that day
where we can put a finer point on this and and here we've got something to react to we've got that zero
point five We've got that number one point seven seven million dollars. We've got lit reliance per township
We've got service households number of households using your services. There's a wealth of information
here, but I think
Probably to there's two other aspects here that creates more uncertainty for me is number one is this
issue of the climate. Are we going to be seeing more derechoes or we're going to be seeing more tornadoes.
We saw a tornado in February for Pete's sake. You know so that's that's something and in.
If population here continues to grow, which it is slowly, you're going to see more and more need. And
so particularly then if there's going to be a merger happening after December, as you so finally put
it, that's, you know, we just don't know. So. I think let me kick it over to Councilmember Fiddle. Do
you have any further questions at this point? I'm not. I think.
I think we have some tough decisions to make and I personally and I know my colleagues appreciate the
information to work with to pass along your concerns and your desires to serve the people and that's
really what I'm interested in is serving the people.
Also, I know that you were hit by another part of that legislation that said, well, you know, now you
know what I'm going to be talking about. If you've got any money setting aside in your capital improvement
plan, I think it's what they call it, that my go-to
filling potholes and so forth. And I understand the people, I'm not finding fault with people of the
state. They're handed a lot of problems, so they're trying to work through each one how to fix it. But
it's been many, many years. I think townships used to do more in the way of road maintenance. They don't
now, but if they expect,
So I know that you're working around trying to make sure your capital improvement plan's not leaving
money on the table. I get it, that's what we do with finance. We have to figure out a way around everything.
But I want you to know that we know that we're listening and we understand and you're the one that has
to look at that person who needs help with their rent or their utilities or get the trees off of their
roof that they can't afford to do.
So I think I'll go on vacation and forget the rest of it. So I think in terms of next steps, obviously,
Once we have more clarity on some of these things, you're always welcome to come back to the county
council. We are going to be having these long-term finance meetings quarterly. So as we know more and
more about some of the actions that the legislature took, we'll be deciphering more and more of that.
And so you'll, of course, be welcomed back to bring updates as they occur.
you're always welcome to please send any additional information you have that you think will be helpful
for us as we're formulating our next steps. All right, thank you very much. Thank you so much. I would
like to make a suggestion. Have you sat down and worked with the other units that might be pulling from
this, like the fire departments, like the library, like the Bloomington Transportation? I'm just saying
maybe you would. Yeah, not yet. I mean, I think we want to dig
understanding between the 11 townships first and that that can you as you can imagine is is challenging
to hold that many busy people together everybody's fighting over the same piece of cherry pie i'll say
that was definitely our additional our initial approach and thinking about this but and then we learned
about the additional caps for each individual entity within and
those limitations, so we thought we had to definitely kind of get to the table with each other and understand
our livelihoods were to sustain. We're here as partners, so let's continue to talk. Let's continue to
work together. Thank you. Please let us know if you need any other information at any point. All right.
We are going to move to next, the item on our agenda
is we are going to invite let's see.
our auditors to the table here. And you can come over here. You can stay where you're at, whatever works
for you all. You've got your name plates over there. Why don't you stay over there? So we wanted to
look at a couple of different data points. So Breanne Gregory is our auditor. Do you want to go ahead
and walk us through what you've prepared? And then we can start asking questions. Sure. I'd love to.
Good afternoon. Thanks for having us here today. So I just wanted to start off with review
We have a little bit of a different template this year. We've consolidated so you can see data from
the 23 to 24 period, 24 to 25, and then of course the most recent, 25 to 26 reversions. So the way this
is organized, it's organized by fund, the department, because again,
There are a lot of funds that have more than one departmental budget located there, as well as category,
then organizational tools as well. So this just goes through budget by budget, so department by department
and by fund, and just details what was unexpended at the end of the year. So as of 12-31-25, what the
department did not use, what was left remaining in the fund that we budgeted.
So we did consider encumbrances as well. However, for the most part, the county just budgets, so we
don't encumber a lot. We only encumber bonds, for example. So in going through this, we are doing better
than we have in previous years as far as budgeting more accurately.
We do still have some work to do, but I think some of that, for example, personnel that was the category
that had the greatest reversions overall. Particularly in the general fund, but I think some of the.
policy choices that we've made collectively, for example, the hiring freeze, have allowed for the slow
roll and, if you will, the savings of, you know, certain periods of time will save money then if we're
not paying out during those periods. So I think that's part of the reason, even though we're budgeting
a little bit more closely to need, we're seeing a greater reversion there.
So before you go any further, is it possible to share the spreadsheets and entitled twenty twenty three
twenty twenty four and twenty twenty five reversing report. Thank you. Like a chair, she has issues
upgraded because I'm on as well. Either way. You ready to share?
I don't think she has the permission if you wanna go. Oh, okay, yes, I can do it. TSD, please provide
Carly Woodruff with permission to share her screen for the future. Oh, looks like she was just giving
it, okay. Okay. Excellent.
You should see the, yes, the revergent report has populated on the screen there. Okay, so again, this
just goes through for selection funds, for example, all the levy funds are noted there, a handful of
other funds that might be interesting to review. We did include some of those unappropriated expenses
where like, you know, fund to fund transfers, for example, or there's certain instances where
we don't require an appropriation for a state called meeting, for example, could be technically expended
out of here, out of general fund, unappropriated. So anyhow, as I was saying, personnel is where we
saw the most consistent higher reversions. Although we are doing better as a whole, there are still
couple to few departments where we might be able to get that even closer if that is the will of the
council to budget as accurately as possible. But we're providing this as a tool and you're welcome to
ask questions or if we need to dig in deeper, if you have those more specific questions, we can provide
a report with the detail as well. Council members, do you have any questions specifically about this
reversion report?
or personnel lines within it. Member Hall. I have to have time to study. Of course, of course. Please.
Yeah, OK. So yes, and as you develop further questions or even members of the public, they can reach
out to my office for more specifics, OK? So we appreciate that. And then I believe we would be moving
on then to
before we move on, can we go back? Can we look at the bottom line on the reversion report? Actually,
I mean, you can see that, but this is only for a selection of funds. It's not like all of counties.
So I don't think that's a great tool right there. I would like you to look at a fund by fund basis.
Got it. Okay. So yeah, just to reiterate, this isn't all of county funds. This is a selection of funds
that would be most beneficial for review.
Is it okay to move on to the next? Okay, the next piece of information, I'd like to draw your attention
to the Minner County fiscal overview.
or I'm sorry, financial overview. This is a new report created by Ms. Woodruff over here, the financial
director in my office. This is just kind of a top-level overview of where we are as of quarter one.
It's actually as of 3-26, so we're not, we didn't quite get to the end of the quarter. I'm sorry, oh,
it was updated 3-30, excuse me. So this shows you historical information, so 24, 25, and then as we
are then in quarter one as well.
So you can comparatively see the beginning cash balances, revenue totals as of the different periods,
expenditure totals, ending cash balance in the ledger at those periods as well, and then just the changes
there as far as the cash analysis. So right now we're pretty close to where we expect to be overall.
Nothing glaring there in that top
and then we have the levy fund box. We. Anticipated revenue versus actual revenue for levy
funds specifically. And, um. Again, um. Pretty much what we anticipate there. There's no giant swings.
Nothing glaring.
And so that's why you see that. Obviously for twenty twenty six as we are only in quarter one. I mean,
that's the anticipated versus actual is. Only you know, looking at quarter one, so that's why you see
that number there that percent. As far as the expenditure analysis for levy funds. All that data is
there as well. We've actually because of.
we've been in the last couple of years, which. Um is great and kudos overall to all the departments
for being very conservative. It's gone down a little bit each year. I see you, right? Mm hmm.
And I mean, part of that comparative quarters. I mean, comparatively, yes. And obviously, you know, um,
different things factor in, different times of year, we expend more for various reasons. I mean, you
have to think about ARPA in the last couple of years as well and so forth. So, well, these are the levy
funds, so that wouldn't come into play, but just things like that that occur, where we're expending
more for a specific reason. I know that's a lot to digest, but does that kind of give you the overall
big picture you were looking for, Councillor Iverson? I think this is really helpful.
I think this breaks it down in a really easy to understand way where we've got that overview, revenue,
and expenditures. As we know, we all love color on our reports, so thank you for including color. You're
welcome. Just hearing what Councilmember Pytel just said, it's really quick to be able to look at this
and say, oh, we're doing better. Every year we're doing better.
we are under anticipating revenue and surprised and wonderful to see more. And then we are under budgeting
for expenses. And that's been really helpful because then we're able to keep those expenses under control.
Yeah, exactly. So I mean, I think just as we update this quarter to quarter, this will help us. It's
just another tool to help identify any glaring issues or giant waves that we want to identify reasoning for.
Council Member Hawke. Yes. This could be very helpful. What I'm looking for, maybe it's in here someplace
and I just don't see it. But as we know, we have the levy funds that are inside that max levy. And that's
really where I want to concentrate how much is spent down on each of those things. And that would not be under
that are all within that frozen levy portion. So do you have that? Is that someplace here? And I'm not
saying I don't think it is. That's not on this overview, but we can separate that out, perhaps for the
next report. You get that in other ways, too.
other reports that we do. However, we're happy to take your constructive criticism and adjust as you'd
like to see it. The reason why is because we know during budget session, we were moving some of the
levy over into general to help out general. And we also knew when we were doing that, we were going
to have to replace it. So that's what we have to keep a close eye on is as we're
working toward long-term, even long-term for next year's budget, is how much of that general fund levy
will we need to actually move over into these other levy funds? So that's something we have to keep
a close eye on. Absolutely, I agree. So as you were developing this report, did either one of you have any
items that you thought of as potential recommendations to make to council as we're considering the next
year's budget? Yes, that was actually going to be my next point as well. So we would invite the council
to maybe collectively discuss a budgeting philosophy that we could work toward, meaning
do we are we going to strive for a balanced budget every year or as we are working through these statutory
changes are we you know going to have a deficit budget if we're going to have a deficit budget how far
do you want to dig into reserves what is the capacity for that we need to identify the health of the
funds and we can assist with that obviously to determine where we could potentially dig in what is available
we also need to look at
other revenue streams. For example, we know that we need to review the rate for lit special purpose.
And we've identified that we'll need to have that rate. We need to raise the rate so it's effective
beginning January of twenty twenty seven, just to ensure that we can support the budgets of our court
partners that rely on that for juvenile services.
And then you know what related to that you would also need to determine You know the health of the other
lit rates, you know in the interim and so forth Excellent and clearly we are a subset of the broader
council. So I think these questions are going to be really helpful to discern with the entire council,
but clearly I mean, I don't know my colleagues have any questions or initial thoughts on a
or something as grandiose as that. I definitely would like to hear everyone's input on that before I
proceed with that, I think, philosophy. Yeah. I was reading what you were saying over here.
It helps me. I really like this. Emily, it helps me too. Well, I think as we move forward,
more truthful with ourselves, because we really want to see a rosy picture, and that's what we want
to look for. And then we find out, like the state did, sort of at the last minute, they had to go, oh,
well, I guess we're not in such good shape. And they start changing what the legislation says,
and everybody's having to deal with it last minute. I hope that we don't have to do that sort of thing.
I know that we,
passed the budget much in deficit and the only way we did it was we moved a lot of expenses over into
the economic development as well as that jail tax and we can't just take that back out because that's
it's ongoing expenses so it isn't like as if we can't we have to project actually having revenue there long term
to pay for that. One of it was over a million dollars. What was a million and a half or something for
the medical contract with the jail? And that was are you saying yes? It's like there was that one and
then the by two minutes I think was the other. So that that still has to be covered. If it wasn't covered
in that jail tax correctional tax, it would have had to been in County General. So we had to put it
someplace. So you count that million and a half plus the
million something or the other was over that in that economic development tax and that's how much we
were actually we budgeted to spend more than what we budgeted revenue. I mean not that we weren't that
there was revenue coming in in economic development in jail but we
took expenses that would normally be covered out of general and moved it over to these others. So we
have to we have to recognize we did that and they're not that's not going to go away. Right. Please.
I may. I don't know if it's
of interest now, but we are prepared to pull up that lit sandbox, just showing where we are currently
and just some options for moving forward. If you would rather do that down the road or as a complete
council, that's absolutely fine as well. Yeah, could we could we put a pause on that? I also love these
analogies. You're talking about a lit sandbox. The trustees talked about a walled garden. This is a
really lovely long term finance committee meeting. And I think
So in terms of a philosophy, I think it's going to be difficult. We're going to need to have a lot of
time to think about this and process it, because the economic landscape has changed so dramatically,
so quickly, that back in the ARPA days, we were talking about making big investments. And now we're
talking about how do we balance the budget? And so I think that's going to be the challenge there is
is, you know, where are the council members at now? And so I'm really happy that we're starting this
conversation now, because I think it's going to take a while to get to the point where, where folks
can kind of land on something. So we're not going to hear from them about, I mean, I think that's real
important for us to hear what the theory is right now, where we're sitting with these lids.
You're saying we've agreed not to do that? I was looking at the agenda and seeing that we've got a couple
more reports to go here. Okay, well hopefully we'll do that at the end. Or we could do it at a full
council meeting. I think it's important that the council hear this not just once, just twice. If people
are like, I have to read it, I have to hear it, I have to read it again.
for it to really digest the whole thing. And so I think it is asking too much to make a presentation
to the entire council just once without them hearing the background, because I know that they will listen
to this meeting, even if they're not sitting here, they have every opportunity to look at your presentation.
So I'm hoping that we do find time, and if people have to move on,
I did schedule three hours today, just in case. If I may, Councillor Hock, on that note, I mean, these
reports are already now, so they're available to the entire council in the public. I'm happy to discuss
during department updates, you know, even every meeting for a little while, and just to remind, at least
at a minimum, remind everyone that they're available and, you know, to please bring forward any questions
that you might have.
Do you have anything to add on that? Anything? No? Okay. I would welcome that. I think the full council
members are going to really enjoy having the opportunity to have their questions. And as Councilmember
Hawke said, I think this is going to need to be an ongoing repeated conversation. I agree. That's a
great insight. All right. Auditor, do you have any other reports that you'd like to share with us today?
Yes, I was able to connect with the treasurer.
I know she's noted on here for revenue. Revenue is actually an auditor function. However, she holds
the investments, including interest and so forth. So her reports are available on the county website.
I believe the council gets those as well. If not, we can make sure they do get into your hands. Just
in the brief conversation I had with her, I don't want to speak for her, but her goal she shared is
to have a 4% return on
all the cash we're holding in the funds. So that is her goal. That's what she's working toward.
You know, she hopes that it comes in above that, but that's that's her benchmark. Okay. Excellent. Excellent.
And I think on the screen now, what are we seeing? Who's sharing their screen?
Okay, this is a public document. This is actually from the Finance Board meeting. I think this was the
introductory meeting they had in January this year, but this is part of that report that the treasurer
provided. And I think it's dated as of 129, 2026. So again, these reports are available publicly on
the county website. I believe council office also receives them. So this is just the type of information
available. And of course, you can also reach out to the treasurer for this information.
So I can't see it very well from here. Does that show the return that you're talking about, or what
are we seeing? It shows the different accounts that the treasurer is holding investments in, and the
percent of the available funding in each. And it looks like total cash deposits on hand. So any specifics
about the treasurer's reports, I'd really like to come, you know,
specific questions from the treasurer just because I'm not, I don't wanna speak for another officer.
And that's where again? I know it's here on screen, but where is it at again? Where can people see it?
You can find it on the county website under, I think, the Board of Finance Committee. Thank you. Probably
also on the treasurer's webpage, I would imagine. I know that a large part of our,
revenue that can fluctuate so much is the amount of interest that we receive. And so I want to make
sure that we are regularly updated on this is what we anticipated and this is what we've received so
far to see if we're about to hit what we thought it was going to be. Because that was a lot.
million. No. What was that? How much was that interest that was added in there? Sort of like we didn't
have that number until later. You mean when we were budgeting for 2026? Was it six or seven million?
Is that what you're referencing, Counselor Hawk? I don't know why I was thinking four million.
What was that number? I'm still called 4B, whatever. The miscellaneous revenue, which shows the interest
for county general. Ms. Woodruff is pulling that up now. I have six and seven million in my head. I
think it was somewhere there. And Michelle's nodding here, so I think that's accurate. But give us one
moment to pull this up. It was huge.
yes it's a significant amount and like I said the um treasurer smith is confident um about the four
percent mark so which is still good um I don't think that's quite where we were last year but it's still
a good amount and the reason why I think it's important for us to watch that closely is because uh of
course the treasurer was
able to pull in a lot more interest money because we had a lot more cash setting there that we are not
going to have in future. So we can't count on that kind of revenue dollar amount in future as that cash
gets spent down. I mean, because we were pulling it from the ARPA money and all of the money. So she was very
She was adamant that 4% on what the cash balance of the funds so the funds on the ledger is what she
envisions and what she anticipates being able to produce for the county.
So we do provide those monthly revenue reports so that can show you any big swings and demonstrate that
we are meeting our benchmarks. Additionally, we're gonna continue to update this quarterly report that
you just saw a few moments ago on your screen. And anything else necessary, your team, my team,
we can assist. So just let us know, please. Not ignoring you, I'm just reading. Oh no, you're good.
Emily, do you have anything to add? Did you confirm that number? She's still looking for that number.
Apologies, we might have to get back to you on that. Going back to the quarterly reports that you had
shared earlier, in the green section, which is the anticipated revenue versus actual revenue,
we do see about, what is that, a 3.18% decrease in revenue from quarter one of last year to quarter
one of this year.
from 7.155 down to 6.928. It's going down. So can you give some more insight as to why that might be?
We looked into that a little bit earlier and Carly can assist with that. So this
fluctuation of roughly $276,000. While that seems like a large number for the county, it's really pretty
small. Whenever I looked into that a little bit deeper, it looks like, I'm sorry, it's 227,000. Between
two account lines that are grant-related, we see a decrease in those two lines of roughly 276,000.
Some of that is timing. Other is just we only get reimbursed based on a percentage or per diem. So it
just fluctuates with those expenses for those grant dollars. So if you look at the year total for the
same figures, there is a decrease, a sizable amount I would call it, right? Five million-ish.
What are you looking at now? If you look at the year total of the actual revenue, the green section,
so the year total for 2024 was 70 million plus. The year total for 2025 was 65 million plus. To me,
that's a decrease overall year to year, right? So it isn't just a quarter from what I see here. We were
most closely looking at this quarter to the previous
year's quarter. Well, I see the bigger picture, which is year over year, right? So it isn't just the
quarters for me for sure. Remember Hawk? Yes. And as a reminder, for quite some time, the revenue coming
in for the per dams at the youth shelter used to go into a separate fund where we were hoping to pay
something. I'm sorry. I don't remember why we were saving it, but we were.
for something and we spent it on that something. Was it to redo the used shelter, something for it.
But then after that, it is now going into county general. So I don't know whether they have as much
emphasis on keeping track of, but they would because this is a contract with the state for how much
the state is going to pay
for each night that someone is placed there by the state, but also any individual amounts that people
might donate to them. So is that what you were referring to as that number has gone down drastically,
that 200-some thousand you were talking about a while ago?
a lot of those dollars, there's fluctuation in when we receive it. So when you look at quarter by quarter,
you may see what looks like a decrease, but it's not actually a true decrease. Also, you have to remember,
a lot of these grant reimbursements are reimbursements. So if our expenses decrease, our reimbursements
are also gonna decrease. And we're actually seeing that on this chart, right, in the orange section.
our expenditures, Q1 to Q1, are down 8.45 percent, which vastly outpaces the decrease in revenue, which
is a negative 3.18 percent. So our expenditures are falling faster than our revenue is falling. Or again,
if you look at the year total for each year for the category, the actual expenditures, it's not decreased.
Am I saying that correctly? Yeah, say more about that.
Yes, I'm seeing the same thing. If you look at the year total for 2024 revenue and year total for 2025
revenue, we saw a decrease of about $5 million. Whereas our expenditures for year and 2020, 40 year
and 2025 actually saw an increase of about $500, $600,000. So that's upside down. We're spending more
than we're bringing in. But did that even include the
recent spending that we put in other funds because that's that yes no. If you're looking at just the
green and the orange those are just the levy fine just loving okay. Okay that's not the total big picture
right right you have to look in the notes column as well right I see. But it is not a complete snapshot
it is a useful snapshot to at least because we
we went over this again and again during budget cycle is, where's the general fund? How healthy is the
general fund? These levy funds are so important. And just to bring it back, we were asked to provide
an overview and to concentrate on those bigger funds. So if you would like something else, we just need
a direction. I get it. I'm just noticing what I notice.
Also, I do want to know that whenever you start looking at funds beyond the levy funds, you get into
nuanced situations. You get into where distributions are going into and out of distribution funds. We
flow money through different funds within the county regularly. So whenever you start analyzing those
receipts and expenditures that are not true receipts and expenditures, it starts manipulating that data
and then it looks a little funky. And so we try to focus on these levy funds where there's less of that
So if you notice, whenever you look at these notes, we specifically took out accounts that have money
flowing into and out of these specific funds. There's just so many different ways that the financials
work that we wanted to give the most accurate representation of what we think is most important.
I hear you. Right. I would just suggest that when we're looking at the levy funds, and then you have
column over here that needs to be
here's our income tax funds because we're relying more and more on that income tax. Now it's all going
to be under one great big umbrella before we get turned around, but we've got to figure out how we're
going to live between now and the times actually the revenues coming in from that different source and
then put back into with our property tax.
Sure, we did provide in the email for this group, the lit sandbox, so you can take a look at that when
you have ability to kind of digest more information. Yeah, you did. Thank you. All right. We need,
I think, to push on to a conversation about longevity, but I do want to give you the final word.
just thank you, I think, you know, the pregame, if you will, to prepare for this meeting was really
beneficial. We could determine what you wanted to see and hear from us and we'll take the notes and
go from there for next meeting. Appreciate it, thank you. And as a reminder to my colleagues, this report
will be shared every single quarter that we have these meetings. So if you do have tweaks, you have
additional funds you want to analyze, you have additional data that you want to analyze,
please get with the auditor's office and we can see those tweaks. All right. Next, we are going to look
to Kim shell to give us an update on the longevity and the fiscal impact of longevity. The floor is
yours. Okay. Yes. So longevity we've we've and I say we the council has been speaking about removing
longevity out of the budget and
This all basically, and I just to give a little bit of background, we did a WIS financial analysis when
we did our job descriptions and just did a big overhaul back in November of 2021. And it was during
that timeline that they recommended that we either do away with the step increases or we do away with
longevity because they were
we were dual paying employees. So in an effort to kind of remove longevity, council passed back November
1st of 2023 and anyone hired after that date would no longer be eligible for longevity. So any hires
after November 1st of 2023. So
Right now, we sit at, and do you want me to put that up on the screen? That would be really helpful.
I think when we start talking about numbers, it's really easy to get lost, especially when comparing
numbers over years and over different time periods. And you know, for IT or whoever does this, it would
be really helpful if there was a screen over there, of course. Oh, just right in front of you?
I mean, I can see this just fine. I feel bad for you guys. Oh, don't feel bad for us. OK, I won't cry.
But I really appreciate it. Good, good, good.
Okay so I went through each screen by chance. Is there a way to make it the whole screen or that's as
big as it gets? If you want it big I can only do it like this. Okay if you want to see the whole thing
it's going to be very small. All right there's no medium. Not really. All right so I went through
year by year on how many employees we have per the amount that they're going to get long for longevity.
So I'm not going to go through each one. It is in the packet if anybody wants to see it. So I'll just
kind of scroll a little bit here. But as you can see, we still have quite a few people at the lower level.
I would say, you know, like we have 50 people that are currently at the four-year level, and that's
a $400 per year longevity amount that they get. So as we continue on, you'll see that the numbers begin
to decrease, and you know, that's due to people leaving, people retiring, that kind of thing.
So when we get down to the higher numbers, so like 25 years and more, you see even a bigger, you know,
bite out of those numbers.
we have one year where we don't even have anybody at the 32 year, which I thought was very interesting.
So we keep going and we have, as you see, we have one person at the 38 year, we have one person at 39,
one at 41, and then we have one who has been here for 53 years. So we have a total of 433 employees
full-time employees that are still receiving longevity. And so you can see that that amount equals $394,200.
The FICA amount associated with that is $30,157. So this is just for 2026. We currently have 146 employees
full-time employees that are no longer eligible due to that November 1st, 2023 cutoff date. And that
we also have 32 of those full-time, 32 of our positions are vacant. So we are not paying longevity.
Those have become vacant. And if they are filled, they would not be eligible. So that's where we stand
right now.
with regards to longevity and how we're working through that right now. So I know that council is trying
to see if there's ways to maybe move this along faster, but this is where we're at right at the moment.
All right. So I may not have it memorized about how they figure the amount per person.
So is there a chart somewhere about that? Yes, there is a chart that's in our personal policy handbook
on how much they get. So we also have that copied as a reference in our salary ordinance as well. OK,
thank you. So do you have something similar to that to show us about the step increases? And remind
us when we started the step increases because, you know,
time flies, but doesn't seem like that long ago. We haven't had step increases. We started step increases
back in 2017 when we added the eight year and the 14 year. And no, I didn't have a chance to do that,
but I can have that ready for the next quarter. Okay. I'm sorry. The reason why I was going to suggest
that or just have a discussion with it.
there are some areas, and I know in some of the school boards and so forth, they have put a freeze on,
you know, where we're not gonna catch you back, but wherever you are right now, you're not moving forward
or now, just as a pause until they can see where it is. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but
because of course we can't even see what the step increases are, because we don't have
report on that, but in other words, if you are accustomed to getting 2006 and whatever it is for longevity,
it isn't like you would lose that, but you would not gain more. Or if you are already at a certain step
increase, you weren't going to gain anymore, but you weren't gonna lose it. You were going to stay right
there. So I'm thinking that's,
If we got up against it, I don't know. I'm not a seer, so I don't know what kind of position we're going
to be in. And so I know that when we talked about reducing longevity, I mean, the employees really thought
we had gotten in their pocket because they count on that as part of their salary.
And I understand that. So I'm just throwing that out there as something that other units have had to
do and said, we're not going to get rid of it, but we're going to pause it, not grow it anymore. And
that would also mean that any new person coming on board, they wouldn't have a step increase, and they
wouldn't have longevity. So they wouldn't have any of those things.
but pause on it to see where we're going now. The other thing that the council did, which was rather
unusual, is that they, because the state is in control, oh my goodness, look where that kid's sitting.
Can't look. Am I? That happens a lot. All right. Does that look dangerous to you or no? No, there's
another shelf, he's okay.
Let's get back to step increases and longevity here. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I've lost train of thought.
Do you want me to take it over and see? I'll ask my question so you can. All right, so right now in
the salary ordinance, our highest step is 25 years. That is correct. So anybody on this chart who is
at 26 years or higher
means that they don't get a step increase in the current system. Because it maxes out. Correct. As you've
been thinking a lot about this, what recommendations would you offer to council as to where you would
even begin to think about putting those additional step increases? Well, I mean, we've had some departments ask for
an increase, like another step level above 25, so they're asking like for a 30. We've also had departments
go, it's such a long section between the three year and the eight year, maybe do a five year and maybe,
you know, like shuffle some things around, you know,
do a five and a ten rather than an eight and a fourteen you know kind of thing so. And I know we haven't
done the math yet but I think that's where the decision lies is where is the fiscal impact greater in
providing those additional steps or leaving it as it is.
Well, and you have to think as well, when you do step increases, step increases also, you have FICA,
but you also have PERF within that. So you're also paying for any retirement on top of that. With longevity,
it's just straight FICA. It does not get PERF on top of that. Great, thank you. Would you mind closing
the blinds? That would be interesting.
It's really distracting. Are you gonna close the blind so I can't see you, John? I'm glad I had my dream.
Right, so, okay. So Kim, Kim Schell, you were saying that that's the analysis that we need to do to
move forward. Right, because like I said, this only shows, you know,
You've got 433 people that you're going to pay this amount out for this year plus the FICA. When I have
to go back through and do the analysis with regards to the step increases, that's also going to include
FICA as well as PERF. I will have that ready by the second quarter.
there's going to be 35-hour positions versus 40-hour positions, and then we have SO positions. So, yeah.
So there's a lot of work to do here to build in all of the contingencies? Correct. The chief deputies,
for whatever reason, instead of having them at 75% of the elected officials' salaries, which is
what it is in most every other counties. We put it in one year, like, I mean, we went literally.
We're at 90%. 90% when other counties are, and we had always been at that 75%. So that is quite a jump,
but that's just for the chief deputies, but I'm just saying,
We had never done that before. So that was one of the things when people thought, oh, we got money.
Let's go spread the wealth. And in addition to which, they were allowed, I believe they were allowed
longevity. Yes, chief deputies do get longevity. OK, so what I've been hearing from some of the elected
officials is, look, by the time they get longevity, if this staff person that's been
dedicated and actually in many cases, as we all know, that chief deputy is actually the one to run the
office. True. Some of the offices. But what I'm hearing is that the time you count longevity on top
of the 90%, they're getting close to making the same thing as the elected official who is the one who
is absolutely responsible
they've got to know what's going on. And if they don't, their name's on the dotted line. They're the
ones that have to answer to the public. They're the ones that have to go to the public and say,
trust me. And so that was also sort of a sticky wicket. You know, I'm not arguing either point. I'm
just telling you what happened. And in addition to which, at about that same time, even though
The state is the one who tells us what we have to pay our probation officers. We don't get to choose.
The state says this is what they're to pay. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't pay them more. We just
can't pay them any less. And there's all kinds of different step-ups with probation officers, depending
on how many they
you know, have under them or if they hit a certain amount of education or, you know, because they've
gone to the state and said, this is what we wanted to say. And the state came back and told the counties
is what you have to do. But they had a step plan, you know, a step plan, which we did not have. The
county didn't have at the time. We just had longevity. Well, a couple of years ago, they, you know,
People thought we had money. We just said, OK, now we're going to start on top of paying them what the
state has to pay. We're going to also give them our increase in salaries. Like if we get a 3% increase,
the state says, no, we just add 3% on top of there. And at the same time, we added on longevity, which
they'd never received before. So they get a stat increase, and they get longevity.
and they get our increase. And if we don't have the money for an increase, but the state gets an increase,
they will get the increase. So, you know, do I love our probation department? Yes, I do. But what we're
talking about, the rest of the county employees, if we're talking about, if they have to have hardship,
we have to make sure everybody shares the pain, I guess is what I'd like to say. On that cherry note,
I am hearing that you're gonna come back for the Q2 version of this with some additional information
about additional steps, that fiscal impact, and compare that to the fiscal impact you showed today so
that we have a better understanding of what any one of these step increases would look like.
If it's a five, if it's a 35 or whatever. Correct. Okay. And then, Madam Auditor, did you have an additional
comment or question?
just a quick comment I would just caution the council from just identifying such a small subset of employees
they are employees are appointed but they're not elected their employees of the county and chief deputies
there's a really minimal fiscal impact you know even between that seventy five and ninety percent of
the overall big picture and
reducing salaries would be terrible for morale for these people. In addition to that, I don't think
we would be able to maintain the employment of these individuals. So I just wanted to put that note
out there. I hope you recognize I did not say we should reduce their salaries. I've never said that
about any position. I'm just saying it might be something we'd want to look at in future.
for newly elected officials, new chief deputies. I mean, if we're looking at let's cut longevity, I'm
just saying let's be fair. It always seems like it's fair until it hits your pocket, I guess is what I said.
The underlying factor here is these are very difficult decisions. And that's why we wanted to encourage
Michelle to give this presentation today, because when we make difficult decisions the last second,
we make mistakes. But if we have months and months and months and months to consider this and to take
the time to look at it with our partners throughout the county, then we tend to make better decisions.
And so that's exactly what we want to do is we want to slow walk this
and get as much information out there before a decision is made. And again, I'll say the same thing
here that I mentioned to the trustees. No decisions are being made at LTF. The council, the full council
needs to make all the decisions. And I think that's probably a good place to leave this. And we look
forward to your report next. Also, if you're preparing a report, if you could show us what it would
be if we did say we're freezing everybody where they are, we're not reducing it, we're just freezing.
Now I'm not saying freeze the salaries. I'm just saying freeze wherever you are in the step plan. Freeze
wherever you are in the longevity plan. OK. So like if every OK, so like for me, for instance, I'm at
the eight year I would just. I'm getting ready to go to the 14. I would just stay at the eight year
until. We figure out what we're doing so.
Okay. You see how much you won't like that if it hits you. Exactly. I mean, I get it. Yeah. On the other
hand, People don't want their longevity cut, but you know, maybe, maybe the money trees gonna show up
in the backyard. I've got to so
I think we're gonna be right. All right, we have one final first quarter update that is from Mr. Jeff
Cockrell. This is not on the agenda, but we received information very recently. And so, Mr. Cockrell,
what do we need to know? I guess, just fair warning, I got a call coming in at 3 p.m. and it's 2.55.
I guess before that, I would
I was listening to the last conversation. I was wondering if Kim could email me that 2021 report from
WIS that had all the guidance on it. I think that would be interesting to look at. Yes. I guess Molly
Turner King and I met with the Bond Council of Barnes and Thornburg on Friday. The primary goal of that
was to determine if we, as we're looking at the jail project, what would be a reasonable
bond timeline in order to accomplish what was in the report that Mr. Gadget House put together and presented
to the council. The bond council indicated that there is a path to move forward where that could be
issued this year. He noted that if we waited until next year, that path may be changed by the state
legislature, either positive, negative, don't know, but it would be subject to that.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the state legislature is going to be looking at kind
of what happened with SCA one a couple years ago and continuing to make tweaks. So I don't think it
would be unrealistic that something in that wouldn't be looked at and addressed. So that was kind of
the update in the report that we received on Friday. Great. Council members, do you have a less than
a four minute question? Well, it should be clear.
I did inquire from the person who was discussing this, if it was still, whatever the bond amount was,
was it still to be repaid in out of the 1.2, which is the county operating dollars. And he confirmed
that that is the case. So I hope that we won't just jump right into, yes, we agree to this rather large
bond that's gonna take out
you know, maybe 40% of our revenue. Unless that's what everybody wants to do. At least I think we should
know what we're doing before we do it. Right. And I appreciate this update. It's not so much about the
dollar amounts at this point, but rather about the timing has changed.
And I think particularly we were looking at that report that Financial Solutions Group had put together.
They had some maximums and things like that, that I'm not here to recommend. I would not go with their
maximum. I would recommend not looking at the full amount, but looking at something below that, because
spending every dollar you have extra, even in that context, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
But I do think that
That report also indicated that the point four probably isn't realistic, at least, and that would raise
the 225, right? I think everybody kind of understands that that 225 is off the table unless we wait
till 29, and then it could be on the table, could not be, right? But I think for the short-term solutions
that we need with our jail project, that 225 is just not realistic.
Sure. A question on timing, real quick, before you have to leave, is knowing that bond counsel needs
a certain runway to move forward, hearing that we could be moving forward with this calendar year, what
are we looking at in terms of needing to make a decision by the full counsel? I think, and I've heard
two different dates from him.
he said yesterday that a decision on the property need to be made by July and when we talked to him
on Friday he indicated that we need to start the process sometime in June. I think the additional process
and I think that's really kicking off the we're going to have to use the building corporation for the
constitutional debt limit and so we have to have some kind of lease the lease purchase kind of kind of
motive using a building corporation and that takes signatures and an extra amount of time to authorize
the lease and move forward it's just additional steps that we typically don't see when we do our our
general obligation bonds all right well thank you so much okay i heard you said that i don't think there's
anything new about timing it isn't like a change of legislature in the last
week or so but it's just an update to say if we're going to have it done within takes so much time to
do each of these states. It's a process and we and the council is kind of accustomed to our general
obligation bond process and this is a longer process than that. Right. All right Mr. Cockrell we look
forward to future updates from you enjoy your phone call. Thank you.
All right, that concludes our first quarter updates. Again, council members, if you have additional
reports that you think are going to be interesting or helpful to the public to showcase that we are
being good stewards with tax dollars, please request those and we'll meet again. And since we are talking
about meeting again, I would like to keep our LTF meetings moving forward. And it has been recommended
by council staff to go ahead and schedule our second quarter meeting
for Tuesday, June the 30th at 1.30 p.m. and the third quarter meeting for September 29th at 1.30 p.m.
They would take place here in the NatU Hill Room and be available online for all of you as well. Council
members, do you have any questions regarding these dates? No, I don't. I think the June 30th might be
problematic for me, but if it works for you guys, that's fine. All right.
staff any questions or comments about the dates Otter's office this works for you as you're going to
be providing updates and I know you've got a lot of I mean having it on the 30th doesn't allow for a
full month data you know but that is what it is we'll make do like we did this time I think given the
overview that we're doing I'm not sure that we need that drilled down last
And I'll just say the reason we chose those particular dates is because it was the fifth Tuesday or
yes of those months so there's no conflict with anybody in the rooms or anything like that so that's
why we kind of did it that way all right so I think we're gonna move forward with adoption and if we
need to change things we can always do so
So all those in favor of adopting the second and third quarter LTF meetings as presented signify by
saying aye aye aye all those opposed same sign the motion carries unanimously finally as always on the
agenda is public comment for items that are
haven't been on this agenda. If you have questions or comments about the fiscal affairs of this county,
about our long-term financial standings, please, you have three minutes to tell us what's on your mind.
We ask that you come forward to the podium here or raise your hand on Teams. State your name for the
record. And the floor is yours. I don't see folks here on the NatU hill. And I'm gonna give one more
second for hands raised on Teams.
I'm not seeing anybody. So that means that we are going to see everyone again on Tuesday, June the 30th
at 1 30 p.m. We are adjourned.