Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session #4   3/25/2024

1. Call to Order.

• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:00:44
    Officer Parker Davis and Officer James Morris.
  • 00:00:47
    We thank you for your service today and every day on behalf of the residents of our county for our safety and security.

2. Adoption of Final Agenda.

• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:01:16
    from Final Agenda.
  • 00:01:18
    Second.
  • 00:01:18
    The motion from Supervisor Mallek, second from Supervisor McKeel.
  • 00:01:22
    Without objection, if the clerk will call the line.
• • SPEAKER_01
  • 00:01:24
    Mr. P. Stewart-Kirtley.
  • 00:01:25
    Hi.
  • 00:01:26
    Ms.
  • 00:01:26
    Mallek.
  • 00:01:26
    Yes.
  • 00:01:27
    Ms.
  • 00:01:27
    McKeel.
  • 00:01:28
    Yes.
  • 00:01:28
    Mr. Pruitt.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:01:29
    Hi.
• • SPEAKER_01
  • 00:01:29
    Mr. Andrews.
  • 00:01:30
    Yes.
  • 00:01:30
    Mr. Gallaway.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:01:31
    Yes.
  • 00:01:32
    Thank you.

3. Consent Agenda (on next sheet)

• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:01:34
    And that brings us to the Consent Agenda, which is just a kind of basically public hearing scheduling for the modification of real estate tax relief in Albemarle and disabled.
  • 00:01:50
    Supervisor Mallek, second from Supervisor McKeel, without objection, Ms.
  • 00:01:53
    Mallek, Ms.
  • 00:01:53
    McKeel, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Gallaway,

4. FY 2025 Operating and Capital Budget.

• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:02:19
    Thank you Chair Andrews for the introduction and good afternoon to the board.
  • 00:02:22
    I'll ask other staff just as they speak to Andrews themselves.
  • 00:02:25
    I'll be facilitating a good portion of today with Mr. Davis into my right.
  • 00:02:31
    Starting before we look at today's agenda is really the remaining budget process ahead.
  • 00:02:35
    We have two work sessions scheduled this week in March.
  • 00:02:39
    and April, there's a to be determined work session if it's needed, as well as the ongoing public engagements.
  • 00:02:44
    There have been town halls that the board has held to date and those will continue through April, as well as public hearings.
  • 00:02:50
    The process will conclude on May 1st with the adoption and appropriation of the budget.
  • 00:02:55
    Looking ahead to today's agenda, we are going to first pick up on the remainder of the capital improvement program that was not completed at the previous work session.
  • 00:03:04
    We'll then also spend some time at debt management, which is closely connected to the capital program.
  • 00:03:09
    If the board desires, after those topics would be a good time for a break.
  • 00:03:13
    And when we come back from that break, we'll spend some time with the board walking through some technical updates and also options for the board as we get ready on March 27th for the board to take action to propose a budget and tax rates for advertising and public hearing.
  • 00:03:28
    There is no action today other than one item that we would, well, there is no action today.
  • 00:03:32
    There is one item in the revenues.
  • 00:03:33
    We'll be able to have some board consensus on, but we'll get to that a little bit later in today's meeting.
  • 00:03:40
    So with that, we're going to pick up on the CIP, where we were last time as we spent about the last half hour or so of the last work session talking through the process to get to the recommended CIP.
  • 00:03:51
    And we spoke about Goal 5, which is educational learning in the majority of the county's CIP with public education.
  • 00:03:59
    So just to kind of ground us again before we look at the county government projects and the other five strategic plan goals.
  • 00:04:06
    The starting point in developing the recommended CIP was last year's adoption CIP, so projects began to march forward a year with some refinement to those.
  • 00:04:14
    That's the key point today.
  • 00:04:17
    We'll talk about a few items because there aren't that many projects in year one that are new.
  • 00:04:21
    They are added, though, more in the out years.
  • 00:04:23
    We'll talk about that in more detail in a moment.
  • 00:04:26
    Staff continue the work we usually do to update our financial assumptions.
  • 00:04:30
    The Board of Supervisors held a joint meeting with the school board and to the possible where you continue to use the strategic plan as our North Star to develop the CIP and that will be very apparent in Mr. Davidson's comments where I'll turn it over to him to talk through the next five strategic goals.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 00:04:50
    Good afternoon, Board.
  • 00:04:51
    Brian Davidson, Deputy Chief of Budget.
  • 00:04:53
    Similar to what we showed you when we were here discussing the school CIP, I wanted to start out with a summary of the projects here in the county government from FY25 to FY29.
  • 00:05:09
    just shy of $129 million over the five-year period.
  • 00:05:13
    About $34 million of that set for appropriation in FY25.
  • 00:05:17
    Each of these check marks represents the year in which the funding is recommended for each of these projects.
  • 00:05:23
    And we'll go into more detail on each of these projects listed individually through the following slides.
  • 00:05:28
    But as you can see, so for example, transportation leveraging has funding in the first three years, same with parks and recreation.
  • 00:05:34
    When you get down to Central Library, we have funding in some of the out years and so on.
  • 00:05:38
    and we'll provide each more detail on the funding, timing and recommendations on each of these as we move through.
  • 00:05:46
    So before we get into the project details, I wanted to start by showing you a slide very similar to what we showed you on December 6th in our county government school's CIP joint work session.
  • 00:05:59
    As Andy discussed in the earlier slide, we came before you with our approach and assumptions for a plan for developing the 25 to 29 CIP.
  • 00:06:06
    and using the approach, the approved FY 24 to 28 CIP as the starting point.
  • 00:06:11
    And at that time, we discussed several of these projects shown here that were above and beyond our regular maintenance replacement programs and those types of projects and what they meant, the timing and when they were.
  • 00:06:23
    As we move through the budget development process.
  • 00:06:28
    As we move through the budget development process.
  • 00:06:31
    I'm not feeling too many computers here.
  • 00:06:36
    The same as we did with public schools, we made changes and adjustments to that original plan for the county government CIP, the result of which was several new projects that were added to our CIP, the additions of which... I fall apart over here.
  • 00:06:52
    No, you were right on this one.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:06:55
    A little levity is always good.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 00:06:59
    I'm starting off on a solid footing here.
  • 00:07:04
    The additions from what we showed you on December 6 are shown here kind of off to the left-hand side of the slide, including the Urban Park, Woolmills ADA trailhead, Central Library, some community nonprofit projects, and Fire Rescue Station 11 renovations.
  • 00:07:20
    We'll go through a little more detail on each and every one of these, each of the projects up here on the following slides.
  • 00:07:29
    First, we'll look at the Court's Facilities Edition renovations project.
  • 00:07:34
    If you've driven or walked around Court Square, I think you've noticed that this project is well underway recently.
  • 00:07:39
    We've started the construction of the first phase, which includes the construction on the Levy site.
  • 00:07:44
    The second phase, which is the renovation of the current historic courthouse, will be up next.
  • 00:07:49
    As we fund further examination of the cost updates for
  • 00:07:53
    Boothbases combined.
  • 00:07:54
    We looked at the total project.
  • 00:07:55
    It was determined that an additional $6 million would be needed in FY25 to fully fund that work.
  • 00:08:03
    I did want to point out that for each of these slides in the top left corner or across the top, we'll have the name of the project, the recommended dollar amounts, and the years in which those dollars are coming in so that you'll have a little bit of the timing and the full cost in each of those years.
  • 00:08:23
    Next is Transportation Learning.
  • 00:08:25
    This is recommended for $30 million of funding in this CIP.
  • 00:08:28
    As you can see, that's in the first three years, 25 through 27.
  • 00:08:32
    And this program provides flexible and consistent funding to support high priority transportation projects and initiatives in the county.
  • 00:08:40
    These are typically high cost projects requiring a significant financial commitment from the county to develop and to implement.
  • 00:08:46
    and so on.
  • 00:09:04
    Alternatives Program, SmartScale, both of which are very competitive, and through VDOT Revenue Sharing, which is a less competitive program, but is a one-for-one dollar match for the participating locality, up to $10 million per application for the construction maintenance improvements to state roads.
  • 00:09:23
    On this slide here, we've shown the projects that are included in the current transportation leveraging program.
  • 00:09:28
    And when we get to the end, we're happy to answer questions.
  • 00:09:32
    We have folks here to answer questions about this project.
  • 00:09:35
    Should they come up?
  • 00:09:39
    Northern Convenience Center.
  • 00:09:40
    This includes the design and the construction of the Solid Waste Convenience Center, similar to what's in the southern part of the county now.
  • 00:09:47
    This would be in the northern part.
  • 00:09:48
    Funding for design is in FY25 at about a half a million dollars, with construction dollars to follow in 27, roughly $1.3 million.
  • 00:09:58
    This is a slight change from what we showed you back in December, where it was funding in 25 and construction in 26.
  • 00:10:05
    The new schedule reflects the sequencing of bringing online the various RSWA facilities, whether that be the Southern Convenience Center, the New Baylor facility that's under design and hopefully will be under construction soon out at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center, as well as the Northern Convenience Center.
  • 00:10:23
    This allows us to better spread the operating costs of bringing each of those facilities online without bringing all of them online at one time.
  • 00:10:31
    It allows us to spread it out over multiple years and be able to ramp up those operational costs and be able to afford those operational costs better.
  • 00:10:40
    Central Library.
  • 00:10:42
    This is one of the new programs that is in the CIP.
  • 00:10:47
    This is not an FY25, but rather the out-years.
  • 00:10:50
    In the Central Library, this serves as the main ranch and regional headquarters for the JMRL library system, and it's co-owned by, the building is co-owned by Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville.
  • 00:11:02
    In addition to being owned 50% by the county, 50% of the circulation in this building is attributable to the county, even though it's located right in the heart of downtown, still 57% is county residents.
  • 00:11:12
    Funding in the 25 to 29 CIP, about $60,000 for design in 27, with another roughly $9.6 million for construction in 29.
  • 00:11:26
    and that's going to add public space for additional meeting rooms, technology and youth services as well as some core system upgrades to things such as HVAC, plumbing, electricity, security, networking, all those kind of things.
  • 00:11:39
    As you can see at the bottom of the slide, the funding is going to be contingent on several factors listed here and they're going to be worked through with our library partners, the city.
  • 00:11:50
    And as you can see, the city's funding is required.
  • 00:11:54
    to Fund It Share.
  • 00:11:54
    There will be an MOU that we're working on and an expectation that the library itself will leverage some outside sources of funding from community partners to assist with bringing this project to fruition.
  • 00:12:10
    So when we talked about the Parks and Recreation Department several weeks ago, I guess it was now, a big focus for the Department for FY25 budget was moving forward with our Parks Capital Projects and our Parks Capital Plan.
  • 00:12:24
    The first of which we'll talk about here is Biscuit Run Park.
  • 00:12:27
    Biscuit Run is budgeted at about $9.2 million over the
  • 00:12:32
    F525 and 26 spread between the two years.
  • 00:12:34
    And it's going to include several elements, first of which is that route 20 inches away and trail ahead to open the park and get us into the park.
  • 00:12:42
    And then we have the trail networks, which includes three elevated boardwalks through the Marshier areas.
  • 00:12:47
    We have the athletic fields, the two athletic fields.
  • 00:12:50
    Decrease Street, Grinch and Pedestrian improvements on the trailhead.
  • 00:12:54
    This was funding that was initially anticipated in the out years that was we were able to look at and able to move up into FY26 to align with design and timing and all of that.
  • 00:13:06
    So that has been able to be moved forward and be able to get that out for those residents sooner.
  • 00:13:10
    And then finally, a maintenance facility that will house the equipment and the facilities for our Eastern Maintenance Group, which is not just a biscuit run, but all the parks on the
  • 00:13:26
    Darden Tau Athletics Fields.
  • 00:13:28
    This was a project that began in FY24 and it's for the phased rebuild of the existing grass fields out at Darden Tau Park over a four-year period from FY24 through FY27.
  • 00:13:42
    One of each fields will be taken out of use during the rehab process to minimize the disruptions for the recreational activities.
  • 00:13:49
    Earthworks will be moved.
  • 00:13:51
    Project will be provided by some revenue each year by the City of Charlottesville as determined by the annual funding formula for Darden-Town Park, which currently sits at about 69% county, 31% city.
  • 00:14:06
    After each renovation of each field, there'll be a period of time to allow the natural grass to grow in and the first field will be ready for athletic play.
  • 00:14:13
    It's anticipated, not guaranteed, but anticipated by spring of 2025 based on the current schedule.
  • 00:14:23
    Nexperman Park at Pocket Park.
  • 00:14:26
    In the 24-25, 24-28 CIP, we identified this project but did not identify any funding.
  • 00:14:33
    It was listed as a zero-dollar project, knowing that there was a lot of staff work and internal work that needed to be done first before we could put some cost estimates to this.
  • 00:14:41
    Parks and Recreation is still working through that site identification and development process for potential sites in the urban development area.
  • 00:14:48
    And upon that identification, we've provided some funding for our initial estimates of about $150,000 for design followed by about $1.5 million.
  • 00:14:58
    for construction.
  • 00:14:59
    So as we further define and define exactly which site that is, we may have to define these cost estimates, but based on our best knowledge at this time, this is what we're anticipating for this meeting for this.
  • 00:15:21
    So I want to take a minute to discuss two projects that are actually coming online.
  • 00:15:26
    in FY20 or coming up for funding in FY25.
  • 00:15:31
    First is the Woolmills Trailhead.
  • 00:15:34
    This is a project that will fund and design and construction improvements at the Woolmills Trailhead to improve its accessibility for disabled persons.
  • 00:15:42
    This project may include signage, minor amenities, acquisition of temporary construction easements, permanent access to maintenance easements.
  • 00:15:51
    This project was prioritized for compliance reasons and moved into FY25 for compliance reasons and to meet these ADA
  • 00:16:02
    Next is Station Renovations.
  • 00:16:04
    This is going to be at Station 11, Monticello.
  • 00:16:08
    And this project includes the renovation and maintenance of several key areas in the Station 11.
  • 00:16:13
    As you're aware, Mar County was awarded the FEMA Safer Grant for 30 individuals.
  • 00:16:20
    Part of that would provide additional staffing for the relocation of the ladder truck to Station 11.
  • 00:16:26
    The increase in personnel at that station is more than the station was initially designed for and so this project was prioritized because it's a county-owned facility and the impact of the FEMA Safer Grant, which was not awarded at the time we were putting together the CIP, necessitated us putting this project in so that we will have these renovations at least well on their way to being completed at the time we're bringing the staff online into that facility.
  • 00:16:57
    moving along to workplace and facility renovations.
  • 00:17:01
    This project is related to the development and implementation of the space utilization project for the county office buildings, but here located at McIntyre Road and Fifth Street extended.
  • 00:17:11
    And the FY24 budget included some funding for space program studying and some initial design with the capital work to follow funding the completion of that work.
  • 00:17:20
    And this project continues that cycle of design and construction moving through FY27.
  • 00:17:28
    Course Systems Modernization.
  • 00:17:30
    This is a project that we've spoken to you about previously in several different areas, whether it be the financial management system or community development system.
  • 00:17:38
    This funding will advance future CSN work, which, through the most recent systems, have been about providing better customer service with modern in-faces and more transparency in the status of items, streamline process, but it's also about having data that we can use to drive process improvements, decision-making, and resource management.
  • 00:17:57
    Now I'm going to turn this back over to Mr. Bowman to discuss the community nonprofit process.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:18:03
    Thank you.
  • 00:18:03
    I have just a few slides before we open up the board a question and discussion.
  • 00:18:07
    This is just to take a moment and revisit this process that was last discussed by the board supervisors in July of 2023.
  • 00:18:15
    To go a little further back, about 18 months ago, in the fall of 2022, the Board of Supervisors created a process for community-owned profits to apply for capital funding.
  • 00:18:25
    Prior to that time, they may come up as one-off throughout the year, and the Board really wanted to build upon the process for other non-profit request processes to have one designated way to move forward.
  • 00:18:37
    So after the first year, we came back to the Board in July to get some updated guidance for a framework of a good application, which should be a good
  • 00:18:45
    The best quality application to be considered in the recommended budget, what that may look like.
  • 00:18:49
    And the Board approved some guiding principles.
  • 00:18:51
    The first three, which were unchanged of just really being an eligible capital project, considering this in the context of the overall CIP.
  • 00:19:00
    These items on the next slide were shown, and I just want to emphasize, without going through in detail, really those most competitive applications will leverage funding, be managed by the agency themselves, rather than the county.
  • 00:19:13
    Be Shovel Ready, be about increasing services.
  • 00:19:16
    And finally, number eight, I can't summarize in a quick phrase, but it really recognizes that there are more than 60-some community partners we have.
  • 00:19:25
    If some of those didn't exist, the county would be stepping in and providing that service.
  • 00:19:29
    That's not true with all 60 of those, and that's not what we'd have to go through and say who wouldn't, who wouldn't be, but recognize there is a different level of a durable partnership between some of our community partners in the county.
  • 00:19:40
    So with that framework, we received another number of applications and four of which are included in the CIP, although one is going to get an update in just a second.
  • 00:19:49
    The first of which is on the left, a community non-profit application from Bennett's Village.
  • 00:19:55
    This is to create an adaptive playground that would be located at Penn Park.
  • 00:19:59
    Several years ago our Parks and Recreation staff in the county met with this organization to really find out is there a place in the county this could be located and there really weren't that good candidate.
  • 00:20:09
    So the next best option is really for the city to contribute land which is adjacent to the county and an immediate access of much of the development area for $65,000 to help bring this project to fruition.
  • 00:20:21
    This organization has been leveraging funding, they've gotten state funding, other grants, and the counties would really be bringing this project to completion for the initial phase at Penn Park.
  • 00:20:32
    And this also continues the spirit of, right now, the county and the city contribute on the other adaptive recreation programs that we do on an operating basis throughout the year, so this continues that partnership.
  • 00:20:44
    The second item is an update to actually remove a project from the CIP.
  • 00:20:48
    The Blue Ridge Area Food Bank had submitted a project to expand their freezer space.
  • 00:20:53
    After the release of the recommended budget, they were actually able to secure funding for the total project without the county.
  • 00:20:58
    And so this project will come to realization and the county does not need to contribute anything to it.
  • 00:21:04
    So this is one staff would recommend removing that from the CIP.
  • 00:21:08
    That'll be part of the technical updates later that we'll touch on.
  • 00:21:13
    The final two projects included, I'll talk about together, our work about Earleysville Volunteer Fire Company for Seminole Trail, looking at improvements to both of those two stations.
  • 00:21:23
    The amounts are shown on the slide about 800,000 in Earleysville, 230,000 in Seminole Trail.
  • 00:21:30
    These projects are included in year three right now.
  • 00:21:33
    The reason why this, and as Mr. Davidson mentioned, many of the other new projects tend to be in year three is because of the respect paid to the prior CIP where projects tend to not come into year one, with the addition of where there are compliance thoughts.
  • 00:21:48
    So before I open this up to board, comments and questions, I do want to share one request was made by a supervisor to consider moving the early bill down to your company up from year three to one, which would be fiscal year twenty-seven to fiscal year twenty-five.
  • 00:22:04
    So our staff did the analysis to say what would be the financial implications of that.
  • 00:22:09
    And the short answer financially is that because this is a cash funded project and while a million dollars is substantial and the CIP is a substantial amount of money in terms of the context of a more than $300 million CIP to make an adjustment of one year in a cash funded project is not very impactful.
  • 00:22:29
    So if the board wanted to, they could choose to either accept the recommendation as it is, they could move one or both of the projects up earlier than year three up to year one.
  • 00:22:39
    Because that was a request made by a supervisor before we get into other general fund items, this is an item for capital that we would tee up for the board discussion.
  • 00:22:47
    And that really concludes our comments before we get to debt management.
  • 00:22:51
    This would probably be a good time to discuss and make capital project corrections.
  • 00:22:58
    Yes, that would be that.
  • 00:23:00
    So that's just the board.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:23:01
    So we'll go through our order for today, Professor Gallaway.
  • 00:23:05
    In the early zone, I would be supportive of moving that up to year one.
  • 00:23:11
    In fact, even before knowing the blue ridge implication and then another thought I had,
  • 00:23:22
    You know, you frame that as the cost of moving this up, like what are the ramifications of it?
  • 00:23:27
    If we leave it out there, because I'm guessing Supervisor Mallek made this request.
  • 00:23:33
    They've raised money, right?
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:23:34
    $800,000 in hand all day.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:23:36
    So, given the inflation situation and what happens with projects moving forward, it almost seems like we devalue what they have raised for their project by putting it out for three years.
  • 00:23:50
    So if it's not impactful or the impact can be absorbed, I think we get more bang for their buck by doing the project sooner rather than later.
  • 00:23:59
    So I'm supportive of moving that.
  • 00:24:02
    The Urban Park, the site has not been designated.
  • 00:24:09
    Do we have sites in mind and we're just trying to figure out if they're going to work or are we still hoping for sites to come
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:24:16
    I'll ask Bob Kirkenberger or Director of Project Recreation if you can speak to where they are in the process.
• • SPEAKER_13
  • 00:24:21
    We are currently, let me go back a little, we have gotten a list of all surplus county school problems.
  • 00:24:35
    We are currently going through over a hundred
  • 00:24:48
    Hopefully we will come back to the board and present our findings with some options in terms of one, two, seven, or whatever.
  • 00:24:56
    So we're still, it's a work of progress.
  • 00:24:58
    I got you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:24:59
    Maybe my thought was before not knowing the other ramifications of this is if the site's not found and we're planning for construction in year, what was it, 26?
  • 00:25:12
    I'm thinking in the earliest bill, you could almost swap those as priorities.
  • 00:25:15
    If you don't have the site, you could sometimes just move pieces around sometimes in those years.
  • 00:25:22
    So I don't know how simple that is that you'd have to tell me that, Andy.
  • 00:25:25
    Actually, that's complicated.
  • 00:25:26
    But my thought is that the site's not determined.
  • 00:25:29
    where we can't meet construction in one fiscal year.
  • 00:25:32
    It seems to me that it would make sense to flip-flop, maybe, the timing of a couple projects.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:25:37
    Yeah, perhaps if we keep things simpler, Earlyville couldn't be moved up regardless of what happens at this two-year one.
  • 00:25:44
    I think our approach with Parks and Recreation would be to see in the coming year, where are they?
  • 00:25:47
    And if a year from now, if we're not ready to move construction into Fiscal Year 26, we would push that back to Fiscal Year 27 at that time.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:25:55
    I just came in with the spirit of trying to find other ways to pay for it if you want to move things around.
  • 00:26:01
    I'm glad that I don't have to go to the Northern Convenience Center because that was on my radar as well as in terms of priority.
  • 00:26:12
    The work in the budget for workplace, the facility renovations, the 3.6 million.
  • 00:26:17
    So I could see where the, what was the other answer on that?
  • 00:26:22
    I see where the core system's modernization is.
  • 00:26:24
    Where does that workplace come from following the budget?
  • 00:26:26
    What categories are there?
  • 00:26:28
    It's under public works.
  • 00:26:31
    Is it listed just as workplaces?
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 00:26:33
    It's facility renovations.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:26:50
    Thank you.
  • 00:26:52
    I will, for slide 22, eagerly encourage and support moving both of these forward.
  • 00:26:59
    If that's what the staff has found, it's easily but, um, and desperately in support of moving the list forward in order for them to be able to perceive
  • 00:27:22
    Let's see.
  • 00:27:24
    On fine 10, the courts, the six million, is the county share over it, or is some of that part of the fee share?
  • 00:27:34
    This is all county, so they're contributing extra for their share of the overage.
  • 00:27:40
    Does they pay 15 or 20% of the courts?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:27:42
    Sorry, I thought you were about to speak up.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 00:27:48
    I can.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:27:54
    I will speak to this.
  • 00:27:55
    Under the agreement, the city would not be contributing any further.
  • 00:27:58
    The six million is being provided by the county.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:28:02
    Great, thank you.
  • 00:28:04
    Let's see on 12.
  • 00:28:11
    and so on.
  • 00:28:32
    Green, so a lot of our stuff goes up there.
  • 00:28:36
    And that's going to change a lot for people north of 64, basically.
  • 00:28:40
    So I just want to pass that along.
  • 00:28:41
    I don't know what to do about it, but I'm just passing it along.
  • 00:28:47
    And Library's going to check it up.
  • 00:28:52
    And just for future thought, I hope that we will try again on the state budget for Viscuit Run for various
  • 00:29:04
    and all the different elements in there are possibilities I think for us.
  • 00:29:31
    and the 17, the Willemills compliance, that's the north side, changes only.
  • 00:29:37
    Am I correct about that?
  • 00:29:38
    We're not trying to do anything on the ventral side, okay?
  • 00:29:42
    And on the workplace renovations, did more details about how the spaces would be rearranged come to the board at some time this year or, I mean, is it phased?
  • 00:29:57
    Because usually we learn things about
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:30:12
    and so on.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:30:35
    of Space and are now in the process of doing a similar exercise with five departments within the main McIntyre office building that either have space constraints or may also have space opportunities.
  • 00:30:51
    So we're moving that forward.
  • 00:30:54
    There's also some policy work that will be working with the executive office.
  • 00:31:02
    employees, about what expectations are for your right to have an office.
  • 00:31:11
    One of the elements, but a tricky one for us from the planning perspective.
  • 00:31:16
    So we hope that by, it's difficult to say how quickly the policy may happen, but we've got a good team on this with support from the executive team.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:31:29
    So you're in the study base.
  • 00:31:36
    and so on.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 00:32:13
    and this is again, you know, every time I seek on something on the budget I have to acknowledge like my newness to the process.
  • 00:32:21
    I am not quite sure what the process looks like for our community partners and I'm wondering is that something that is kind of compared to, you know, when we work with community partners in our operating budget it's very front and center.
  • 00:32:33
    We can very much see what that process looks like, what the applications look like, how they're created.
  • 00:32:38
    Is there a similar level of transparency that's offered for this
  • 00:32:49
    I'm curious what the degree of transparency looks like and what kind of the current sunlight on that is.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:32:56
    I would say this process is in its second year, so it is probably not as widely known as the others.
  • 00:33:01
    We will do an orientation with really everyone who's on our distribution list, which is pretty sure every agency we fund or request it has been in contact with us.
  • 00:33:10
    When we do orientations with folks, we kind of outline for them, here are all your possible paths to funding.
  • 00:33:15
    Here's what's appropriate for you in which circumstance.
  • 00:33:17
    And we're available in that process to answer any questions.
  • 00:33:20
    So there really is no orientation for this.
  • 00:33:22
    It's really an orientation for community funding.
  • 00:33:24
    And from that, you may be appropriate for this, Arts and Cultural, the agency budget review team process for human services agencies.
  • 00:33:33
    We talked with them about the human services needs assessment in those high priority areas.
  • 00:33:38
    So we really have one vehicle with them to use that to educate all the agencies.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 00:33:44
    Were there unfunded requests this cycle that part included in our budget book?
  • 00:33:51
    Yes, we did.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:33:52
    Those are noted.
  • 00:33:53
    Second on page.
  • 00:34:11
    who includes a request for an emergency communication center, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, had two requests, Claudius Crozet Park grew up out in Crozet and then WTGA Radio which actually was requested but then directed to operating because it didn't meet the criteria but we did show it as a request there.
  • 00:34:29
    But it was considered.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 00:34:38
    I also want to highlight just how pleased I am with the continued progress on this.
  • 00:34:44
    And also thank my peers who have been here in the past years for moving up the Hapery Street Trail.
  • 00:34:51
    I know that was an effort by the previous board, and I greatly appreciate that it's been incorporated for this year's supporting panel.
  • 00:34:58
    I think it's really essential that people in the park, as it launches,
  • 00:35:05
    So while we're on the subject, I know that there's still a lot of plates we're spinning on the extension of the Greenway for Biscuit Run, but I'm wondering how that works as we think about programming the casual plan and whether or not it would be typical when there's still things that are like outstanding uncertainties in planning for us to start programming years out.
  • 00:35:31
    That's kind of an open-ended question, but I guess
  • 00:35:35
    Should I be expecting to see something about the Biscuit Run Greenway on here, given that we don't have all the finalities related to easements that we're going to need for that?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:35:48
    I have a question.
  • 00:35:50
    Mr. Griggenberger, would you like to address that as part of the overall scope of the project?
  • 00:35:54
    Just to clarify?
• • SPEAKER_13
  • 00:35:55
    Certainly will.
  • 00:36:06
    Land Eastwood, the two homeowners associations.
  • 00:36:12
    And that has been a long, long process.
  • 00:36:16
    We're making some gains with one and our discussion with the second will soon begin next month.
  • 00:36:24
    So in terms of how that
  • 00:36:30
    What the outcome is, we're just not real sure, but we feel very comfortable that we're in a much better position than, let's say, we were six months or a year ago.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 00:36:41
    I appreciate that.
  • 00:36:43
    I guess the question I'm trying to get at more is, to what degree do we need to be planning for the capital outlays, presuming that we have effective negotiations in the coming years?
  • 00:36:55
    Is it a concern that we have not already identified that in the
  • 00:36:59
    I guess it's more kind of the thrust I'm going to get.
• • SPEAKER_13
  • 00:37:02
    I would say not immediately.
  • 00:37:04
    And the reason for that is, as I mentioned, a lot of negotiations still need to occur.
  • 00:37:10
    Once that agreement is reached, then we have to go on process and could be here.
  • 00:37:18
    So I think it'd be in a safe position to push that ahead a little bit right now.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 00:37:24
    Mr. Great, we're just
  • 00:37:35
    I'm wondering if that is something that we can expect to see as we move forward again in negotiations, I think, this time with the Charlottesville Foundation.
  • 00:37:44
    Or if this is representing a decision to not pursue that.
  • 00:37:50
    No, we're still in the negotiation with them.
  • 00:37:53
    Thank you so much.
  • 00:37:54
    I appreciate that.
  • 00:37:56
    And I assume that it's going to be in the same kind of bucket of, there's enough flexibility in the Capitol
  • 00:38:15
    to be planning for things.
  • 00:38:16
    And if something is not flagged well enough, I just want to make sure we're flying.
  • 00:38:21
    Thank you so much.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 00:38:25
    I was just going to respond to that last point you made in saying that on an annual basis, we do look at each of the projects that are in our CIP and look at cost updates, project updates, as things have moved and changed for timing, for costs, whether that be inflation, whether that be we've come across.
  • 00:38:43
    All the easements we need to be able to move this forward more quickly than we anticipate.
  • 00:38:47
    So there is some flexibility as we look each year.
  • 00:38:51
    We'll have to look at the available resources to us with that revenue within staff capacity and all those things to figure out where to slot these things into each year.
  • 00:38:59
    But just because it's not in something in the current plan, does it mean you can't do it that in the future?
  • 00:39:07
    It's locked out for the next five years.
  • 00:39:08
    We'll continuously update that and review those on an annual basis.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:39:18
    I hope you can hear me, or should I take off my mask?
  • 00:39:27
    I agree with Supervisor Gallaway who brought up a point of whether or not we can move somebody from here or just move up.
  • 00:39:38
    I think we'll see.
  • 00:39:38
    Is someone on the trail?
  • 00:39:41
    Ned?
  • 00:39:47
    and quite maybe a more urgent need at this point.
  • 00:39:54
    So that would be something that would be in favor of.
  • 00:39:59
    I also would like to see, I don't know how, but the Northern Convenience Center moved up, especially in light of what Supervisor Mallek said, if that's something that is, I think we're planning on
  • 00:40:16
    were designed 25 and then built in 27.
  • 00:40:19
    Do I have that right?
• • SPEAKER_08
  • 00:40:21
    That's correct.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:40:22
    And if there's any way that can be moved up.
  • 00:40:27
    Regarding biscuit run, I would encourage us to apply for, in addition to what we're doing, but apply for any kind of funding out there, anything to help move that along.
  • 00:40:46
    The Workplace Facility Renovations, slide 18.
  • 00:40:53
    I would also be in favor of looking at that, and I know that's over 25, 26, 27, but can some of those costs, important things, I mean, it's probably all important, but look at it carefully.
  • 00:41:12
    Things that need to be done in 25, okay, but maybe some of the other
  • 00:41:17
    Monies can go back to Earleysville, back to Seminole Trail.
  • 00:41:22
    Because I do like the idea.
  • 00:41:23
    I think it was mentioned that there are monies from nonprofits that are with the fire stations that could also be.
  • 00:41:32
    We don't want to lose that money in front of expenses that go up.
  • 00:41:35
    Am I making sense there?
  • 00:41:41
    The core systems modernization.
  • 00:41:44
    You talked about streamlining the process.
  • 00:41:51
    and so on.
  • 00:42:22
    That was 165,000 for the food bank.
  • 00:42:23
    So that could be used.
  • 00:42:25
    Later we'll have a discussion about that and some other technical adjustments where we can see that in the context of any other changes the board would like to see.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:42:55
    Green.
  • 00:42:57
    I'm sorry to hear what Ann announced about Green not accepting our residence.
  • 00:43:07
    What did you say, starting July 1?
  • 00:43:08
    That's what we were told at the gate the other day.
  • 00:43:10
    So let me just ask a quick question.
  • 00:43:14
    And maybe this is for not necessarily for Ann, but for staff.
  • 00:43:18
    Were they making that decision based on the thought that we would be
  • 00:43:27
    Howard Recycling Center, a convenience center quickly.
  • 00:43:31
    I'm just curious if we've had any dialogue with him, if that's something you all weren't aware of that was going to happen, or where are we in that?
  • 00:43:42
    Was this the first time you all heard that as well?
  • 00:43:44
    Yes.
  • 00:43:44
    OK.
  • 00:43:44
    That answers my question.
  • 00:43:46
    Sorry, I should have just asked it to begin way that way.
  • 00:43:49
    So we might want to go back to Green and take a look and see if we can
  • 00:43:54
    to negotiate something or at least have a chat with them about time.
  • 00:43:58
    But I do understand separating out the project sometimes with a design and a construction phase.
  • 00:44:05
    I think that makes a lot of sense so that we can actually maintain our CIP and look at it through a practical lens.
  • 00:44:15
    And so that, just looking at my notes here,
  • 00:44:25
    The Workplace Facility Renovations.
  • 00:44:30
    This building, and certainly, Fistry as well, but certainly this building, is, we all know is due for an overall, we've been talking about this for a long time, we were thrilled to get the windows.
  • 00:44:41
    I don't have a long time to do that.
  • 00:44:44
    I have a question though, when we're talking about the planning of this facility's renovations, are we engaging with the school division because they do have
  • 00:44:55
    Alpha Floor, three quarters of a floor.
  • 00:44:59
    Just wondering what that conversation is like.
  • 00:45:06
    I don't know where the school division is on their space needs and what they are in this building with us.
  • 00:45:12
    And I'm looking at all of you.
  • 00:45:14
    I'm not sure who to ask.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 00:45:21
    I know they're having discussions about- I'll take this question.
  • 00:45:26
    Right now, the process is just on the county side.
  • 00:45:31
    I know the schools have contemplated some of their longer term plans.
  • 00:45:36
    How they address more of their administrative offices.
  • 00:45:39
    They don't have specific details of timing, what that would look like.
  • 00:45:43
    So as they preliminary right now, what we have included in the CIP is really just focus more on the county spaces.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 00:45:50
    with Ed McIntyre.
  • 00:45:53
    In some of the studies that were done over the past couple of years with some consultants coming in, analyzing departments, current and projection, schools were a part of that, schools administration.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:46:05
    So they were a part of those initial?
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 00:46:07
    Yeah, kind of establishing the baseline needs now and then what their projected growth rates are.
  • 00:46:12
    They have occupancy on the third floor, second floor and first floor.
  • 00:46:17
    So they're a school administration on multiple floors of a building.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:46:21
    Good point, because I just was thinking about the third floor.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 00:46:24
    Administration, HR, technology on the second floor.
  • 00:46:30
    So that's a big part of our space.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:46:33
    So it would seem like to me conversations at the right time, because I know they're looking at
  • 00:46:40
    and so on and so forth.
  • 00:47:03
    be good if I didn't mention that we have on 29 North proffered land for the government and for schools, facilities that they do not intend to use for our high school.
  • 00:47:15
    And you all are aware of that when we're talking about space and where to do things.
  • 00:47:20
    And there are, I think, I will take this opportunity to say too, I think there are departments where co-locating the schools and
  • 00:47:33
    County government, maybe not a law.
  • 00:47:35
    There are several departments where there is some synergy around putting them at least to nearby each other.
  • 00:47:44
    We have all been in the position occasionally in the county of this.
  • 00:47:50
    We have planned something and the school division has not been informed or the school division planned something.
  • 00:47:57
    We weren't informed and then we had to go back and read it.
  • 00:48:00
    So just having some synergy around certain departments can be a good thing.
  • 00:48:09
    And I'll just leave it at that.
  • 00:48:13
    And I was going to ask about the food bank, but we're talking about 165,000.
  • 00:48:19
    So they managed to solve that themselves, which is great.
  • 00:48:25
    So that frees up.
  • 00:48:27
    165,000 is sort of what I'm hearing, I think.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:48:31
    It will, and we'll show the implications of that in a little bit.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:48:34
    Okay, that's great.
  • 00:48:38
    And you said that Penn Park, the city was contributing for the Bennett's Village, the land.
• • SPEAKER_08
  • 00:48:44
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:48:45
    Which is great.
  • 00:48:47
    Shout out to the city, we thank them for that.
  • 00:48:48
    That's great.
  • 00:48:50
    Great teamwork.
  • 00:48:53
    I definitely would support removing the
  • 00:48:57
    Burlesville Volunteer and the Seminole Trail Volunteer.
  • 00:49:00
    Those two items, I'm happy to support that.
  • 00:49:03
    You said we could do one or we could do both.
  • 00:49:06
    Was your direction, I think?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:49:09
    Yes, but both could be accelerated.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:49:10
    Yeah, and I'm in favor of both.
  • 00:49:12
    That's great.
  • 00:49:16
    And I think, for right now, that's all.
  • 00:49:21
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:49:22
    Thank you.
  • 00:49:24
    And I am also in favor
  • 00:49:45
    that are coming and I'm having trouble sometimes squaring the two and making sure that what we're saying, what they're saying, they may not be in the same year, so that may be addressed like they're having a problem with what's in ours.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 00:50:06
    That's also on the technical update slide.
  • 00:50:09
    But what I will say is, in the recommended budget document, we're actually showing our contribution to Rivanna in two places.
  • 00:50:17
    There's one in the CIP, which is our contribution to the IV landfill remediation.
  • 00:50:23
    That's a piece of the Rivanna budget that's in there.
  • 00:50:26
    If you were to go online and pull the Rivanna budget packet, that would be part of what they say is the overall contribution.
  • 00:50:32
    And then also in our public works section of our document,
  • 00:50:36
    and our contributions to public works agency is the operating contribution to Rivanna.
  • 00:50:41
    When we were given these initial estimates, this was earlier in the budget process, and Rivanna was still in the process of refining their budget.
  • 00:50:49
    And as they went through this, and we met and talked with them just recently about increase in tipping fees, all of that stuff, as they continued to refine that, they came back with additional updates to us that includes, and I'm stealing Mr. Bowman's thunder on the
  • 00:51:05
    The technical update includes updates and increases to both the IV landfill remediation and the operations piece that includes those updates include the increased tipping fee that the board approved them to look into and so had we not had the board not approved that there would be an even larger increase from them and so that's just a as we do with a lot of our regional partners as we go through a lot of times we're given initial estimates before their board and their budget committees have had the chance to look at it review
  • 00:51:34
    and approved those.
  • 00:51:35
    So this was one where they've done their work and they've come back to us and said, and actually this is what we need.
  • 00:51:41
    And again, as I said, we'll talk about that when we get to the technical updates, but we do have a plan to address the updates both on the general fund and on the capital fund side.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:51:54
    Thank you.
  • 00:51:56
    Any questions?
  • 00:51:58
    Does anyone else have anything for me at this time?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:52:02
    We'll recap just a few things when we move to debt.
  • 00:52:05
    First is we hear consensus from the board to amend one of the CITs.
  • 00:52:10
    So we bring it back a proposed budget on Wednesday.
  • 00:52:12
    That will be reflected in that.
  • 00:52:15
    The second, I'll mention this as a follow-up.
  • 00:52:17
    There are some grant efforts already underway in partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department in finance and budget.
  • 00:52:23
    Again, some of these are small.
  • 00:52:24
    We just got a $20,000 grant for interpretive signage.
  • 00:52:27
    That's great.
  • 00:52:28
    I also recognize the needs are much greater out there in the overall master plan.
  • 00:52:32
    We can bring that back, and I just want to highlight that as an example, as the board supported our grants after the recent years, how we looked at how we can align that to some of our strategic challenges, whether that be Biscuit Run, Rivanna Futures, the changing volunteer system, many of the staff here are also very involved in those grants across the board, as we look for alternative ways to give relief to the personal property and real property tax bases.
  • 00:52:58
    The third follow-up I want to clarify as we get to Wednesday is there was a request from Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley to consider moving the Northern Convenience Center up, I guess, from year three to year two.
  • 00:53:09
    That was a decision that Mr. Davidson spoke to.
  • 00:53:11
    It was primarily about the operating cost because it will take about four to five hundred thousand dollars to bring that online.
  • 00:53:17
    And so this is, we don't know what the picture will look like next year, but we know that this will be another year where microtransit is phasing out, we'll be feeding the safer grants, the renovation for the jail debt service will be ramping up.
  • 00:53:29
    So I think this is one of the staff takes a look at multiple years.
  • 00:53:32
    I think we're beginning to approach some caution about what that may look like.
  • 00:53:36
    And so that was largely driven to the rationale why that was moved from year two to year three.
  • 00:53:41
    But with that rationale aside, would the board want to see an option on Wednesday of moving that up from year three to year two?
  • 00:53:47
    I'm just asking for staff direction so we can support the board in a proposed budget.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 00:53:53
    I didn't speak to it.
  • 00:53:55
    Just because I understood the rationale, I'm agreeing with it, that the operational impact, not that I wouldn't be interested in bringing it forward.
  • 00:54:01
    I mean, I understood the red flag you were throwing out.
  • 00:54:04
    So I wasn't in disagreement with that for the strategy myself.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 00:54:08
    And I agree too.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:54:12
    Only if a half year became available because the construction went faster or something, then we could scrounge around.
  • 00:54:18
    Otherwise, we'll have to deal with it.
  • 00:54:20
    I wouldn't mind seeing if it could be, and I understand the operating cost, that rationale also.
  • 00:54:28
    But anything, perhaps next year's budget or this year's budget, if it can be moved up, if there's an opportunity to move it up, I would be in favor of that.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:54:41
    It, perhaps that could be an alternative and I'll just make sure I don't over problem this.
  • 00:54:45
    I'll ask Mr. Stewart to correct me, but if we are in the design process and things are moving at a great pace and there was an opportunity to make an adjustment, that is something that he could communicate with our finance and budget office and county executives and we could bring back board when the time is right.
  • 00:54:59
    I just want to make sure I'm managing expectations clearly if you could help with that.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:55:02
    If you don't mind, would you mind restating that
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:55:08
    Sure, so if we go through design in year 25, and I'll get my dates right here.
  • 00:55:17
    Yes, if we go through design in fiscal year 25, would there be an opportunity through that process if the opportunity opened up to accelerate the construction from fiscal year 27 to 26?
  • 00:55:30
    Would that be information that we may have in the next year where we could take that action at this time in the next CIP?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:55:37
    Odds are strong that we'll complete the design and if the funding is available and we want the defer operating costs to, say, FY28, then we would get the design and just pause until we know that the timing of bidding and construction has been opened in FY28.
  • 00:55:55
    We're already doing preliminary design now so that we can take care of our comprehensive plan compliance review, get
  • 00:56:02
    to get that based on, and I think they'll be probably likely done with design by the end of the upcoming fiscal year or so, I think.
  • 00:56:12
    With this funding scenario as posed, we would most likely just be stopping, pausing up to a year before meeting the work out, so that the operating costs referred.
  • 00:56:25
    So the opportunity is already there, is what I'm trying to say, to be able to accelerate, if the funding were accelerated to 26 and the operating funds available to 27, that was the plan before
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:56:44
    So, regarding design, don't we basically have a design from the Southern Convenience Center?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:56:56
    The design is based on what we have at the Southern Convenience Center.
  • 00:57:00
    The topography is quite different.
  • 00:57:03
    The road that we're tying into is different.
  • 00:57:09
    Animal that has to be assessed, stormwater management's got to be handled.
  • 00:57:14
    It is easier because we know this works for us, certainly, so there's that much less work to do, but there's still a lot of work to do.
  • 00:57:23
    It's a more challenging department.
  • 00:57:25
    It's just a different challenge.
  • 00:57:27
    It is a little more challenging.
  • 00:57:29
    The site itself is steeper.
  • 00:57:31
    I like that old correction.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:57:40
    Mr. Stewart, before you sit down, as I drive by there almost every day, I keep forgetting to send you a email and ask you, are the county project at the community center able to use the giant detention basin that VDOT built for Ryan Mills right across the street?
  • 00:57:57
    And there's already a drain under the road.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:58:00
    That's the part that they're just now getting to.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:58:03
    I'm not certain of that.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:58:17
    to hit our debt management chapter.
  • 00:58:19
    Just a couple slides to hit the highlights here.
  • 00:58:22
    The bar proceeds, the county issues for its projects are the largest funding source of the CIP.
  • 00:58:29
    So one of the things we want to look at is where does the county's debt service payments look like in the future?
  • 00:58:34
    And measuring that against our financial management policies.
  • 00:58:38
    The board has two financial management policies about the county's debt capacity.
  • 00:58:42
    These are very critical aspects of our triple AAA bond rating.
  • 00:58:46
    This is the debt service, which is the annual payment the county makes on its bonds to pay back its bonds as a percentage of general fund and school fund revenues.
  • 00:58:56
    The target is 10% there.
  • 00:58:57
    The tightest that we are ahead is going to be in year five.
  • 00:59:01
    The year three is pretty close to there.
  • 00:59:03
    We have a dent from year three to four when some debt is retired.
  • 00:59:06
    And then a year five, we see that go up again.
  • 00:59:10
    For planning purposes, if the board wanted to consider something different, either this CIP or future CIP, if that blue line were to go up to 8%, that would be about an initial 60 million of bonds that could be issued.
  • 00:59:22
    We've discussed with the board before, theoretically, you could go up to 10%, however the board has expressed concern to do so.
  • 00:59:29
    One, because if there were ever to be a downturn in revenues, you could find yourself above the policy.
  • 00:59:34
    If there was a once-in-a-lifetime or generational opportunity to come along, that gives you the flexibility to take advantage of that.
  • 00:59:41
    And so that is why we haven't modeled it and they got high, but just for perspective on some of what that gap may look like.
  • 00:59:46
    Also, because when the county issues bonds, we're making a decision to raise that blue line essentially for the next 20 years.
  • 00:59:52
    This is not a line that can be as nimble to go up and down as other revenues.
  • 00:59:58
    This is not planned for because of the related cash that would need to be required for that.
  • 01:00:02
    If the Board wanted to consider anything different or in the future we can update these numbers, it doesn't need to be today.
  • 01:00:09
    If we were to add additional projects in the CIP, we'd first look at does that capacity exist?
  • 01:00:14
    and where would the related funding for that come from?
  • 01:00:16
    This is an updated version of something we shared with the Board and the School Board back on December 6th where in order to execute a capital project you would need first what we call the pay-as-you-go or 5% of funding for projects that are not eligible.
  • 01:00:30
    for full marling, which is most.
  • 01:00:32
    For that $60 million, you need $3 million in one-time cash, and then we would need to pay debt service, which would be a little under $5 million a year, depending on the type of bond that would be chosen.
  • 01:00:41
    Least revenue, which is what the county traditionally uses, unless there is a general obligation or a referendum held in the first place, which would be those are the differences there.
  • 01:00:50
    So I'll just wrap up the board and turn it over to the board discussion.
  • 01:00:53
    I did not show the other metric in our financial policies because we have even more headroom in that particular policy.
  • 01:01:00
    So with that, I'll open up to any board questions or comments on debt management.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:01:03
    Thank you.
  • 01:01:04
    Supervisor Cowell.
  • 01:01:05
    I don't have any questions.
  • 01:01:07
    Supervisor Miller.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:01:08
    No questions and no inclination to change.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:01:11
    Thank you.
  • 01:01:12
    Supervisor Pruitt.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:01:21
    So several people on this board have recently had to talk to a variety of stakeholders, including the press, about
  • 01:01:32
    and as a recurring issue.
  • 01:01:34
    I know that some localities will fund major housing developments through the issuance of Albemarle, which you would end up going into their debt management portfolio.
  • 01:01:45
    My general understanding is that that is not something that we would be able to do through the Capital Improvement Plan and thus not something that would show up in debt management because we are not operating public housing.
  • 01:01:56
    That is our problem.
  • 01:01:57
    I'm actually not sure.
  • 01:01:59
    I am uncertain.
  • 01:02:07
    through third party partners is actually something that could be added to our overall debt management portfolio or not.
  • 01:02:15
    So I guess I would like to start with that question.
  • 01:02:18
    And from there, I would have curiosity from a financial standpoint over whether or not that is a thing that would be better thought of as a way to leverage future revenue.
  • 01:02:30
    If that is something we should be leveraging
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 01:02:39
    I'll answer that question.
  • 01:02:41
    We'll have to come back with more information on the... I realize it's authority.
  • 01:02:45
    Sorry.
  • 01:02:45
    No, no, no.
  • 01:02:46
    That's fine.
  • 01:02:46
    It's a good question.
  • 01:02:47
    It's a good question to ask.
  • 01:02:48
    But that's something we'll need to do just a little more research on whether we have the legal authority to borrow for that use.
  • 01:02:57
    But that is... So it's slightly different than what we currently use our...
  • 01:03:03
    and so on.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:03:41
    and I know generally it's often nicer to pay as you go.
  • 01:03:45
    But I guess I'm just asking that from people who are much more expert in our books.
  • 01:03:50
    Is it better to pay whatever the Fed's lending rate is that day every year for something that is looking at like $10 million annually?
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 01:04:00
    Yeah, I think that program will need to really be built out further, particularly that funding mechanism.
  • 01:04:07
    And so I would ask that we
  • 01:04:10
    Law Staff, a little bit more time to think that through.
  • 01:04:13
    And I'm not for sure this will be a Wednesday 27th follow-up.
  • 01:04:19
    No, I understand.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:04:20
    But this is more of me trying to suggest something for strategic help.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:04:54
    and downturns over the last 27 years.
  • 01:04:59
    I am comfortable with this proposal and I appreciate the work that staff has done on it.
  • 01:05:03
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:05:19
    as far as general obligation bonds, which are referendum bonds in some of the history that we have there.
  • 01:05:27
    And are there any things that coming up that we would consider?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:05:31
    And two, to the best of my knowledge, there's been two general obligation bonds.
  • 01:05:36
    One was held back a complete win
  • 01:05:39
    I'm not going to forget the school back in the 70s.
  • 01:05:41
    Some time ago it was constructed.
  • 01:05:44
    I think it was western.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:05:45
    I think it may have been western, but I could be wrong.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:05:49
    Thank you.
  • 01:05:50
    Much more recently, in 2016, there was a referendum that was held really for public school projects where there was a package that was put forth in the presidential that year.
  • 01:05:59
    There was a big educational campaign around that, no pun intended, and then there was a
  • 01:06:09
    The project then advanced after that.
  • 01:06:12
    At that time, the part of the communication was in order to execute these projects in this package that are being associated tax increase that followed through just a couple years after that.
  • 01:06:21
    And so that is a tool available to the board.
  • 01:06:23
    It really is up to the board to weigh as a policy decision versus receiving a slightly better rate with all the other applications that go with the general obligation reference.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:06:35
    Do we have an update on the 1% for school funding because that's going to be a referendum to that passage?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:06:42
    I've not heard an update this time.
  • 01:06:43
    It's at the governor's desk, I believe, until April 8th is his deadline for action.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:06:50
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:06:53
    I realize I didn't speak to the fundamental question that we were actually presented here, so I apologize.
  • 01:06:57
    I just wanted to acknowledge.
  • 01:07:01
    I'm the person who is often saying that we should be less fiscally prudent and lean into service more, but in this case, yes, I believe that I fully am bought onto the 8% thinking.
  • 01:07:14
    I think it provides flexibility that support.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:07:18
    Thank you.
  • 01:07:19
    Is that an answer to that question?
  • 01:07:20
    I think it's normal to read.

5. FY 2025 Operating and Capital Budget.

• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:07:22
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:07:23
    And so I think at this point, this would be the time for the board's desires to take a break.
  • 01:07:27
    The rest of the time is really scenarios to prepare for the 27th.

6. FY 2025 Operating and Capital Budget.

• • SPEAKER_00
  • 01:18:54
    Thank you, Supervisor Andrews.
  • 01:18:57
    For the remainder of today's work session, we'll first provide the board with some technical updates, some adjustments to the budget, and we referenced some of those earlier in conversation.
  • 01:19:07
    But then we're going to turn our attention to various expenditure and revenue scenarios.
  • 01:19:11
    That's where we're going to spend the bulk of the rest of the time today, is walking through those scenarios.
  • 01:19:17
    The goal for today is to narrow down the options for the board's consideration as we move to March 27.
  • 01:19:25
    On the 27th, this is where the board will take action to advertise maximum tax rates.
  • 01:19:29
    So that's our goal for today.
  • 01:19:30
    And this next part of the presentation is to really help narrow down those options.
  • 01:19:36
    So staff can be prepared to help the board return on the 27th and set that maximum tax rate.
  • 01:19:43
    We do have some questions that we would like for the board to keep in mind as we walk through the various scenarios on the expenditure and on the revenue side.
  • 01:19:53
    We'd like to see, is there a slate of prioritized expenditure changes that majority of the board will support?
  • 01:19:59
    And we'll walk through various options here shortly.
  • 01:20:03
    And at the same time, we'd like to see if there is support from the board or a majority of support for prioritized funding sources.
  • 01:20:11
    There's some revenue options that we'll present as well.
  • 01:20:14
    So we're looking for board direction on how to narrow some of the stats we've prepared for the 27.
  • 01:20:21
    That is an important date for us as we are looking to set the maximum tax rate and move through the rest of the budget process.
  • 01:20:30
    So your feedback in these areas, as well as any additional information that you all may need to help make that decision on the tax rate on the 27th, I would be greatly appreciated.
  • 01:20:39
    It's that way staff can responsive to your request and bring back the information properly on the 27th.
  • 01:20:45
    So that kind of sets the stage.
  • 01:20:46
    We're going to spend the next couple of slides going over one of the technical updates and then we'll walk through the scenarios.
  • 01:20:51
    So I'll turn this back over to Mr. Bowman and he'll start with our technical components.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:20:57
    Thank you, Jacob.
  • 01:21:00
    The way I think about this slide is that if staff knew this information when the recommended budget was prepared and finalized in early February, this already would have been an important stage of the numbers.
  • 01:21:10
    Just recognizing that we always have to finalize the recommended budget at one date and information continues to change.
  • 01:21:16
    These would be, again, we're calling the technical updates for that reason.
  • 01:21:19
    But I'm going to talk through these one at a time just to have an understanding of what they are.
  • 01:21:24
    First, in the general fund, we have some changes on the revenue side, first of which comes from one-time funding from John to a little over $250,000.
  • 01:21:34
    John has a fund-balance policy that is approved.
  • 01:21:37
    Their board manages all the regional partners participate in.
  • 01:21:40
    They have a target above their fund-balance targets.
  • 01:21:43
    Above their fund-balance target, there's an amount of funding.
  • 01:21:46
    That $250,000 represents the share of the counties.
  • 01:21:49
    We return to the county for the board's use and determination.
  • 01:21:55
    The second update is we get a little further into the state budget.
  • 01:21:58
    Staff believes we can confidently rely on an additional $114,000 coming from the state.
  • 01:22:04
    That is really for those four departments who are supported by the Compensation Board.
  • 01:22:09
    The county provides funding well above the Compensation Board for those offices as well.
  • 01:22:13
    And so by getting a higher reimbursement rate for those costs that are free to up dollars can be reprogrammed to whatever the board's highest priority may be.
  • 01:22:22
    There are some changes on the expenditure side.
  • 01:22:25
    One change, another clarification.
  • 01:22:28
    As Mr. Davis mentioned, the ARD SWA Solid Waste Authority budget is another moving target as we work through the agency process.
  • 01:22:37
    We have an increase of about $100,000 from where we were in the draft of their budget before we had from the draft last fall that has now been updated this spring.
  • 01:22:47
    This does include the Board's direction to consider increasing the rates for dollars it was provided a couple weeks ago, so if not for that action, that dollar amount would have been even higher.
  • 01:22:57
    I'll show that it's reflected on the expenditure side, both in the operating, and it's also shown down on the capital side.
  • 01:23:02
    There's a portion of RSWA that's shown down as well.
  • 01:23:06
    Two items.
  • 01:23:07
    Next, there are zero dollars.
  • 01:23:09
    They're not actual changes, but they're a little bit of an update from what we've previously provided the Board.
  • 01:23:15
    We mentioned at work session number two or three.
  • 01:23:20
    The Charlottesville area transit would have an increase of about $85,000 to $6,000 over where we were based on their budget process working through collective bargaining and everything else.
  • 01:23:31
    The city has continued to review and modify that budget and no additional funding is needed beyond the county executive's recommendation to ensure that same level of service is being provided.
  • 01:23:41
    So again, thank the city for that update as I continue to work through that.
  • 01:23:43
    This allows for a recommendation for CAT.
  • 01:23:46
    This is pretty close to a line with CAT's five-year plan from a couple years ago, updated last spring.
  • 01:23:52
    The other clarification is we've talked in the budget where we have unfunded vacancies, working with our parks department.
  • 01:23:58
    We're actually going to swap out a position that's unfunded.
  • 01:24:00
    There's no dollar in fact.
  • 01:24:01
    Previously there was a trail group technician that was unfunded and that was actually switched to a maintenance worker instead.
  • 01:24:08
    That would just be another thing that we continue to monitor as part of this other unfunded positions in the budget process.
  • 01:24:15
    So before I go to capital, in the general fund, had we known all this information back in February, we would have had a reserve contingency that was larger by $250,007 one time and $14,000 ongoing.
  • 01:24:27
    That's funding the board can direct do something else with, but in absence of that, it would exist in the reserve contingencies, which is really a bucket of funds for just unanticipated or one-time rather situations that come up throughout the year.
  • 01:24:43
    Next in the capital, we've had the update that we already talked about with the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank.
  • 01:24:49
    Their funding has removed that $165,000 and there's that other RSWA portion of about $74,000 which leaves a balance available for other programmen of about $90,000 in the CIP.
  • 01:25:01
    So as we go through the process, should there be other technical updates?
  • 01:25:05
    I'll mention we've looked at our other items.
  • 01:25:06
    We've looked at our other ongoing revenues to see if there's anything that may change.
  • 01:25:09
    But right now none of that is incorporated.
  • 01:25:13
    There are new other recommended changes, which is why it's not incorporated.
  • 01:25:16
    These are just those items to date.
  • 01:25:19
    Before we get into some other options, maybe a good time just to pause in case there's a board question on any of these before we get into some denser topics.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:25:30
    So the RSA, when they came to us with the TIP thing, was that they just didn't have the budget done?
  • 01:25:35
    They were waiting until we made a decision on the TIP theme.
  • 01:25:40
    How was that unknown at that point?
  • 01:25:42
    I don't recall that being such late in the game in the previous years.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 01:25:45
    Sure.
  • 01:25:46
    As part of their original budget, they were proposing raising the TIP fee $2 as part of their original budget calculations that are reflected in our recommended budget.
  • 01:25:55
    And as they further refined their budget, they looked at it
  • 01:25:58
    decided that $4 was the right amount as they refined the budget.
  • 01:26:01
    It wasn't that they didn't know at the time.
  • 01:26:04
    It was as they continued to refine and when they came to us, they knew we just did not have this full update with them.
  • 01:26:12
    Once they knew that they were getting the approval to do the $4 fee, then they came back and said, okay, this is what the amount would be minus the revenue that they'll left over amount or the remaining amount necessary.
  • 01:26:24
    Operations.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:26:25
    So their operating budget, aside from the tip fee or the fee increase, was going up 400 grand this year.
  • 01:26:33
    Change the tip fees and then the change that absorbed about 300 grand.
  • 01:26:37
    That's $290,000, if I remember right.
• • SPEAKER_10
  • 01:26:40
    I'd have to look at the budget packet, but that sounds in the ballpark.
  • 01:26:44
    Yes, sir.
  • 01:26:46
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:26:48
    Supervisor Mallek.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:26:50
    I think I'm okay for now.
  • 01:26:51
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:26:52
    Supervisor Pruitt.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:26:54
    I don't have any questions.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:26:56
    Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.
  • 01:26:57
    No questions at this point.
  • 01:27:01
    I don't really have any questions about this.
  • 01:27:03
    I just, I do have a question about the Romana Solid Waste Authority, about the repairs.
  • 01:27:11
    Do we know, those repairs are outside of nothing.
  • 01:27:14
    We don't have any sense yet of what's
  • 01:27:20
    You were talking about the water and sewer authority as opposed to the solid waste authority and those are people who have a new place Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, I was thinking Rivanna, I'm sorry I transposed those in my mind all the time Yeah, it's easy to do, because I'm thinking about a big price tag Yeah, the cost of the water and sewer authority would be outside of the county's general fund Yeah, it's paid, I mean it's paid, it's rate payers I just was wondering if we had an update That's fine, yeah
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:27:50
    Okay, so moving on from technical updates to some options for the board's consideration.
  • 01:27:56
    This is a slide, it's a little busy and we'll reference this a few times out here.
  • 01:28:00
    We have on the left slide in kind of this dark blue color is in summary some of the biggest ticket items that the board has asked to put in a parking lot for future discussion.
  • 01:28:09
    are those included items that were discussed at the last work session number three around the fire rescue system, both North Garden and the Burke Bar Ambulance.
  • 01:28:18
    The Sheriff's Office is included as well, and I thank Sheriff Bryant for being here again today.
  • 01:28:22
    The Board also requests some additional information for, I'm proud she stepped out.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:28:30
    I will tell you that I was just told when we were on break that
  • 01:28:33
    Chan was called away, can't make it, and she sent a deputy, and he was called away.
  • 01:28:40
    So they were very apologetic that they don't have anyone here right now.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:28:52
    There are some other items that have been mentioned by board members that we'll touch on in a moment, but this kind of shows on the left both the ongoing and the one-time cost of both Fiscal Year 25 and Fiscal Year 26.
  • 01:29:03
    One of the things in the previous presentation we talked about was being mindful of Fiscal Year 26 impacts.
  • 01:29:08
    That is one of the reasons why we have shown that because some of these positions are only able to start part of the year.
  • 01:29:13
    On the right are a combination of funding sources that we'll walk through as well.
  • 01:29:18
    They may include one-time funding from the Capital Bansing Strategic Priorities Reserve, which we'll talk about all these in more detail.
  • 01:29:24
    Plus some options on tax rates the Board could consider, as well as some changes in expenditure reductions for services.
  • 01:29:32
    So we'll revisit this slide a few times.
  • 01:29:34
    What we'd like to do is to walk through each of the expenditures in a little bit more detail in terms of what they are, what's included.
  • 01:29:40
    and also the items to note were not as part of those big three above the line in blue and then we'll do the same one funding sources.
  • 01:29:48
    Again, the goal is not to finalize what would be included in the proposed budget.
  • 01:29:52
    There's a lot of directions as one could see from the slide the board could go.
  • 01:29:55
    This is trying to narrow down those options as staff works to prepare any follow-ups to come back up Wednesday for the board to have a proposed budget and proposed tax rates.
  • 01:30:03
    So with that, I'm going to turn over the expenditure portion of the presentation back to Mr. Davidson.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 01:30:11
    The first option we have prepared for the Board's discussion is related to the fire rescue items we discussed at our last work session.
  • 01:30:18
    This option says the cost to provide 16 total FTEs, we're showing this as a package, to provide 24-7 supplemental staffing and coverage for the North Garden, as well as 24-7 coverage and staffing of a second ambulance at the Burk Mar Rescue Station, Station 18.
  • 01:30:36
    This option contains a half year of funding for FY25 to align with the timing and the start of the fire recruit school when they would be able to bring individuals online to start hiring.
  • 01:30:48
    As noted here, North Garden staffing is planned to initially be funded through the FEMA Safer Grant.
  • 01:30:55
    for FY25, that's about $275,000 and FY26 would be $574,000.
  • 01:31:02
    If the FEMA, we did want to point out that if the FEMA safer grant is not awarded, the plan would be to initially reduce the Berkmore 24-7 ambulance down to daylight hours only, the reduced option that was discussed as part of the work session on the 13th, I believe it was.
  • 01:31:18
    and then we would then go back and revisit the potential of expanding that back to 24-7 full-time coverage as we moved into the FY26 budget.
  • 01:31:29
    So as you can see with these options for FY25, we're looking at about $665,000 cost with 200 of that, one time 790 ongoing and then the revenue offset and then approximately $900,000 worth of ongoing county cost in FY26.
  • 01:31:54
    The next option we have for consideration is the expansion of a heart program to create a second response team.
  • 01:32:00
    This is a little bit different than what was shown in the sixth page unfunded document, which was requesting an additional peer navigator.
  • 01:32:10
    And speaking with Ms.
  • 01:32:11
    Dimick, we
  • 01:32:12
    asked what was the highest and best use of dollars towards the heart team.
  • 01:32:16
    And based on conversations with her, it was determined that actually standing up a second heart team would be the highest and best use and the most bang for our buck.
  • 01:32:25
    The peer navigator is still included in the long-term expansion and build-out plans.
  • 01:32:29
    It's just if we were going to say the highest use, we would really be looking at starting up that second team.
  • 01:32:35
    and that would include three FTEs, a human service worker, a firefighter, a EMT paramedic and then an ACPD officer.
  • 01:32:45
    This expansion would allow for improved coverage during the daylight hours on the weekday, also allow for some expanded hours in the evening and potentially some expanded weekend hours depending on how the shifting of the timing was worked out as we went through this.
  • 01:33:02
    and again, like the option we provided for the fire rescue department, this option would provide a half-year funding.
  • 01:33:08
    Again, there are two public safety individuals that would be involved in this and so in order to backfill those individuals, the recruit school and the academy timing, we will be looking at a half-year for all three positions to stay on that team up.
  • 01:33:24
    There is a slight revenue, state revenue offset and that would be for the human services worker that would be a part of this team and that's part of the normal state reimbursement of roughly 30 to 40% that we get on an annual basis for our social service workers depending on the type of work that they're doing.
  • 01:33:45
    The next option we have and scenario we have put together is for the consideration of an additional deputy position to help with the issues caused by the tenure transports which we heard about again at our last work session.
  • 01:33:58
    This would allow for some additional help to the sheriff for this task while we're continuing to evaluate the impacts and effectiveness
  • 01:34:05
    of the new alternative transportation services that are coming available for our region, as well as if the board should desire to expand the HEARTS team into that second HEARTS team, what impact that would also have on TDOs as we move through, but again, still providing some relief to the TDO issues that are currently there.
  • 01:34:25
    and did want to point out that the original request was for four and a half deputies for this and what's shown here is really only represents one additional deputy at this time.
  • 01:34:35
    The board could always desire to do more, but this would at least give you an order of magnitude should you decide to do more than what is shown on this slide.
  • 01:34:42
    Just multiply by two, three, four, whatever that desire of the board is.
  • 01:34:51
    Finally, I just wanted to put up a chart that provides the total cost of doing all three options we discussed on the previous slides.
  • 01:34:59
    As Mr. Bowman noted earlier, for expenses, staff has not only shown the one time in ongoing an FY25, but also a preview of FY26 and what may cross there.
  • 01:35:09
    This is because FY26 will hold a considerable list of obligations Mr. Bowman ran through several
  • 01:35:15
    that we've been looking at and discussing.
  • 01:35:17
    And as the board usually does, staff want to ensure that the board is considering FY25 decisions with FY26 in mind as we continue to plan each budget.
  • 01:35:34
    On the previous slides, we discussed three of the items that were supported, expressed a consensus on wanting additional information, details, and discussion for potential addition into the FY25 budget.
  • 01:35:44
    However, we did want to acknowledge that some other items were requested by at least one board member for further consideration.
  • 01:35:52
    We've listed these here on the slide in alphabetical order from what we've heard and from information that's been requested for us.
  • 01:36:00
    We are showing these as this would be the time for the Board to bring up any of these items for further discussion, as well as any other items that are on the information packet that we, from that six-page document that we sent to the Board titled, General Fund Request, that are not included in the FYC 25 budget.
  • 01:36:16
    And so,
  • 01:36:23
    of the Equation.
  • 01:36:24
    I'm now going to turn it over to the chair and the board for any questions on the expenditure side of things.
• • SPEAKER_10
  • 01:36:31
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:36:32
    You may have said this when I was writing some notes down.
  • 01:36:39
    Remind me when we find out about the FEMA SAFER grant.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 01:36:42
    I believe that is in September.
  • 01:36:44
    Typically in September or early fall.
  • 01:36:47
    That's when we find out.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:36:54
    I think the answer is no, because it's a different type of position.
• • SPEAKER_06
  • 01:36:57
    But when we first established the Hearts team, we didn't take an FTA from Queens.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:37:01
    We added an FTA for the Hearts team.
• • SPEAKER_06
  • 01:37:18
    No, actually, at the time, that was the user following the SROs, leaving the schools and seeing the schools that identified an interest in not having any additional SROs and so there were FTEs available in the police department budget.
  • 01:37:36
    that had previously been SROs.
  • 01:37:38
    And so that first police officer took one of those FDE positions that had been in SRO.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:37:45
    It didn't take them away.
  • 01:37:46
    It didn't really take anything away, though, because if it wasn't to the heart, it would have been budgeted as an SRO.
  • 01:37:52
    But they didn't gain anything.
  • 01:37:53
    If it didn't go to either of them, they may have gained a position, I suppose.
  • 01:37:58
    So in adding this position to the hearts team, this doesn't really change their capacity at all.
  • 01:38:04
    Can you go back to slide 33 of the expenditure summary?
  • 01:38:17
    I just want to parse these out.
  • 01:38:19
    You've got the one time and the ongoing and of course the total, then you do the revenue offset.
  • 01:38:23
    So the totals
  • 01:38:32
    The ongoing funding revenue required would be that 1.1 minus the revenue one time.
  • 01:38:54
    So 1.154 minus 450.
  • 01:38:57
    So about $7,800,000.
  • 01:39:03
    That gets us those.
  • 01:39:07
    That's one position under share of a full heart team.
  • 01:39:12
    And the half year for both North Garden and Burkmore provided we get the FEMA Safer brand.
  • 01:39:16
    Yes, sir.
  • 01:39:25
    Police positions are usually one to ten, but then another basically one hundred and fifteen for a police officer.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 01:39:36
    For police officers, for a starting police officer, it's roughly two hundred and one thousand.
  • 01:39:43
    Two hundred and one, yeah, it's about a hundred, just shy of one hundred and ten in one time cost and
  • 01:39:50
    right around $94,000, $95,000 in on-go.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:40:13
    Drafts, Step 1, if there's clarification questions, staff can address those too.
  • 01:40:18
    I think the question 2, going back to some of the questions, is for some to introduce this topic with.
  • 01:40:24
    And this is not the only time to address that.
  • 01:40:26
    It's really just trying to get the sense headed into Wednesday.
  • 01:40:29
    Are there kind of prioritized expenditure changes that a majority of the board may support?
  • 01:40:34
    So if there was a topic where we had a consensus from the board as we head into Wednesday, that can help staff position the board for the steps that we need to take into having proposed budget, proposed tax rates on Wednesday.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:40:47
    I think at this point, given, I mean, I'm not, I mean, we still have to advertise on all of that.
  • 01:40:54
    But the expenditure side, I'm still grateful for the creativity, for the fire solutions here.
  • 01:41:03
    I think getting a whole heart expansion teams on and I think at a minimum we need to add one to the Sheriff's Department.
  • 01:41:09
    I'm still concerned that we're not adding to the police department at this point.
  • 01:41:16
    I don't need to go in the rationale for it, that's just what it is.
  • 01:41:19
    So as an expenditure either that's still one that's not on your list for Wednesday that I would like to see there and then given the revenue alternatives that you're showing
  • 01:41:31
    It seems to me the one-time money for sure would be more manageable for a police position and the expense for the police officer, I think, can be worked in here without too much change to what some of your other revenue pieces are.
  • 01:41:48
    And I'm open to the revenue changes for advertisement, but I'm not agreeing to the, you know what I mean, that starts to get through the process of hearing from folks and things like that.
  • 01:41:59
    I'm sure we'll get into that in more detail with those revenue things on board.
  • 01:42:02
    So I can do more commentary at that point for that.
  • 01:42:05
    Thanks.
  • 01:42:05
    Supervisor Miller.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:42:09
    Thank you.
  • 01:42:09
    And I'm really looking forward to seeing around the corner of the spreadsheet on what there is.
  • 01:42:18
    But I'm very supportive of the things on slide 33.
  • 01:42:25
    I was just flipping back to the original unfunded list for seven police officers requested.
  • 01:42:31
    So this reminds me of 2008 and 2009 when they were requesting for every year and getting zero for so long.
  • 01:42:40
    So I will throw my hat in with Ned and if we can find the extra money to put an extra one in that, that would be great.
  • 01:42:47
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 01:42:53
    So, I'm fully on board with the North Garden and the Burp Mar.
  • 01:43:01
    I would just highlight something I know came up in our two on twos.
  • 01:43:05
    North Garden is who we're talking about.
  • 01:43:20
    and so on.
  • 01:43:42
    So long as volunteerism is what it is, we're going to continue to see these kind of very serious expenditures coming before us.
  • 01:43:47
    So we shouldn't allow ourselves to think like we've solved this problem.
  • 01:43:55
    As I have sat on this one more, with the framework that's been presented to us today, if this is all the revenues that we're playing with, and it's all the new experiences that we're playing with, I'm fully supportive.
  • 01:44:06
    But if something has to come to the chopping block,
  • 01:44:11
    have slight pause about the additional position for the Sheriff's Office.
  • 01:44:15
    We are expanding the hearts team, which we expect is able to decrease the frequency and necessity of TDOs, and there are continued projects in place at the state level that we expect
  • 01:44:38
    McKeel, Diantha McKeel
  • 01:45:07
    The Supervisor Pet Project page.
  • 01:45:14
    I will not be able to sleep comfortably if I don't go to the mat here.
  • 01:45:19
    The Emergency Assistance Funding is primarily used currently for eviction prevention for people who have become people who are a good underwriting decision for eviction prevention.
  • 01:45:39
    Case, and we can find certainly those people in our communities.
  • 01:45:44
    Nationwide, at an Albemarle specifically, over the past several years, we've seen a significant decrease in evictions in our community entirely because of COVID-related protocols, and that is gone.
  • 01:45:56
    This is on track to be the most evicting year in history in the county.
  • 01:46:02
    We have a higher eviction rate than almost every neighboring jurisdiction.
  • 01:46:08
    that includes Charlottesville.
  • 01:46:10
    We have more than three times the eviction rate of Nelson and Green.
  • 01:46:16
    Only Louisa and Waynesboro evict more people than we do as a percentage.
  • 01:46:23
    Again, this is mostly paying down outstanding debt.
  • 01:46:26
    We know where people get evicted from.
  • 01:46:29
    So just to give you a sense of this, a Timberlake two bedroom apartment, their smallest apartment costs about $1,000 a month.
  • 01:46:38
    Generally, one does not pay more than three months of arrearages.
  • 01:46:41
    I would say we're averaging looking at two months of arrearages.
  • 01:46:43
    That means to prevent an eviction costs about $2,000.
  • 01:46:49
    The request for an increase of funding was incredibly modest, and our current fund, if I may be so bold, is incredibly modest for a jurisdiction as wealthy as we are.
  • 01:47:06
    A very modest increase to just keep pace with the need.
  • 01:47:10
    I think we can and should increase it significantly, but the request was only $40,000 of additional funding over the previous year.
  • 01:47:19
    On Thursday, we evicted or rather we processed in our courts for eviction.
  • 01:47:25
    23 people.
  • 01:47:28
    I can tell you almost all of those are going to be summarily evicted the moment they come up there because they
  • 01:47:35
    because they know that they're in.
  • 01:47:40
    Barry, Valerie, Corrine, Anastasia, Pamela, Kiana, April, Ashley, Tetrick, Madeline, Alelia, Merida.
  • 01:47:50
    And you'll apologize.
  • 01:47:51
    It's more than one page.
  • 01:47:54
    Well, I lost the rest.
  • 01:47:55
    But there's about twice that many names.
  • 01:47:58
    These are people who we represent.
  • 01:48:01
    And these are also people who we don't have come before.
  • 01:48:06
    That's 23 names.
  • 01:48:06
    I hoped to read, but I was only able to get about 11 of them.
  • 01:48:11
    That is more people than we have for almost any issue before us, and that is in a single day.
  • 01:48:16
    We normally have multiple days of the week that we allocate for evictions.
  • 01:48:19
    That was in a single day.
  • 01:48:20
    That's how many people were made homeless in our county.
  • 01:48:25
    $40,000 is about 20 of those people still in their home.
  • 01:48:31
    It is a very small amount.
  • 01:48:33
    I think it is abundantly.
  • 01:48:36
    and I think it should be.
  • 01:48:38
    I will just leave that on the table.
  • 01:48:42
    I also point out every time someone is evicted, you know the service process?
  • 01:48:47
    It's the sheriff.
  • 01:48:48
    So if we have fewer evictions in the county, we will potentially decrease the operating load on the sheriff.
  • 01:48:56
    That's all I have.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:48:59
    Thank you.
  • 01:48:59
    Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:49:01
    Thank you.
  • 01:49:08
    I will look at, I know we're applying for safer grants for North Garden and Burkmark that I fully support and hopefully we won't have to fully fund that because we'll get, the safer grant will help out.
  • 01:49:20
    The Heart Expansion Team, I know it's a pilot program and it's, what is it, June or July is when it started.
  • 01:49:34
    I guess the question is to Kaki, that you feel that this is an absolute need for a community enlarging this to two teams.
• • SPEAKER_06
  • 01:49:45
    I feel that the HARKS team has had an extraordinary impact on community well-being and may in fact end up having the predicted system impacts like around access to jail or hospital.
  • 01:49:59
    I think we were all surprised to see that there
  • 01:50:07
    that demonstrated to us that our already strong sense of the need was undercounting by far.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 01:50:15
    And I do know that part of the revenues would be offset by state increase.
  • 01:50:24
    I agree also.
  • 01:50:25
    If there is something that we had to do with that, at least temporarily, that would be one position for the sheriff.
  • 01:50:34
    I would like to substitute.
  • 01:50:36
    the one position of the sheriff, one position for a police officer.
  • 01:50:41
    I think that does more in the overall safety.
  • 01:50:46
    And I think the sheriff can, would be able to operate, maybe it's something that we check out again in six months.
  • 01:50:56
    That points to my wanting to see if there are any extra funding in six months, eight months that
  • 01:51:16
    for a share, because I think that has more of an impact on our community.
  • 01:51:23
    And I would like to see, when we go into revenues also, because obviously if we do all of them, we're going to have to increase.
  • 01:51:33
    We've all had meetings about wild, we're going to have to increase some kind of
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:51:44
    Thank you.
  • 01:51:45
    Supervisor McKeel.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:51:47
    Sure.
  • 01:51:47
    Let's see how this starts.
  • 01:51:53
    I am definitely in favor of what you see on page 33, North Garden Staffing in Burkmark.
  • 01:52:01
    Andrews, heart expansion.
  • 01:52:06
    And I think that one position for the sheriff, she asked for
  • 01:52:10
    How many was it?
• • SPEAKER_08
  • 01:52:11
    Four.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:52:14
    Essentially.
  • 01:52:15
    And I think one position is appropriate at this time.
  • 01:52:19
    I do think that the Hearts team will reduce their work, but I'm not sure it will reduce about four positions.
  • 01:52:27
    I think that's a lot of reduction.
  • 01:52:30
    So I'm happy to support.
  • 01:52:35
    One FTE for the Sheriff's Department.
  • 01:52:38
    I'm looking, I'm a little confused because I'm looking at the police FTE, which I really support.
  • 01:52:44
    We hear all the time from our communities how we need more police officers.
  • 01:52:50
    And just in my work, I see that.
  • 01:52:54
    And I don't look at the police as an either or.
  • 01:52:57
    I thought you all said we could do the police as well as the one position for the sheriff.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:53:04
    Yeah, I would say that on the slide, this is really just based on a prior discussion.
  • 01:53:08
    We certainly have the dollars that we can add in as we go into the next options.
  • 01:53:13
    This discussion is great because it's helping elevate what were those things, perhaps one member said versus others just didn't have a chance to weigh in on, because we've been covered a lot of content very fast.
  • 01:53:21
    So it was not a comment about any boards or the board in total, board members.
  • 01:53:27
    kind of relative preference there.
  • 01:53:28
    I was just trying to recap about the last 12 hours of discussion we've had leading to where we are now, knowing that we could easily miss something.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:53:37
    So it's not an either or?
  • 01:53:39
    Yes.
  • 01:53:39
    To get back to my original question.
  • 01:53:41
    So I would support an additional police officer, FTE, because I was going to ask the same question that Ned asked, because I was curious as to how that SRO position played out, and the
  • 01:53:55
    and the Hearts expansion.
  • 01:53:57
    Having said that, I would support it for police officer FTE as well as the one FTE for the sheriff.
  • 01:54:05
    And going to that, I have a question and maybe it's just my not understanding because when it comes to budgets, there are times when I, but we're looking at our technical updates.
  • 01:54:19
    14,000 ongoing is noise, to be honest with you.
  • 01:54:23
    Or I would call that noise in our budget, right?
  • 01:54:27
    But the 257,000 one-time funding that we just talked about that could go to the reserve, could we not use that?
  • 01:54:37
    Yes, that would be an option for the one-time fund.
  • 01:54:39
    Yeah, so I'd be very interested in taking that 257.5, which is more than noise.
  • 01:54:43
    Moving in over
  • 01:54:49
    to cover whatever we want to decide to cover best in this list of items we want to fund, along with the 14.
  • 01:54:58
    Well, the Fund of 14 is ongoing, and so that's just kind of noise, but we have over here one-time funding issues that we could cover, and we have to be careful with ongoing and one-time.
  • 01:55:11
    So I'm not saying to use one-time money to cover ongoing, you know that, but we could do
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:55:18
    and how you all want to play that out for me would be... This is helpful because as we get clarity in terms of where the board's kind of consensus may be, that can help narrow down what a package may look like for the board.
  • 01:55:30
    We'll talk about the revenues more once we get into expenditures, but again, this is very helpful to get us into where the board's thoughts are.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 01:55:35
    And I just don't want to go through and pick what I would do.
  • 01:55:38
    It was one time.
  • 01:55:39
    You all are best to do that, but I'd be interested in a proposal coming back to us.
  • 01:55:44
    And let me just see what else.
  • 01:55:48
    I really appreciate Mike's discussion about the evictions and the lack of funding towards the evictions and personalizing it is always a great way to present it.
  • 01:56:01
    I appreciate that as well.
  • 01:56:03
    Having said that, I did say this was just announced on March the 19th, Mackenzie Scott
  • 01:56:14
    just announced a $1 million grant for the Virginia Poverty Law Center to help with evictions in Virginia.
  • 01:56:25
    Now, $1 million grant is not going to go forever.
  • 01:56:29
    I get that.
  • 01:56:30
    But that's pretty impressive, and that's a start.
  • 01:56:33
    I'm really impressed.
  • 01:56:35
    I would not have a
  • 01:56:39
    I think at some point I'd like to have a discussion at some point later and not next week necessarily because I know you've got to get this figured out but be interesting to know how this works out and what impact this one million from Mackenzie Scott how that helps anyway so I think that I think I've addressed all the questions you all had for me thank you
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 01:57:06
    and I know we're going to talk about revenue sources, so we'll get to the one-time money and other sources.
  • 01:57:16
    With respect to North Garden Park and one FBE sheriff, I'm all in.
  • 01:57:22
    I think these are really critical and I understand several people
  • 01:57:40
    — but I will sort of piggybacking on Supervisor Pruitt — expressed, again, sort of like something I maybe didn't say when I showed up, when we talked about the AVRT process, on the fact that everything
  • 01:57:59
    with one exception, and that we really didn't, even though in July of 2023, I thought we approved a framework for having a prioritized family homelessness, adolescent mental health, community safety, and navigation for seniors, and then we put 100,000 away for contingency for that, but we didn't identify any of these, and our AVRT process didn't really change, not only in the amount, but in the way
  • 01:58:33
    Pruitt suggested in terms of addressing family homelessness, its emergency assistance fund is one of the ways in which that could occur.
  • 01:58:45
    And so I just feel like we really haven't tried to do what we said we would do last July, and I understand that things didn't come out the way we hoped, but that was one of my concerns.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:59:05
    I say this is very helpful.
  • 01:59:07
    I'll just try to recap on this slide, the risk of doing some math out loud.
  • 01:59:13
    But kind of the key number we want to look at is if we were to, where I've heard a majority of the board would it be for the three items on the slide and the additional police officers where I've heard a majority of the board say the same things.
  • 01:59:24
    University, Emergency Assistance was discussed as well, but I think the majority of the board say that the board still has an option to revisit that Wednesday.
  • 01:59:30
    That is certainly $40,000, a smaller dollar amount that could be adjusted in the budget compared to some of the larger funding items.
  • 01:59:38
    So if we were to think about, you know, if you imagine that slide had an additional police officer included on, as a bullet point, that Fiscal Year 5, 25 number would increase about roughly 100,000 one time, roughly 100,000 one going.
  • 01:59:53
    And so really that total cost of that package would be in Fiscal Year 25, be about 1.3 to 1.4 million.
  • 01:59:58
    And then the Fiscal Year 26 cost would be in total about 1.4 million as well.
  • 02:00:07
    So just having that 1.4 million number in whole as we move to the revenue side and where options could be to generate that amount.
  • 02:00:16
    And again, the point that I can recall, who did, one of the board members said, when rates are set on Wednesday, that's not a decision, that is just for the public to then weigh in and consider that as well, because as the board does as well, but I'll say for any public who are listening, the board can go lower than advertised, but they cannot exceed it.
  • 02:00:36
    So with that, going back to this slide, I'm now going to take a few moments to walk through the items in green and the funding sources where these could potentially come from.
  • 02:00:46
    Some of this would be information the Board has seen before, some of this would be new, and some of this also will be options that can stack together.
  • 02:00:52
    These are just a starting point for staff consideration.
  • 02:00:55
    The Board can mix these combinations, pick different ones, but this is again just to get us grounded in some of those options.
  • 02:01:03
    So the very first topic is we have in the upper right the Capital Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve.
  • 02:01:10
    And just like the $250,000 coming in to the reserve contingencies from Jont, Supervisor McKeel acknowledged that would be an appropriate place to buy one-time funding.
  • 02:01:21
    So could this Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve?
  • 02:01:25
    This is a reserve that we haven't talked by with this particular board in some time.
  • 02:01:29
    So just to kind of ground us in what that includes,
  • 02:01:32
    It's a reserve that was budgeted in the CIP and it began at Fiscal Year 20.
  • 02:01:36
    These are all the examples of how it's been used to date.
  • 02:01:39
    In short, it's really about one-time studies done in the realm of community development or public works related to projects of high interest to the board.
  • 02:01:48
    Because when we look at HEARTS, the fire rescue system, the shares, TDOs and pleads, all of those have a strong alignment to go one of the strategic plan and the objectives.
  • 02:01:58
    So this could be a one-time funding source for a portion of that roughly 550,000 needed in total.
  • 02:02:05
    I want to clarify this reserve is not required by financial management policies.
  • 02:02:09
    It's been set aside early for the board's discretion to support priority projects as shown on the screen to support and out of the budget period.
  • 02:02:16
    So this is an option available to the board.
  • 02:02:18
    There's a current balance of 1.9.
  • 02:02:19
    So if the board were to use a combination of the one-time funding from JOT and this, there would still be some capacity left over to allow the board to continue to address strategic priorities.
  • 02:02:32
    So that is option one for the one-time cost.
  • 02:02:34
    Moving into additional options, I would have a few slides that would consider changes to various taxes.
  • 02:02:41
    These are just for the board's consideration.
  • 02:02:43
    Again, they can be used in combination and in part.
  • 02:02:46
    But one item that we discussed earlier in the first work session was the transient occupancy tax.
  • 02:02:51
    Currently, that rate is at 8%.
  • 02:02:53
    Right now, the City of Charlottesville is proposing going to 9%.
  • 02:02:58
    So this would be a just as when the county increased to 8, a potential scenario where if the county wanted to continue at the same rate as the city, if they moved to 9% effective July 1st, that would generate an additional just under $900,000.
  • 02:03:10
    And we can see the split by the category with 10% going to capital and debt, 54% going to public school operations, and 36 to county government operations.
  • 02:03:21
    And I'll clarify all these charts.
  • 02:03:22
    There's a typo in the board's printed handout that says 5634, not 5436.
  • 02:03:26
    The slide is correct.
  • 02:03:28
    I apologize for that oversight.
  • 02:03:30
    The slide is the correct version.
  • 02:03:33
    So that is an option that's available should the board wish to pursue that.
  • 02:03:37
    And again, to think of the finisher's conversation, if the board needed to find 1.4 million, the portion of which is ongoing, that could provide 313,000 of that.
  • 02:03:50
    When we open this for board comments, it'll be very helpful to get some preliminary direction from the board if this is something that they would like to pursue.
  • 02:03:56
    I say that because the public process for this is different than the real estate tax rate and other options, where in order to go through the usual process, we would look to add to the April 3rd agenda on the consent a board direction to hold the public hearing to amend the ordinance for this TOT rate.
  • 02:04:15
    If that were to take place, we would hold that public hearing on April 24th, the same night as the other tax rates.
  • 02:04:21
    We'd ask the board to take action on March, sorry, on May 1st.
  • 02:04:27
    Thank you.
  • 02:04:28
    And so this is one where, again, the board doesn't need to decide, but to make sure that we can get an item with the April 3rd agenda, having that direction today will help us position the board to follow a two-year process for ordinance amendments.
  • 02:04:42
    So that's transit documents.
  • 02:04:44
    The next item that the Board could consider is personal property tax revenue.
  • 02:04:49
    This is a slide the Board saw at the first work session just to walk through the history of where we are.
  • 02:04:52
    The personal property tax rate is primarily to individual vehicles and other items like motorcycles and boats, as well as business vehicles and other tangible property.
  • 02:05:03
    This rate also applies to machinery and tools.
  • 02:05:06
    It's a relatively small amount of the revenue, only about $600,000 to $700,000 of a more than $37 million revenue.
  • 02:05:13
    But it is also part of that rate as well.
  • 02:05:16
    The current rate is $342,000, and every penny is less than $100,000, rounds up to $200,000.
  • 02:05:22
    For the board, the board knows as well, for the public in calendar year 22, there is a dramatic increase in car values.
  • 02:05:28
    The board decreased that rate by 86 cents from $428,000 down to $342,000.
  • 02:05:33
    Gallinger, 23 and 24, those values have continued to fall so that revenue has been declining in the recent years.
  • 02:05:40
    Including the impact in fiscal year 24, just compared to the fiscal year 24 adopted to the 25 recommended, that would be a $1.2 million decrease.
  • 02:05:50
    So in order to give the board something to consider, staff contemplated what might be one metric just to give a sense of the order of magnitude the board could change.
  • 02:05:58
    And so this is for the board's consideration, we could monitor a whole number of different rates.
  • 02:06:03
    But the approach was, if we looked in the county's past, what was the peak amount of revenue the county received from this tax, which was in fiscal year 22?
  • 02:06:11
    The actual amount received, not what would have been received if the rate had remained higher.
  • 02:06:16
    So the total amount in personal property and machine retooled taxes in fiscal year 22 was 36.6 million.
  • 02:06:24
    In order to generate that same amount in fiscal year 25, the rate would need to be increased 54 cents to 396, and that would generate a total of $4.5 million in fiscal year 25, the split of which is shown on the screen of about half a million to capital.
  • 02:06:39
    Now that is half a million every year, so the CIP would receive over the five years about 2.5 million, and then amounts for public school operations and county government operations.
  • 02:06:51
    So I'll point out on this scenario and this will be clear as we go later through this.
  • 02:06:56
    This change in loan generates 1.6 million in revenue, so with nothing else done, this could fund the package that the board talked about on the expenditures.
  • 02:07:06
    So that's the personal property machinery tools.
  • 02:07:09
    That's the rate that the board will advertise on Wednesday.
  • 02:07:13
    One of the things we looked at in this analysis was what might this mean for just individuals with different types of vehicles.
  • 02:07:22
    So we put this chart together and I'll share personal property is a little more complex than real property because for your first thousand dollars you receive full relief from the state for personal property.
  • 02:07:32
    You also receive relief from the state up to twenty thousand dollars other than your value and anything over twenty thousand dollars is taxed and full.
  • 02:07:40
    So there's some different math here that applies to real estate.
  • 02:07:43
    So what this chart does is it takes some common vehicles and looks at if a person had that vehicle from the time they purchased it, whether it be a 2018 or his latest 22, what has happened to that tax bill as a combination of the rate and the assessments and the personal property tax relief they received.
  • 02:08:00
    So we can see here overall there has been a downward trend in these vehicles.
  • 02:08:04
    These are just examples.
  • 02:08:05
    I'll say that
  • 02:08:06
    The Ford F-150 and the Honda CR-V are actually the two most common makes and models in the county.
  • 02:08:12
    Not those specific years, but just the examples just to get us through before and during the pandemic.
  • 02:08:18
    We picked a Hyundai Sonata that's a vehicle that has an assessed value under $20,000.
  • 02:08:23
    That's the gray line to show what the impact of that looks like.
  • 02:08:27
    We picked a couple higher end vehicles with Alexis and a Tesla, just to get a sense of more, maybe perhaps at that end of the assessment what that could look like.
  • 02:08:36
    And also we modeled a Silverado because that is the highest business tax use and they do not receive any personal property tax relief.
  • 02:08:43
    So everyone in the county will probably have a slightly different situation based on your number of vehicles, when you've had them, how long you've had them, and everything else.
  • 02:08:50
    But this is just to show the board some sense in terms of if the rate were to go up to 396, what would be the impact of what that could look like for the folks who would be impacted on this slide.
  • 02:09:04
    Finally, moving to the real estate tax.
  • 02:09:06
    This one's a little more straightforward.
  • 02:09:08
    Every penny on the real estate tax rate is about $2.9 million.
  • 02:09:13
    That is split, shown on the slide, about $300,000 for capital and debt.
  • 02:09:16
    Again, that's across all five years.
  • 02:09:18
    Sorry, $300,000 for five years.
  • 02:09:21
    And then the amounts for public school operations and county government operations.
  • 02:09:26
    The final point I'll make, I don't want to get into the math today, but the board, those who've been on the board will recall because tax rates are based on a calendar year basis and we budget on a fiscal year basis.
  • 02:09:38
    There will be a collection this June impacted by these tax rates.
  • 02:09:42
    So if the board were to increase tax rates, it would actually create some one-time revenue in the current year as well.
  • 02:09:47
    And so that could be eligible to be put into the CIP or put into the housing fund or one-time cost for positions or other options.
  • 02:09:55
    I really want to focus today's discussion on fiscal year 25, but when we come back on Wednesday, we can explore that a little bit more.
  • 02:10:01
    I just wanted to mention that as an option, but not get so into details with all the other options the board is probably taking through in this presentation.
  • 02:10:09
    So with that, to put these together as just if they were stacked one after the other, again, these could be combined in different versions.
  • 02:10:16
    If you focus on the second column in the total, that really is the first number.
  • 02:10:20
    The numbers to the right are just how they are split.
  • 02:10:23
    First, the 1% increase in TOT would generate about $900,000.
  • 02:10:26
    If, on top of that, you add a 54% personal property and machinery and tools, you get up to a total of 5.4 million.
  • 02:10:34
    There is a comment on service reductions we've added.
  • 02:10:36
    It didn't happen this slide.
  • 02:10:37
    I'm actually going to turn it to our CFO, Mr. Sumner, if you'd like to take a moment to walk through with staff that would have in mind around that.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:10:44
    and
  • 02:10:58
    and so on.
  • 02:11:20
    and that half a million dollar decrease in service levels could look like freezing additional positions as they become vacant throughout the year.
  • 02:11:29
    It could also mean additional personnel savings that we see.
  • 02:11:32
    You know, perhaps there's some other personnel lines that aren't being utilized as much as we had anticipated that we would reserve that as well.
  • 02:11:38
    There are also maybe opportunities for operational savings, whether this through some efficiencies or through some re-prioritization
  • 02:11:49
    to help fund additional half a million dollars towards a separate.
  • 02:11:56
    So while we don't have the specific line items, that would be the general idea.
  • 02:12:00
    If the board wanted to increase the county government operations by additional half a million, that's where it would be another funding source available.
  • 02:12:10
    And while we're on this slide, if we could, just real quick, Andy, if you could go back to slide 33, that's a ways back up.
  • 02:12:20
    I want to tie together the FY26 numbers.
  • 02:12:25
    So FY26, if the board moves forward with the expenditures as you recommended we bring back, I want to remind the board of the FY26 impacts.
  • 02:12:37
    So most of the items that are up here have a half-year cost.
  • 02:12:42
    And so when we're looking at FY26 and we're
  • 02:12:47
    We're planning for the worst, but hoping for the best with our FEMA application.
  • 02:12:52
    I do want to draw the attention to the 1.9 million and the subtotal FY26.
  • 02:12:57
    So if we move forward with these expenditures, in year 26, those now become full year costs.
  • 02:13:04
    and so I asked the board to keep that into consideration as you look at your revenues and what you would be looking to balance those additional costs of because those will have an impact not only 25 but also 26.
  • 02:13:15
    And so, Andy, if you want to go back to the summary slide for the revenues, I just wanted to tie those two pieces together for the board as we move to the
  • 02:13:26
    The last part of this section before we open it up to the board for a conversation.
  • 02:13:30
    To keep in mind the FY26 full year cost of the recommendations.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:13:40
    Yes, so thank you for elaborate on that.
  • 02:13:42
    And because of the service reductions, that's why the only change we see is in the accounting government operations there and that 34%.
  • 02:13:52
    I missed that one, 36%.
  • 02:14:00
    That's why we see that change there.
  • 02:14:01
    And then the last one there, if you throw it in a once in real estate tax rate, the board could obviously have different options, but that is what the back would look like there if all of those were to be considered.
  • 02:14:13
    So with that, this brings us back just as we were on the expenditures.
  • 02:14:16
    Some time to, one, if the board has clarification on any of these revenues, how they would work in the timing, some of the impacts, and also try to get a sense in the terms of where the board's priorities may be.
  • 02:14:28
    If that 1.4 million total expenditures was considered, where would the board's priority be in looking for funding options for public advertisement for public hearing?
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:14:45
    So in the current budget for personal property, there's a projection of
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:15:08
    4.5 million less than 36.6.
  • 02:15:09
    I mentioned the other day, I'm not great with math in my head on the spot.
  • 02:15:13
    So really, the idea was, as a basis, if we were to take what is projected in 25 and take that back to the peak of what was actually collected in fiscal year 22, that's a difference of about $4.5 million.
  • 02:15:26
    So really, it's a question then of what rate does it take to get to that amount of funding if it's through 25?
  • 02:15:34
    That result is 54 cent increase to get to 396.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:15:36
    The peak was before we did the change?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:15:42
    Fiscal year 22 would be a combination of before the change and a half a year of the change because even when the board dropped the rate, it was still, it did not fully equalize the rate.
  • 02:15:52
    It dropped it down to a more reasonable increase.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:15:54
    All right, so the 366 is, okay, so half of it was after we made the change, half of it was at the highest tax, highest value.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:16:01
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:16:16
    Jacob, thank you for the service reductions and making sure we keep that in mind.
  • 02:16:20
    When you talk about freezes as they come open, do you do that across the board or do you protect some?
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:16:30
    We would look at all the positions as they come open, but I would say a lot of our
  • 02:16:40
    to be part of that freeze because they have direct service line impacts.
  • 02:16:48
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:16:51
    I appreciate looking to fiscal year 26 and the impacts for that, especially since we're not doing a COLA-raised COLA adjustment this year, cost of living adjustment.
  • 02:17:04
    I mean, with all the work that we've done to get our
  • 02:17:08
    We have to get the market to do that.
  • 02:17:10
    We have to be doing some sort of adjustment next year.
  • 02:17:13
    I mean, I think that's a gift.
  • 02:17:15
    For us, we're just going to find ourselves where we were at, where we were digging.
  • 02:17:18
    We just dug up.
  • 02:17:19
    So we've got to keep that in mind as well as we look to the next year.
  • 02:17:27
    Well, those are my questions.
  • 02:17:28
    What else was I supposed to do?
  • 02:17:30
    I suppose to do something else.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:17:32
    If you were, as we're working through these, if you have a, we're looking for direction.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:17:38
    For advertisement.
  • 02:17:39
    So I'll answer this for advertisement.
  • 02:17:42
    I'm happy to see that.
  • 02:17:44
    Well, happy.
  • 02:17:44
    I'm never happy to.
  • 02:17:49
    It's probably not a good thing to say, right?
  • 02:17:51
    Never happy.
  • 02:17:52
    But the transient occupancy tax, increasing that to 1%, I think that makes sense.
  • 02:17:58
    I have said, I shouldn't speak for others, but I have said multiple times to my constituents that for the folks that come here, that there's a portion that they need to pay as well, and that's where that comes from.
  • 02:18:14
    I think that should be included in for advertisement.
  • 02:18:16
    I understand your rationale for the 54th cent on the personal property.
  • 02:18:19
    I think I'm still weighing on that one.
  • 02:18:28
    I think for advertisement, it's that I'd be supportive of taking it out to advertisement.
  • 02:18:33
    Just don't know where I'm at on the rationale yet.
  • 02:18:45
    I think I am not interested at this time in doing anything with the real estate tax for advertisement.
  • 02:18:53
    I think anytime a service reduction philosophy should be on the table in any given year, so let's keep that on the table as well for moving forward for see where it all shakes out.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:19:13
    So, help me make sure that I've got the math right.
  • 02:19:16
    I'm looking at slide 44, but referring back to 33, 1.89 million was what we had, what we were needing to get that.
• • SPEAKER_01
  • 02:19:31
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:19:32
    Okay.
  • 02:19:33
    So, that's if we do the things we've talked about in the expenditure summary.
  • 02:19:37
    That was the fiscal year 26 impact if we don't get the offset.
  • 02:19:44
    So, am I correct that looking now at slide 44, if I add together 313 and 189, I get 2.779013, so would we be balanced if we did those things?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:19:59
    To clarify, the 1.9 includes both the DOT and the personal property adjustment.
  • 02:20:05
    Both of those are included in the 1.9.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:20:06
    Yes, yes, that, that.
  • 02:20:09
    So, does that sound
  • 02:20:13
    Right.
  • 02:20:14
    So we would be balanced at that rate.
  • 02:20:17
    I mean, in the current proposal, plus that would provide enough money to do the things we talked about earlier today.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:20:24
    Yeah, certainly, yeah.
  • 02:20:25
    Thinking ahead to fiscal year 26, that would provide some.
  • 02:20:28
    And there would be an option for some one-time funding on Wednesday.
  • 02:20:30
    The board could discuss how they would want to direct to that.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:20:35
    So there's still more gap that I'm not accounting for here.
  • 02:20:38
    So it looks like we have more time and more extras.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:20:42
    I would just add, Surveysam Alec, that there was more consensus around adding police officer as well.
  • 02:20:47
    Oh, I forgot about that.
  • 02:20:48
    So the 1.9 and 26 didn't include the additional police officer.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:20:51
    So I would, doing the math on top of the head, add additional $100,000 of ongoing.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:20:53
    So it would be about $2 million.
  • 02:20:54
    So 2.7 is what we're generating and 2.8.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:21:03
    2.0 is what we're spending extra over and above the proposal.
  • 02:21:09
    Okay, so we're still, I think we've met our obligations as far as what we are trying to have this afternoon.
  • 02:21:15
    Is that correct?
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:21:17
    May I ask for clarification?
  • 02:21:18
    You said 2.7.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:21:19
    I want to make sure that I'm following the... I added on the local government share on slide 44.
  • 02:21:27
    The first two lines.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:21:30
    No, the second line includes the first one.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:21:33
    Do you see how it says close, two, two, close?
  • 02:21:36
    All right, thank you.
  • 02:21:38
    That's why I asked to make sure I was not screwing up.
  • 02:21:40
    Okay, so 1.9 there plus, aha, so we basically barely come out of here.
  • 02:21:45
    Okay, or not.
  • 02:21:46
    All right, got it.
  • 02:21:48
    Thank you very much.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 02:21:50
    Too much on to this in here.
  • 02:21:52
    Supervisor Pruitt.
  • 02:21:53
    Yes, am I correct in understanding the personal property and
  • 02:22:02
    It is a unified tax.
  • 02:22:04
    Traditionally, the county has had the same rate for both of those.
  • 02:22:10
    I do want to just prod on what you said.
  • 02:22:12
    You said traditionally.
  • 02:22:13
    Are they the same tax or do we traditionally have them the same rate?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:22:17
    They are two rates that the board sets.
  • 02:22:20
    And to the best of my knowledge, they have been the same rate in recent history.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 02:22:28
    I bring this up, I'm thinking.
  • 02:22:32
    of the very large solar developments that we're doing, especially in their early years, which is where we are with solar developments, and specifically the amount that we get from our solar developments.
  • 02:23:04
    All that money is going to be based on what our machinery and tools is.
  • 02:23:07
    So as long as our machinery and tools is deflated from the decision we made during the coronavirus pandemic, I would suggest we are not realizing our full returns from what we would expect from that investment of our land as a community.
  • 02:23:27
    I say that to support, at the very least, the 54% increase.
  • 02:23:31
    And I think your office has done a really great job
  • 02:23:34
    and so on.
  • 02:24:01
    and so on.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:24:31
    I believe we have a tonal of those.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:24:42
    So if you go to slide 33, the expenditures are
  • 02:24:53
    and so on.
  • 02:25:09
    with FEMA.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:25:11
    Thank you, Mr. Henry.
  • 02:25:12
    That is an extra clarification, because if the FEMA grant is not successful, then those numbers would change based on the, I'll call it the plan B, to reallocate the staff for the 24-7 from Berkmar to North Garden.
  • 02:25:25
    And then to revisit that in fiscal year 26.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:25:27
    Got it.
  • 02:25:28
    Got it.
  • 02:25:28
    Yes.
  • 02:25:29
    I realize that.
  • 02:25:30
    But if we do get all that, the 1.4 would be for all four positions, all four bullets.
  • 02:25:41
    to come up with the 1.4.
  • 02:25:43
    And then if we go to slide 22.
  • 02:25:45
    Page 22.
  • 02:25:48
    Slide 44.
  • 02:25:52
    Page 22.
  • 02:25:54
    So going over that in the total, that gives us, if we do all four things, that gives us 8.7 million.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:26:08
    Yes, that is correct.
  • 02:26:09
    And then it would be
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:26:15
    I'm in favor of the, because that's what you want to know, the TOT.
  • 02:26:20
    I'm not in favor of the one separate real estate tax.
  • 02:26:25
    The service reductions, I would leave that up to staff to decide.
  • 02:26:35
    We have unfilled positions we need and we don't need them.
  • 02:26:39
    I would leave that up to staff to decide that.
  • 02:26:43
    I would not, I don't, I know
  • 02:26:52
    and so on.
  • 02:27:11
    That's going to be your decision.
  • 02:27:12
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 02:27:12
    If I could just, I know Mr. Sumner used, for example, frozen positions.
  • 02:27:18
    That is one lever.
  • 02:27:20
    But also he talked about other operating efficiencies and improvements.
  • 02:27:25
    An example might be we've had a very successful microcat implementation.
  • 02:27:31
    There is, we believe, some overlap with jaunt and on demand, not ADA, but on demand services.
  • 02:27:40
    There's a possibility that there may be an ability to draw back on, say, Jont, because the microcat is filling it up.
  • 02:27:50
    It's a hypothetical, but that is some analysis that we're doing.
  • 02:27:53
    So I don't want to just, only to hear that it's, it's potential staff freezing.
  • 02:27:59
    It really, it is other operational things that we should always be doing as far as efficiencies and whatnot.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:28:12
    You always do an excellent job of looking at efficiencies.
  • 02:28:16
    So that's all part of it.
  • 02:28:18
    I think that's great.
  • 02:28:20
    Like I said, whatever savings you come up with, that would be up to you all.
  • 02:28:24
    And maybe now, maybe later on as we go throughout the year.
  • 02:28:31
    The personal property tax, I would like to see that if we need additional monies.
  • 02:28:41
    What was the original rate?
  • 02:28:43
    Please refresh my memory for you.
• • 02:28:47
    428.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:28:48
    428.
  • 02:28:48
    If we needed to increase that to what it was, because in knowing with the public we said we reduced it because of the high value of cars, if we needed to go back up there or closer to that, then maybe use a small portion to add to the emergency assistance fund.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 02:29:13
    The full increase would be something on the order of what?
  • 02:29:18
    82, 86 cents?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:29:21
    86 cents is how far the rate was dropped two years ago.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:29:45
    and
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:30:08
    Just to clarify two things, the basis of 54 cents was the amount the county actually received in fiscal year 22, which was the highest amount in these revenues the county had ever received.
  • 02:30:19
    So if we were to do a scenario above 396, that would be working direct that it would just result in a total taxpayer impact.
  • 02:30:29
    Everyone's individual circumstance will be different, but the total taxpayer impact will be what changes.
  • 02:30:35
    and I'll clarify on the service reductions as well.
  • 02:30:37
    I appreciate the Board's differences to have on what specifically that looks like.
  • 02:30:41
    But in order to balance the budget, we would need a signal from the Board if that is something the staff is expected to do or not, as that is the difference in terms of what is asked for in that request.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:30:55
    and Necessity and staff reductions, or if you feel that you could do staff reductions, efficiencies without raising that.
  • 02:31:05
    Because like I said, I would not be in favor of the one set of real estate tax.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 02:31:13
    OK.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:31:14
    Supervisor McKeel.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 02:31:16
    Yes.
  • 02:31:19
    I'm in favor for advertisement purposes for what we have here.
  • 02:31:26
    to be with our partners in the city on the TOT that only makes sense to me.
  • 02:31:32
    Personal property rate, I'm happy right now for advertisement with what you've recommended.
  • 02:31:38
    While I am not excited about the service reductions, I understand your recommendation and for advertisement, we can use that.
  • 02:31:51
    And I'm not in favor of a one cent real estate
  • 02:31:55
    real estate tax increase at this time.
  • 02:31:58
    I think cautioning about next year isn't really good.
  • 02:32:03
    If you think about it, and my memory is not great on the year, but we had built in certain tax increases.
  • 02:32:16
    What was it back in 21,
  • 02:32:24
    Yeah, we had built in and we've been able to avoid all of those for years, which is a great thing.
  • 02:32:33
    But I think it's really wise for you to give us fair warning that next year could be more challenging than this year.
  • 02:32:42
    So I thank you for that.
  • 02:32:43
    Did I answer your questions, Amy?
  • 02:32:47
    Just to go back and make sure I answered them.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:33:02
    Again, for advertising, the TOT, the 54 cents.
  • 02:33:07
    I think the issue of service reductions is partly one-on-one timing because what we're not looking at here, when Supervisor Mellon started comparing the numbers, I was recognizing that we were looking at fiscal year 26 and recognizing we have all these one-time things that are coming out of fiscal year 25, where we're identifying other sources of money that aren't mentioned here.
  • 02:33:31
    and so on.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:33:51
    What it could be, I'll just say what's really helpful in this conversation today is I'll think back to the tax relief discussion the board had back in December.
  • 02:33:59
    There were a lot of policy options and other things that were considered and the board was able to take those down and provide some direction to narrow it down and we refined that a few weeks ago.
  • 02:34:07
    And I think this is the same thing playing out today in terms of where the board's energy is and where it is not.
  • 02:34:11
    And on Wednesday, we can look at some more specific dollars and senses in terms of how that looks across in 25 and 26, now that we've narrowed down both the expenditures and are making progress to the revenue side.
  • 02:34:22
    I think that context will help display what 25 and 26 look like, especially the question of service reductions, personal property, or some other change.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:34:44
    to see how the additional revenues
  • 02:35:14
    and so on.
  • 02:35:32
    We have some direction.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:35:33
    Certainly from the board's action on Wednesday.
  • 02:35:35
    I actually have a meeting Thursday morning with my counterpart with the schools to really kind of update them with where this advertised budget and rates will look like.
  • 02:35:43
    They're getting clarity in the schools from their state picture as well and that'll allow the school board to get a little more concrete around some of their options that we can share with the board as those are known.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:35:54
    Okay, yeah.
  • 02:35:55
    I appreciate that.
  • 02:35:55
    I'm not looking forward to the discussion.
  • 02:36:13
    It's been some conversation on the service reductions.
  • 02:36:15
    So you should always be trying to find service reductions.
  • 02:36:19
    In any given year, we always have service reductions.
  • 02:36:23
    But that's very different than us directing you, because then you're setting the budget at 500,000 watts.
  • 02:36:29
    If we didn't direct you to do that and you have savings, remind me where the savings go.
  • 02:36:33
    Does that go to one-time funds for the following year?
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 02:36:37
    It would be one-time funds within the year.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:36:40
    So if we realize the benefit of not directing you to find service reductions, it handcuffs us to only use it on one time things the following year.
  • 02:36:52
    That would be the recommendation.
  • 02:36:54
    So what I'm bringing this up for is a way to get capacity for operating for both the year you're in and the following years, realizing your services might be impacted.
  • 02:37:06
    That's how you do it.
  • 02:37:07
    Otherwise, if you just find it and staff is always working to find it, you're kind of putting in a pen where those dollars could be spent in a few years.
  • 02:37:17
    So I'm just bringing that up, not that that changes the discussion here today, but could impact what we ultimately decide for that particular item.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:37:30
    Yes, on the second one, the TOT plus the 54 cents, our gain is 1.9 million and once again to fund those four things that we wanted was about 1.4 million.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:37:47
    and
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:38:24
    OK, back to the other slide.
  • 02:38:25
    OK, that one.
  • 02:38:30
    Yes, so the 1.9, we covered the 1.4, and that's assuming the safer grant.
  • 02:38:37
    We don't get the safer grant.
  • 02:38:40
    So let's say we go with that.
  • 02:38:42
    What if we don't get the safer grant?
  • 02:38:48
    What can we do to steal?
  • 02:38:54
    to come up with and what would be your recommendation.
  • 02:38:59
    Knowing we have to make a decision now, and we won't know about the safer grants in September.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 02:39:04
    The recommendation that staff presented would be if the safer grant does not get awarded, that we would move Berkmore, the second ambulance, Berkmore from 24-7 to daylight only.
  • 02:39:18
    And so we stay within that expenditure.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:39:23
    and that would, including the police officer, that would enable us to stay within that.
• • SPEAKER_13
  • 02:39:29
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:39:29
    Okay, because we have an extra 500,000.
  • 02:39:33
    Okay.
  • 02:39:34
    Thank you.
  • 02:39:40
    Thank you.
  • 02:39:41
    Just quick.
  • 02:39:43
    I wrote down that fiscal year 25 is the end of the microcat as designed.
  • 02:39:49
    So then, at this time next year, we get to decide.
  • 02:39:53
    and so on.
  • 02:40:08
    I'm just leaving concerns for people to write down and figure out.
  • 02:40:13
    I am shaking in my boots a little about demanding the $500,000 in service reductions because I'd like this idea that someone may be able to figure out to keep the lapse factor category live somehow.
  • 02:40:28
    to provide a little cushion rather than, I mean, I love sending things to CIP.
  • 02:40:34
    That's a really great thing to do.
  • 02:40:35
    But in this case, I don't know if there's a way to fix it.
  • 02:40:40
    The two things that were on the not-funded list that have troubled me that may or may not be able to be solved, but I just want to leave it right here and somebody can take care of it.
  • 02:40:52
    I'll think about it.
  • 02:40:55
    That there was unfunded the staff improvements
  • 02:40:57
    which staff addition to be able to carry out the core monetization.
  • 02:41:02
    We have been struggling, waiting for a core monetization to be completed for a long, long time.
  • 02:41:08
    And so to not put the staff person in that's needed to do that, that worries me.
  • 02:41:15
    And the, someone mentioned inspectors a little while ago, and player reviewers, it's really good on me too.
  • 02:41:22
    And that may be wrong, but that's what somebody
  • 02:41:27
    to have this onslaught of building permit requirements and requests and applications, etc., etc.
  • 02:41:33
    and really making sure that we have the capacity fully up and trained to get those things accomplished in a timely fashion would be really, really important.
  • 02:41:44
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:41:56
    So I believe so, and I'm going to recap.
  • 02:41:58
    This is what I did on the expenditure side.
  • 02:42:01
    The board already gave the direction on the expenditure side.
  • 02:42:03
    Those are really the items on the slide.
  • 02:42:07
    Other one also mentioned, and the board still has an option as a group to make some modifications on Wednesday, but we're going to bring forward one of the revenue options to really narrow down, looking at the combination of one-time funding, the transient occupancy tax, the personal property tax, and then the service reductions.
  • 02:42:22
    It really looks like across this clear 25 and 26, what are some options that could be available for the board as a proposed budget on Wednesday?
  • 02:42:30
    Mr. Sumner, would you add anything in that summary that I did not say?
  • 02:42:34
    I believe that's accurate.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:42:44
    directing you for service protection.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:42:48
    I think it would probably be easiest to continue that conversation on Wednesday where we can see that it looks like in the context of all the other letters the board may pursue.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:42:55
    So we can take it out at that time.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 02:43:01
    Just a quick point, Ann's point about microcat.
  • 02:43:07
    It's going to be really important for our board and for the city
  • 02:43:12
    to look at moving the authority forward.
  • 02:43:17
    And that needs to happen through the, at least we need to be ready for the General Assembly session next year.
  • 02:43:24
    And it's about timing because that authority is what's going to give us the ability to have some money for transit.
  • 02:43:34
    I'm just saying, and it ties in together.
  • 02:43:37
    So just to
  • 02:43:38
    We don't want to let that momentum fade because we have the momentum right now and we need to keep moving it forward.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 02:43:46
    One more thing I'll clarify, I said at the start.
  • 02:43:48
    Because we have consensus on the TOT, we'll add on the consent agenda for April 3rd, the notice for that public hearing on April 24th to follow all the normal procedure guidelines.
  • 02:43:58
    The reason that will be on the agenda on Wednesday is just because of, again, wanting to follow the normal process.
  • 02:44:04
    Thank you to the clerk's office for helping me work through the math on that.
  • 02:44:13
    I think the last slide is we'll be back Wednesday.
  • 02:44:16
    I'll say it right now on April 10th is to be determined.
  • 02:44:18
    There are no topics that'll be at the board's discretion whether to hold that and then public engagement will continue throughout the month of April.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:44:26
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:44:29
    Thank you.
  • 02:44:33
    One other question is for the personal property tax.
  • 02:44:39
    If keeping it at the same or raising it
  • 02:44:42
    and so on.
  • 02:45:07
    a little more, knowing that at least we can always reduce it.
  • 02:45:12
    I'm just throwing that out.
  • 02:45:13
    Above the 54?
  • 02:45:14
    Yeah.
• • SPEAKER_08
  • 02:45:15
    Yeah, I just have a follow-up question.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:45:21
    The follow-up question I have, and perhaps Ned can address it the best, I understand these car values are up like 30%.
  • 02:45:28
    And we're raising our rate already higher than that.
  • 02:45:32
    So I don't want to put people in a position, going out of my way to put people in a position,
  • 02:45:37
    where they're back in total deficit of cost versus value.
  • 02:45:41
    And I don't know the answer.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:45:43
    OK.
  • 02:45:43
    I think we had a consensus around 54.
  • 02:45:45
    Probably did.
  • 02:45:46
    I'm going to advertise.
  • 02:45:47
    No problem.
• • 02:45:49
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:45:51
    Thank you for your hard work.
• • SPEAKER_12
  • 02:45:53
    Please, county attorney.
  • 02:45:55
    Mr. Chair, just looking at your schedule here, if I recall correctly, all of your work session dates are included on the board's calendar.
  • 02:46:10
    So if on April 3rd the decision is made not to conduct the work session on April 10th, then the Board will need to consider a motion to formally cancel that meeting.
  • 02:46:26
    So if you want to keep that in mind.
• • SPEAKER_05
  • 02:46:29
    I think we did say that it was to be the term.
  • 02:46:32
    To be the term.
  • 02:46:32
    But yeah, we need to.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:46:33
    Before we talk about that, I totally agree.
  • 02:46:38
    Not just at the end when I announce when the next meeting is.
  • 02:46:40
    Appreciate it.
  • 02:46:43
    All right.
  • 02:46:45
    Thank you, staff.

7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.

• • SPEAKER_02
  • 02:46:47
    Great work.
  • 02:46:48
    If you have nothing further, we're to item five, which is from the board.
  • 02:46:51
    Supervisor Gallo.
  • 02:46:52
    Just to, I have, my last town hall is on April 13th, so please, I've sent those in.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 02:47:18
    exactly one hour, and then we have our shared one down at the UNC on Thursday, not on Friday.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 02:47:31
    I just would like to ask the board respectfully that if we can't finish up on Wednesday, because I will not be here on the 10th of April.
  • 02:47:41
    That was pre-planned by months and six months.

8. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.

9. Adjourn to March 27, 2024, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.