Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session   4/5/2016

And so am I turning it over to you, Tom, at this point?

And I think I've stalled enough to give Lori a chance to get started with what she's gonna do.

And then we'll have a meeting summary and next steps.

Diantha and I had a discussion with Tom Foley yesterday about having a short discussion about the referendum today.

The way the slides are gonna lay out, we're gonna have that opportunity.

Okay, great.

Again, this is based on our best estimates today, and we just wanted to share with you the update.

There's nothing in there assumed.

Yes, we have a few slides on that.

Now this slide, go ahead, thank you.

The Fire and Rescue Services Fund, is that extra local government money that should go into the fund, that .5 million at the bottom, what does that mean?

The Fire Rescue Services Fund is the cost increase associated with fire rescue in that fund and we are projecting that there's an increase of $500,000 in there to take care of a multitude of things that have been identified in that fund.

So it is over and above what was already put in that separate fund.

This shows that over the year there will be some increases that will occur in all of the areas just based on growth that occurs in their expenditures.

So it isn't about expansions of programs necessarily.

It's probably mostly salary raises and things like that.

Yeah, and there's probably a few other things in there related to capital, but that's something we obviously need to talk more about, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that a lot of that is the salary and benefits.

I just wanted to make sure I was thinking of it in the right category.

So this just kind of rides you through the years.

And once again, what's the assumed increase in assessments in this

Yeah, it's based on our best assumptions on all the other revenues as well as the increases in the assessments that will occur.

1.4 on values, which is what we've used all along, and then we have done projections on other taxes, and that's reflected on the previous slide, but that was showing a kind of a sluggish economy, but the value on property is going up 1.4.

1.4 is what the assumption is in this.

And the schools have a gap too, which is a challenge that they will bring forward.

So, just perspective on the whole picture.

to face the challenge with our priority setting going forward.

So it makes those operational changes that we have to wrestle with so much more important.

So looking at transforming the things that we do and your priority setting becomes so critical to where the existing dollars may need to be reallocated going forward.

I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Latire now that will talk with you about the Commonwealth Attorney's request.

If it suits the board, perhaps Mr. Tracy at this point could perhaps make a few statements.

Appreciate it.

Okay, right here?

Perhaps if I, sure that'd be fine.

We might just cover this first slide while he's getting himself together just in terms of the request and then he can comment from there.

So perhaps.

and an additional $42,900 for fiscal year 17.

Do you have a fiscal year 18 full-time cost since we're looking at fiscal year 17 and 18 simultaneously?

Okay, that's great.

I'll let him tell us.

And that's an important point I wanted to make at the outset.

Thank you.

I have a lot of other points to make, but I will yield to any questions you all have at this point.

and addressing it.

Thank you all.

I'm prepared to talk about it today.

So I will await an answer on that too.

Both the caseload counts as well as the fines and how that's being handled.

The state seems to have its own peculiar rules about which box to check and if you don't check the right one then you don't get paid.

We're requesting more support from you all, but we're also doing our due diligence with the State Compensation Board and have been exhausting our efforts to try to ensure adequate remuneration for what we're doing.

You are awaiting word back from the comp board on whether they would consider any of those two positions.

But if you look throughout the Commonwealth, there is significant variation in terms of the number of ACAs per county and the numbers I cite are an example of that.

So it helps to have the majority leader from your community.

Before you adopt a budget, we will be able to do that analysis to figure out if we've got some revenue adjustments as well, based on the latest information from Mr. Tracy.

And just one quick question, where do the positions stand as far as if you've been able to fill all of your, are all of your existing positions filled at this point?

But we're waiting and hoping that that will be.

So you still have just the one position unfilled at this point?

So that would be the expectation?

I think population is one important proxy

Thank you.

Thank you very, very much.

Thank you.

which we know will not happen, so that ongoing expenditure could be reappropriated or reassigned to assist with this position, which would lower that 42 down to about 32.

So we also included some funding within his own budget and ongoing funding primarily for witness travel and some of the specific items that they had brought up to us.

and you would want to keep some of that on hand anyway in case something else came up.

Good point.

I think that's where we are now, but we'll take a double check on that, since it's not just related to one trial, which would be one-time money, to your point.

Sure, sure.

I just want to really think about that because it is a concern.

So it will grow over time like other positions in the organization.

But that's for the share over and above fines or something.

That would be another, as Mr. Foley said, we'd work on that, but she just said just pure on the expenditure side, it would grow by another $5,000 just as the positions kind of grow over time based on increased cost.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, that would be normal for any position.

I have a hard time keeping all those straight.

That would be all local because it's being applied to the state approved numbers.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So we're gonna come back to this when?

If not next week, we'll have it for you, for sure.

Okay, Mr. Lettieri, back up again.

We've set an agreement with the schools that says that regardless of where claims are at that point in time, we will infuse the amount necessary to get us to the 18% fund balance.

We don't know.

We would recommend that the difference between the 1.2 that we infused and what we've set aside still remain to be set aside in the event we may need it in the next year.

So you're hoping for a two year payback period?

A two year period to get us back to 25%.

So you're looking at possibly a two year.

I think 14.5% would require that we do it over three years as opposed to...

I got it.

And I think the goal is to get it there as quickly as we can because it's essential.

So if I'm understanding right, so what part of the 9% is going to increase the reserve, the 9% increase?

so that by the end of year 17 we should be at a place of about 25%.

On top of the 9% we're going to infuse that fund to immediately get it up and we had set those aside as part of the proposed budget so that does most of the work.

And the 9% gets us back to where we usually have been historically.

But I do expect those to come down as well.

I'm gonna be quiet and wait a minute.

And again, 1.1 million amounts to about maybe 0.7 cents on the tax rate.

I think that's the last slide we have on healthcare.

I'd be happy to answer if I can.

I will ask my question then.

Okay.

So if we don't freeze this money, we at the very least could put the whole amount of it into that infusion.

but everyone else is holding it in their other budgets in the current year or the current fund balance and then we would use a portion of it and then we were asking everyone to hold that other portion and not spend it on anything else in case we have to infuse again which would be a recommendation.

Yeah, and this is ongoing money.

Yeah, it's kind of like you got one-time money and ongoing money.

I'm just trying to understand this better.

Let me say this, the 1.15 that you just mentioned is not needed to infuse the health care fund because we already set the monies aside that was needed to infuse the health care fund.

by raising the taxes?

No, it's one, well.

I mean, if it's in the general fund somewhere, I mean, it's a shell game, I understand, but we don't need to do both, but we certainly don't wanna spend this because it's gonna disappear.

So we've taken care of that problem for a closed budget.

and we're assuming it's 9%, but what if next year y'all do your calculations and we're back up to 14.5%?

But certainly, if you wanted to say let's also put a contingency aside, you could do that as well.

Could you just talk just for a few moments about the statistical analysis that was done to establish this slower rate of infusion to bring it back up to where we need to have it?

It's a very difficult thing to do.

There's good reason, but there were good reasons for the suggestions that you brought before us.

It went through extensive analysis.

And then you'd still have the 120.

Put it in some safe place.

aside, we could just go ahead and fuse and get that fund balance up to somewhere between 20 and 25 just by using the 2 million we'd set aside originally and still not get into this 1.15.

Or do something else with the 2 million you set aside because this is in the same category.

I support a fourth option here, which is that we actually further cede the reserve fund for our medical program.

That was written, Lorna did write that before this newer statistical analysis was performed.

I think you're still gonna have somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars in savings and healthcare as a result of our projection going down that you could apply to those three alternatives, including addressing the gap in 18 by holding it in reserve.

And that's ongoing money.

It's ongoing money.

The schools would still be able to have their almost 900,000 to close their gap if they chose.

We can calculate the exact.

So I'd like to hear from that.

and so I would disagree that it's even Steven to just disperse this money.

I'd be interested in what you're referencing there perhaps.

I was looking up something could you repeat the question?

could invest funding in ways to further reduce long-term financial structural imbalance.

It's just the kinds of things that we'd want to consider going forward as investments that, again, modernization, there's software types of things that we can invest in that, again, enable more efficiencies.

It could pay for salaries and things that we know are going to be the requests going forward or the healthcare increases in the future.

I think that's the real heart of the matter is the structural imbalance we've been talking about.

But if you don't need it in 17, you could move that to capital and then you'd effectively, you'd reserve the rest of it to deal with your gap going forward.

I hope that's clear enough.

If it's not, I can clarify.

That was my point.

Could you just give us your opinion on what your needs are with respect to this change, your thoughts?

I just think it will have too much money in the health care fund at the expense of other program requirements.

I don't know if I articulated that very well.

So I don't think we should ignore those things as we deliberate on what we should be doing to the contributions of the employer or the employees into this fund.

Thank you very much.

Good clarification.

But once you take out the school part, there's really not that much left that we should spend too much time delivering about, I think.

I agree.

So we could get small dollars here, but you could do that.

Yeah.

I don't think it really makes that much sense.

Then perhaps the better discussion would be spending it or keeping it, saving it, and I guess I will take it out of the bucket then and not restrict but use the same idea to say we should keep it for fiscal year 18 somewhere safe so that we don't spend it right now.

Just in general, if we have one-time money as a principal rather than just spend it, especially spending on something like hiring new staff that's going to be an ongoing expense, I can see that as a general principle that we save one-time money for contingencies.

We also have a rainy day fund.

This would be a great thing for the rainy day fund, which could go to healthcare if we needed to.

We could do that, sure, that 270.

the remainder of the issue and you all could consider that and act as to whether you think that's a good proposal and then you'll have this savings that's been generated from the rate change to determine how you want to act on that but I know that's not consistent with everybody's opinion here but that is where what we got to collectively and we do still think it's a conservative position.

Now what I'm doing is I'm separating what's on the slide before you.

So if you decided on the first one, that might be helpful and then we could get on to how you use the 1.15 and maybe you'll want to further infuse, but at least you would have approved

That's the first bullet on the screen or the first bullet at the top of the page on page 7.

That's just doing the health care.

Right here.

This blue one here.

I don't know how everyone else.

Do you want to vote or consensus?

It'll move us closer to a final and it's such a big portion of our budget schools and local government.

Is that close enough?

No, I think that's perfect.

Second.

As long as that works for the motion.

Larry, is that okay?

Okay, that accomplishes both of my things.

Okay, so do we need a roll call then?

That's going to be real money set aside, no projections, and that's the kind of reality I encourage us to move towards in healthcare, so that's why I support it.

Palmer, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Dill, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel.

Now for the second part.

So that's where staff is.

You're okay?

Rather than making it $540 for fiscal year 18, you're suggesting spending it now.

Let's hold on to it to help with the 18 problem but in the meantime it's money that's there and you could move it to capital to help with the capital challenges.

I feel very comfortable with what you've just recommended.

And does this affect the four cents in the tax increase that was going to go to schools because this is now $887,000 that they didn't have before?

I think that the school issue is one you have to separately discuss.

Covers their gap.

I'm not going to start to make a recommendation on that.

But it helps to address their gap.

They really have a different funding situation than we do.

We're balanced already, they're not.

They have more programs that put them at risk.

And it's going to need to be filled in 18 somehow.

That's why it seems to be in balance, but in balance only with a tax increase, a significant tax increase.

We've done this hold the line to figure out what the priorities are, so that's the difference.

And I don't know how to say where to put it, but we would be saving that for use in the future.

I mean, I heard you first saying that you wanted to put it, you know, it's a relatively small amount, but towards the budget gap, but then you said to put it in the CIT.

It's $270,000 every year from this year forward.

It's reoccurring money.

I understand.

So can I put that into a motion?

I have one request, and that is, are we gonna talk about the raise first, because that affects the gap for both sides, before we vote on this?

Do you wanna wait on this, then?

We can vote this now and change it later if we want to.

I think since this is available resources you have to make a decision on, there's a whole bunch of other things you haven't talked about yet, so with a clear understanding of this, you can.

I think so.

Just to allow for the more comprehensive discussion.

So we're sort of know where we are at least at this point with those recommendations.

We have to come back to the health care before we're finished.

I just wanted to share that with you so you were aware of those two minor changes.

Why did CATT reduce theirs by $7,000?

Is that because the route wasn't as expensive?

Is that a change in route or something?

So we said $7,000, one-liner, tell the board.

Well, if there's a route change, we need to know about that.

We'll definitely get more information for you.

The decision was made by CATT to make a reduction and nobody was at the table.

It makes us feel good, but we don't know what else is going on.

I just wanted to share it with you.

That should not be the process, Laurie.

So I won't say any more than that, but I hope that they will consider that.

You can use that money however you want to.

So that kind of concludes the new information I'll be bringing to you right at this point.

If we could go back to this last item and clear that off the table maybe would be helpful for me if everybody else would agree.

I would offer a smaller one, but a 1% raise because that would provide $1.6 million between the two branches of government that would be able to be put toward the funding gap which we have.

So yes, I'm indicating I'm in favor of what you brought up, but I'm perhaps a little bit even more stringent.

Go ahead, Brad.

You're offering another alternative?

So I'm bringing it up again to see if we can get support for it now.

Is this possible to just do a quick review if it was actually 2.9 and we actually proposed it less than just for clarity?

That's why we didn't recommend it this year either.

It wasn't a 2%, it was almost a 3%.

We've done 1%, we did 3 years with nothing and I understand that's really rotten for the people who are working here, but the people on the outside are not seeing an increase at all.

Well, the 2% for schools and local government together is about 3.4, looking at my folks.

Okay, so 1.7.

Sometimes it might be different, you know, based on some different things with teachers and that type of thing with 10 months versus 12 and all that, so I can't exactly cut it in half and say that's it, but it's probably fairly close.

It's roughly 450 for local government and about 1.1 for schools, I think.

basically takes care of the gap.

Could you remind me?

She's going to pull it up for us.

There's no way I'm going to support spending millions on sidewalks and fire stations but not give employees a raise.

So I'm very concerned about where we are and where we would be positioning our organization as well as our employees.

The compression issue is also huge.

I don't want to cloud the discussion too much.

It would make it even worse.

It would make it terribly worse.

We haven't agreed that we would have special districts whereby, in answer to your question, Brad, if we agreed that there would be special districts and people living in those districts would pay a higher tax to cover the additional benefits, then I would be supportive of having that absolutely come out of the CIP.

No?

I understand the difficulties of it, but

You might speak to the joint strategy too, which is a different goal than some of the things being talked about, but what drove the proposal in the first place in our way of going about this.

and that's at all levels of the organization, not just our entry level pay, mid-level managers, senior department heads, so there's really just not a way that we can draw a neat line and have that work nicely.

You look like you might.

We follow that pretty closely in review of salaries.

Did you have anything you wanted to say?

But I do think that's the better approach than distinguishing between levels of employees.

Do you want to make a decision on the salary piece right now?

How do we feel about that?

Do we need more information to do that?

I do think that deciding on salaries is such a big part of the budget that it's a good decision to make kind of like what we did with the health care issue earlier and then from there you can work on the rest of it.

We're not gonna change that in this budget cycle.

But they have taken the meat ax to this budget

We're not alone in this, obviously, based on that article.

That was a really interesting article.

also by our strategy if we miss the thing and everybody gets a 1% we automatically come back the next year and adjust

So that does assure that we adjust back if we've overshot it.

So we're always using data that lags by about a year.

It's not what they did last year.

But they're basing where our folks are on the market as to the data from the year before.

We could go to the next level on that.

So much of our cost is there and if we've got a structural imbalance, you can't not look at personnel and make sure we've got a good system in place.

Well one of the things that we talked about this last time was that we use the world at work as regional and I believe Lauren is still here you said we were in the southern region and I suggested at the time this last discussion that it would be very interesting to look at moving us out of that region and into one that we may more closely identify with because of our cost of living and

In the eastern, not southern, I'm sorry.

But there was another region that.

So if we wanted to look at the Southern, it would be like we would be in Virginia yet looking at other states not in Virginia.

I was thinking though that there was a market that you said at the time would be more comparable to what we were actually using, a different region.

Thank you.

just affected their, wanting to come here was based upon the good benefit strategy that we did have.

Wanting to come here as employees or coming to Albemarle in general?

To work here, employees, yeah.

Here, okay.

And I guess the motion just simply needs to be that we provide our employees with a 2%, no, what I wanna say is that we provide in the budget salaries as recommended in the county executive's budget because they are average, I mean, I don't wanna get into all, it's average for the,

I would say as recommended by the County Executive and Superintendent, just because of the commonality issue.

Yes, that sounds great.

Do we have a second for that?

Mr. Randolph?

Nay.

Ms. McKeel?

Yes.

Do we want to go ahead and do the healthcare one now and then take a short break?

I certainly would be willing to look at, as Mr. Foley's recommended, the school division utilizing their $887,000 towards their 17 gap.

I just left myself neutral on that.

and that local government utilize our 270,000 to hold.

We're dealing with FY18 budget gap.

That's good.

Use the one times 17 money to go to the capital fund.

Thank you.

So just to be clear we're treating this as one-time money for FY17?

But then it's reoccurring so we will get it back again in 18.

So there's no defined expectation for FY18 and beyond?

It would be going to it.

It wouldn't be one-time money for schools under that proposal.

It becomes ongoing.

Grant, I'm only talking about the local government piece, not the schools.

to figure out that problem if it comes up.

So you wanna make sure the 270 is just held in?

how to treat that to help offset the future obligations without any designated purpose for it just available so basically just treating the money this year in this budget and not really talking about it in the future when you say both what did you mean by both

The 887 plus the 270.

So the total 1.15 was treated as one-time money for FY 17 with no strings or expectations beyond 18 and beyond.

but not become part of the basis for next year.

I don't want to make a decision a year from now.

I mean the other money for the healthcare.

So it's separated now from this ongoing savings and how you use it.

I say you, I mean schools, government, general government, everybody that's at the table at that decision-making process, but I don't want to tie staff's hands if something changes with the healthcare costs is my main concern.

That is so punishing.

If the schools, though, are using that to fill their gap and they're using it as operating, they're not using it as one-time money.

They can find a way to use it as one-time money then.

And I think that I heard something different from Diantha and from Brad about the use of it.

It depends what you're hearing.

Brad, what I'm hearing.

I like it, keep going.

It's just one of those fluctuations that could be up and down depending on all kinds of

As Andy knows, I have to estimate fuel prices in my budget over a year and ahead and it makes me completely nervous and health care, just like fuel these days, is just as volatile.

So you kept saying, Tom, that this was going to be one-time money for this year.

That's how it could be treated.

If what Brad is suggesting, I just want to see if it can be done and if it gets at what we're trying to do for the schools and for putting them in a tenable position.

I think that Brad is suggesting that we hold all of this in reserve, and I may be wrong, for that potential issue and also to address 18, but I think he's suggesting that both the schools and local government portion of that apply, which I think is very different than what you're proposing, Diantha.

It could be.

So you're going back to Rick's original position.

He's not going that far, but he's definitely saying it should be used for one-time expenses in the budget this year.

makes me very nervous to think that it's not gonna jump back up in 18 and beyond.

And I will second that motion.

I think that accomplishes what you're talking about but that's only on the local government side and you'd have to decide.

just like the schools right now, we are gonna have to think hard about what that 270 would be used for because if it's a perpetual expense, then we could be just causing ourselves more of a headache.

I would recommend that you not spend that 270 in 17 for an ongoing expense.

Right, right.

And we've already decided that.

We've already said that.

Does that make sense, Dean?

So classifying it as one-time money in both local government and schools is the way to do that.

how this year's money was spent that affected future years.

So Dean could you just speak to this quickly as to how you obviously can't say what the school board is going to do but just give us your opinion on your

and you say that money's gonna be set aside and out of the control of the school board, then they're gonna have to make some other decisions about how they balance their budget.

I don't want to have that conversation amongst ourselves let alone with the schools that we guessed wrong and it has now taken a chunk out of our butt and because that's almost a penny of an increase.

Doesn't mean the school board couldn't change that.

So the first thing they're going to have to do that is on the meeting on April 14th.

Filling that gap would obligate it for ongoing purposes.

We don't control those costs particularly well.

It sounds like the school board hopefully, you can't speak for them, but hopefully they would be prudent and not gambling that next year will be just as fruitful as this year and at least being cautious for one year and then if things turn out well then just like the schools and the county we can look at how those funds are better utilized to close the gaps that we already see exist.

It's troubling to put it mildly.

We think so, but you want to say your motion one more time?

but you still would be appropriating this money for their decision with that message attached to it and that would help us because we ultimately need to know what the local appropriation is going to be and you're not suggesting at least in your motion that we reduce it by 887 which is the only way you could absolutely say we're putting it in reserve and I don't hear you saying you want to go that far.

No, no, I think there hopefully are one-time costs that we have and that they have that can help limp this along just another year to see if staff is on target and there's perpetual money available.

Our one-time proposal is to put it in the capital, which frankly serves both schools and local government, but they have other uses.

will take our, would utilize our 270,000 and put it into what you're saying into capital, into CIP.

In the CIP for FY17.

Did that get at what?

We have this nervousness about FY18's healthcare costs that we don't want to compound the gap that we already think will exist in FY18.

I don't know if that's a part of the motion or it's just informal.

At least provides a little bit of record of what went into the thought of this decision.

The expectation that this money will be available next year if needed for the health fund.

Yes, and it would go into the letter.

I think the letter is a great idea.

And then I can vote for it, otherwise I'll step out.

So in essence, it's a one need.

We can't get into all of that, Rick.

The first part of that, I think, that they exercise some caution in how the funds are designated, if not to compound our possible problem with healthcare costs.

So that those funds are available if healthcare costs should go above what we're currently projecting.

But we know that they have a gap next year as we do.

And that's quite frankly the gamble that they have to take or that we take or whatever.

It's clear as mud.

Is that summed up, Rick?

We're not as worried about ours because ours is going into the CIP.

And ours goes into the CIP fiscal year 17, then you're applying the savings towards solving anticipated operations funding gap in fiscal year 18.

That was what we discussed.

And I think the schools would take that same prudent approach given that if it's a savings in 18, then they can use it accordingly.

Absolutely.

I think we'll be able to get that clear.

In case there's disagreement about you know the clarity that comes out of tonight.

Yes.

Yes.

Because we have an awful lot left to do, and we also have to go into closed session.

So we've really got a lot to do.

Let's get going guys.

Please.

If you have any other outstanding items that you'd like us to discuss

we have some board members that would like a very quick discussion of the bond referendum just so we get an idea of a little preview of what we'll be hearing on the 13th before we decide to set the tax rate just it won't necessarily change what we do but it's good to have a little bit of information about it could be before we go forward so you know the maybe Laurie the slide if we go back to the tax rate implication slide that's the one that shows

Maybe we can just walk them through that a little bit and see what kind of questions that.

So I wanted to get that clarified.

And Lori can cover that to tell you what that 1.3 represents to get that clear.

So that 1.3 does include the assumption that they will be in the bond referendum.

Okay.

Yeah and what we wouldn't double count them in the amount of money that because of the timing of when they're done and when we go out for borrowing for them and when we pay for it this actually when we modeled it would be a 1.3 or equivalent tax rate increase so there's no additional savings based on that it's actually been incorporated in we double-checked it I'm sorry we're not double counting the school security

So the school security ones that were in the CIP for this year, like I think it was Red Hill, and it was Greer, and it was one other one which I can't remember.

When you say for this year, you mean FY17's column?

Right, FY17's column had three school security projects.

I thought.

They've come out of the standard CIP list and are moved over to the bond referendum.

We are doing them at a referendum.

Right.

Schools felt that the security was a good one to put out to the referendum and I know you all have to ultimately decide that as we go to the work session but we've accounted for all the dollars.

So it's just those two years of 1.3.

It would stay at that amount, and that's what it would require.

Yes, it is.

It is.

So is there an expectation that that could fall off at a certain point?

That would be a growth factor for the schools.

We're no longer paying that debt service or it just gets muddled into...

So there's no legal bind, no legal obligation to or authorization from a bond referendum regarding the tax rate.

But when we vote on the tax rate, we could put a sunset

Well, you adopt the tax rate annually, so every tax rate has a sunset on it.

And usually there's other needs.

And that future board will have to make that decision of how those funds are used.

so this is 35 million.

to this, but this number right here is based solely on the school's request at this point in time, and it generates the need for 1.3 cents.

I think we provided it ahead of time.

Yeah, we have this scheduled on the 13th as a work session on the referendum in the afternoon.

I was under the impression we didn't have to make a decision on what goes into the referendum yet.

We think the oversight...

The reason why we're doing it before we adopt the budget and the tax rate?

We were actually doing it after originally and there was a question about whether we ought to switch the order but we thought the budget would get adopted and then we'd move on to this discussion.

And so the 35 million translates into only 1.3 cents on the tax rate because of the pay-as-you-go money and what else?

I mean, debt service drives that mostly.

We need 3.5 million

But we'll break that down since there's a question on that and make sure we clarify that next week.

And exactly what the modernization is and whatnot.

Okay, great.

And how the Woodbrook, somebody asked me a question, how since that was part of our budget to some extent before, how is that gonna work with this referendum?

We will definitely have that broken down for you so you can see it.

I think that's given the time, but yeah, that's good.

Just a reminder, we've been told about speaking into the microphones again, people having a hard time hearing us, including myself.

Because if there are and we can't figure it all out tonight, we'll have to get ready.

You're marking that money to match it to the state, but we haven't designated a purpose for it yet.

The quick answer is yes, that it's basically the matching money for the 2B designated projects that will be in the application this fall.

I just had a note to get clarity on it.

and I don't know about it.

If the board wants us to bring that back, it's easy for us to bring back what the position's doing and why it was needed, but also you could balance that against some other thing.

So it's just a thought.

The real issue principle here is that need over other needs and the hold the line until you can get into strategic session to figure that out, but obviously you all can make adjustments now too, I don't.

Maybe just more information at this point if I could have it.

No, not now.

I'm asking for more information.

So has the school department found money for this?

And it might be information that obviously we need to get from the schools too, but I'm very interested in that position.

I thought we filled the position with at least a part-time, didn't we?

Just get back to us with information, if people wouldn't mind at least the information.

I mean, I understand that you're making that proposal, and I'm just looking for direction from the board that you want to go in that, because we'll have to do some research about whether it's split 50-50 and some other things.

And that's pretty, in that pretty easy end.

It is 50-50, except we pay the startup cost.

I think it's critical.

And whether the police chief prioritizes that higher than the problem oriented policing guy, which was what I was trying to get money for too.

I know it was in the budget for next year.

I do think that that's the kind of question that I just wanted to be sure if you want to go down the road on the SRO that we at least let the police chief tell you and get the data together.