Lucas, are you ready to get started with the committee of the whole? >> Yes, we are. >> Let's go. >> Good evening, commissioners. Tonight before you we have the 2027 to 2031 capital plan and just some other
financial information. So as part of the budget process uh we provide an overview of the 5-year capital plan. The capital plan budget numbers are provided as outlined below and discussions will continue with
department heads throughout the summer and staff will work with them to develop a flat capital plan levy and continually update the board on the progress of the capital plan. So the overview for this year and for the past two months, the finance department has been working with
department heads to develop the 27 to 31 capital plan and we'll continue to revise it until it's approved in December. The total 27 capital plan expenditures are increasing approximately. Is it not working?
speak. >> Okay, we'll try this one. >> Yep. The total 27 capital plan expenditures are increasingly are increasing approximately 1.9 million when compared to the 26 approved plan
and the levy portion is increasing 2.46 46 million. When compared to the 26 approved capital plan, 27 proposed expenditures are decreasing 2.63 million and the levy portion of the
capital plan is decreasing 2.96 million. So, there were some significant changes um that staff has done this year to the cap plan. So, we're going to go through those now. And of course, inflation um is still an issue and prices continue
to rise. Um deferral of expenditures. The previously presented 27 capital plan included 1.5 million in expenditures that were deferred from prior years. So those were some expenses from 23
all the way through 26 that had fallen into that 27 plan. So while working on the current 27 plan, staff had identified many items that could be deferred to later years. These deferments are decreasing overall
expenditures by 1.5 million in the proposed 27 plan from the previously presented total. However, it is increasing 28 by 1.2 2 million within the plan that you guys currently
have before you. Um there are certain items that had been delayed indefinitely. Those are all park related items and barriers for the ADC building and that was per your consensus on May 5th.
additions. And there were several additions to the plan before you totaling $66,000. Um the sheriff office requested that five dispatch councils be moved forward to 27 and the addition of the heating of the
sheriff's shed and those were both asked for because of them applying for a port security grant or the use of state or federal funding. So overall, the levy increase from those
two items would be $56,925. Something new this year that has been put into the capital plan has been for facilities maintenance and upkeep. So to achieve the intent of paying for building repairs and maintenance versus bonding, $3 million was added to the
proposed 27 capital plan. and that was in the 26 approved capital plan. So this was a result of the facilities assessments that were completed in 26 and the intention is if that there are
facility maintenance and upkeep funds that are not used in any given year. Those remaining funds then will be carried over each year and will be used in future years for building repairs and maintenance and will be tracked as assigned balances
um within the finances department. um the levy portion increase and a portion of the proposed 27 capital levy increase when compared to the 26 levy increase as a result of using $1.1
million in reserve funds for 2026. And in the capital plan before you, there's currently about $6,000 to project projected to be used of reserve fund balance. And these are just some charts showing
you the totals and use of funds or where the revenue sources are coming from for the next five years. anything on that one. >> Okay. >> I I'll just add in on there's so since
this uh presentation has been put together, there's been additional conversations and and discussion about specific automobiles and the motor pool and timing of things. And so we need to have additional conversations and some of those contained um potential for in
2028. There's probably there's a couple vehicles in there that we may not need to replace, but we're essentially at this point we're going to kind of wait and see how the increased funding related to the motorpool um increase in the motorpool charge rate, that revenue rate um that we had um agreed to do
effective January 1st of this year. We want to see how that a full year of funding of that additional money coming in where that actually sets us. Whether or not we can use the additional fund balance in the motor pool to pay for some vehicles versus these capital plan levy dollars that as well as there's a couple vehicles that we may not need to
replace just in general. Um so there is additional stuff here. So those spikes in 2028 um could certainly go down based off of those additional conversations. Go ahead. >> And I I had a you know, we know there's
changes coming from DHS and the kind of the work we have to do around around servicing customers and and we know there's some chance that we will be transporting more and more people with through DHS. And I asked Nina today and
she's working with her staff to make sure if they can quantify an amount so that when we're making decisions about capital and bill uh um replacement of vehicles that we know
what possible could happen with DHS and increased use of vehicles. So we they're working on that for us so we can have some input there cuz it may it may amount to a lot of miles. It may not amount to a lot of miles but they're
trying to analyze what that looks like. So I think that is good information coming but it's certainly not here now. Thank you. >> Okay. So, the next thing we're going to look at is our debt service. And uh the county levy
um we we levy for and make two debt service payments each year. And the first which is in February and includes principal payment and the second which are interestonly payments. And based on our current debt load, the final payment will be made in February of 2030 with
our final levy in year 20ou or 29. Um there will be a there's a note here that in 27 we're going to have an additional just about $1.3 million in a debt payment. Um we've been levying
$99,000 each year and it's set aside in a syncing fund to cover that payment. So, our major fund updates, the general revenue fund, the road and bridge fund, health and human services fund, and waste management fund fund balance
ratios are listed below. The general revenue fund, road and bridge fund, and waste management fund are above the county stated policy. replenishing reserves, paying for capital plan items, or creating a reserve for large future building
projects or potential uses for these funds and to bring the ratios in line with our stated policy. So, currently sitting, our general fund currently has a ratio
of just about 67%. It's 66.9%. Our road and bridge fund actual is 53.3. Um however having said that that's an
assigned balance specifically for that or most of that is um health and human services their actual ratio is 35.8% 8% and the waste management fund is at
52.9%. So, just a little bit of additional information to discuss. Um, the county hired a third party to perform the facilities assessments on the law enforcement center, the adult detention center, the justice center, public works
facilities, and the recycling center. And just uh those estimated project costs over the next 20 years are expected to be around 53.4 million. And the amount is broken down as follows. 43 million for the law
enforcement center, the adult detention center and the justice center and 10.4 million for public works and the recycling center. And at this point, Tim has begun reviewing the assessments and grouping repairs and maintenance to identify the
most coste effective plan. So at this time the staff does not know the tax rate impact on the county residents as tax capacity figures are not available until September and we will continue to work with other department staff and bring another draft
of the capital plan back for review during the budget process. So any questions at at this point? Um the question that I was asking was uh currently there's the uh uh in the
general fund balance there's 28 million and I wondered if we looked back a year ago to when we were starting the budgeting process for 2026 what that balance was. >> Yep. If you let me get logged back in here.
So in 2026 in the general fund the actual was 59.4%. It was 23.3 million in unassigned and 39.3 in budgeted expenditure or with budgeted expenditures.
>> The the actual dollar amount went from 23 what >> it was 23.3 28.0 zero. There's roughly 5 million more in there now than there was a year ago at this time. Roughly, >> that is correct. >> Okay. And then I think you said the uh
budget did you say went up from 38 million to 41 million? Was that correct? >> Uh which one was she? >> The the same information. So the you're asking about the general fund budgeted balance
at the same time period last year at the same time. >> Sure. So I wanted to know what the So this year we're using the budgeted of 41 million and a year ago we were probably using a budget of >> that was about 39.3 >> 39. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. >> Anybody else have any questions?
I want to know what kind of direction, what kind of information is the staff looking for us. And you said all of it will be here. >> My question is what kind of direction what kind of information what kind of
what do you need from us as as commissioners to continue the work of building the budget tonight? Are you are you looking for approval of this kind of a of this capital plan? Are you looking for what kind of things we're thinking
about? are you looking for? What is it you're looking for from us tonight? I want to know your goals. >> Right. So, this presentation, it'sformational purposes. What's in the capital plan as of right now? This is what's in the budget. These are the requests that we have going out the next
for 2027 through 2031. You can see the peaks and valleys on there. We're working to try and level things out as much as we possibly can. Um, you know, as as Teresa pointed out, there's been a number of bigger changes at the beginning of it. Um, I would add in
there that obviously, um, two other considerations are, um, number one being the facilities assessments that were completed. And there is a large dollar amount that's in the capital plan right now. I mean, we all know that it's highlighted in there. We said it's $3 million that were added
in there. Um, and Tim and finance staff have and specifically Tim has really been working on timing of these projects, trying to come up with good dollar amounts and estimates for these and plan them out over the next five
years. And um, you know, we've talked about this many times, but just the reiteration that um, that's going to be the plan going forward. I understand that $3 million is a very large dollar amount in there. So, I think for
practicality sake, it would be good to know what we can budget for. Um, with the understanding that $3 million is a large ask. That being said, we know that our final debt payment on our current debt is
going to be in 2030. The last levy is going to be in 2029. And that levy itself is going to be stepped down from 2028 because the final debt payment we are going to be utilizing some residual debt service fund fund balance. So we know that that levy for the debt's going
to be dropping. So what we could do is step up this levy for these facilities assessments over time and then in 2029 28 29 continue to increase it and continue to levy that debt portion to
pay for these large things that we know will be coming. The idea it's a change in what we have done but the idea is to levy for the specific purpose and if we don't spend that dollar amount in the first year we keep that fund balance for the future for the following year
because some of these projects are going to be more expensive than other projects. That's just the nature of it. You know as the roof comes due that's going to be a very large expenditure compared to some of the other things. So would you create a reserved fund for this these projects that dollars in
dollars out go towards funding LEC um ADC and justice center and public works projects. It would really be for all of the the facilities specifically any kind of buildings that we have um
for planned large uh bigger ticket kind of expenditures as well as things that happen. I'll come I'll I'll use an example of something that just happened the other day. Um we had um some batteries that failed um over in the LACE and those were in the capital plan
for 20 uh 28 and they failed. So, they were in there. They failed right now. They need to be replaced right now. It's about $20,000. We can stomach that. We have $20,000 to replace these right now. Um, but that's just an example of things happen.
>> Um, and we can't control everything. So, if we're able to build this reserve specifically for this to address these larger capital items that we know will be coming, um, that would help swallow that pill and pay for him over time. >> I I understand that. That makes sense.
So that basically what what what you're the commitment kind of the commitment you're looking for from the board is to to be willing to long-term fund that plan versus the opposite of that is
we don't fund it and we bond at some point three years whatever and then statutoily we have to bond or we have to levy for those dollars. So, it's really it's
really about um the statuto statute telling us we have to levy that or us ourselves telling us we have to levy it. It's going to be the same amount. It's going to be $3 million whichever way you do it. >> And you're not going to finance that
over 30 years. You're going to finance it over 15. You're going to do it in chunks or whatever. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, those are the two different options. We also did include in the packet um a slide that we've discussed a couple times in the past the pros and cons of each of those of whether we're bonding and we're we're
levying and paying for things over a period of time. So, um again both of the options are going to take a long-term commitment. Um bonding when you think about it um we would have all that capital available
all at once. It would be an an influx of a large amount of cash to pay for the things as they occur or if we can schedule them to do them all at once, whatever we can can make happen. And then it builds that required um levy amount into the budget. So each year
beyond that, we're forced we must levy for it. So it it removes that um budget negotiation each year specific to those projects because the money spent we got to pay it back. So, um, it does make that aspect of it easier and that we
have to we have to meet those payment requirements. Um, so it forces it forces the board to levy the dollars >> when you bond. It just forces you to levy the dollars. There's no choice. >> There's there's not a decision every year.
>> There's not a decision to be made. And and we kind of went through this many years, quite a few years ago with with the construction plan in the in transportation where we said we are going to add $200,000 to construction
every year for a number of years. And then we passed the lost or the local option sales tax and then we said we don't need to keep adding dollars there. But we added 800,000. We committed for four years. We added it every year. It
was not discussible at the meetings. It was just going to happen. And I think that's the point this board needs to get to. the question and the that I have and we talked about fund balance and and to me
this is a this is a very easy decision for my in my little head to say we should use strategically a portion of fund balance right now for the next two and a half
years to build that to $3 million. So we could add two and a half million this year, two million next year, a little bit the next year because the part of the levy for debt drops off and then the next
year you're going to have almost $2 million that you normally would have bid had for debt service and now you add a million to it and now you're three million every year. So, it's it's kind of working your way into it, but it really softens the
blow 27 28 and that and that's not going to be a reoccurring cost then because you're going to get past that and you'll have that debt service money to eat up part of that 3 million. So, to me, it's a way
to soften that blow, but maybe others have different ideas on how to get there. So, are you saying to levy $3 million each year? >> That's what pay as you go said we would. >> When we said we'd do pay as we go, it
was $3 million every year. >> Well, that's the only way you get to 53 million. >> Yeah. But I think we had the conversation that with this debt going away, that would cover half of that. Basically, >> 1.9 million of it. >> Yes.
>> Of three million. And at the time we were hoping um that the data center was going to come through and that that in turn would pay uh more than a million dollars a year and that the the the vast majority of the money would come
from shifting the current debt payment we're making to this and using the additional funds we got should the data center come through for this. So what you're saying then is
>> if we got to 2019 2030, >> right? >> We would have 1.9 that we were levying for debt that now we don't have to levy. So we're going to put that towards capital, >> right? >> So then you have to add a million to it, >> right? >> And if the data center doesn't come
through, then are you not going to add the million to it? >> Well, I think we'd have to figure out how we were going to deal with that. I I I uh I guess I don't have an update on the data center, so I don't have an idea about how likely that is or isn't to come through. And I don't know, Scott,
if you have anything new to say about that. >> Honestly, the only update I'd have is the latest information's in the newspaper and on the news. >> Okay. >> I don't have anything. I can tell you that the developer called me this afternoon and I couldn't take
the call. So, I might I might know more tomorrow. So, so there's it's a pretty big unknown to have. Um, and uh, so the best case scenario would be that would come through and we would have the 3 million from those two uh, sources and
the worst case scenario would be that we'd have to come up with the million that we thought would be coming from the data center in some other way, I think. Is that pretty close to correct? >> Yeah, I think so. Um, I think part of it you probably I mean that certainly weighs into it, but you also want to uh
I mean, you know, I know Commissioner Anderson always references that bonding does cost more money and it does. Yes. >> Um, but it also I mean, and I'll I'll speak historically, you know, I think about 15 years ago with our road plan, we bonded for a good chunk of of that road plan.
>> Um, so that so that we had that money there and it timing wise it made sense with our bonding. Um, and if if you look at it, that was we knew what we were going to do. We told the public what we were going to do. We went out and bonded. Um, so that's what we did. But the flip side of it, if we hadn't done
that, what we would have done every single year is bring Greg Isacsons in and beat him up over his road projects and then painstakingly each year decide whether we're going to do them or not, which is >> I do think one thing that's a little different is the interest rates are different now than they were at that
time. Am I correct about that? That they were better. the county was less too. >> Yeah. I I don't >> I mean the value of the county was less, the property values were less, everything was different. I mean, >> the bottom line is >> is it's a commitment. It's a commitment
one way or the other. It's a commitment. If you bond, statutoily, you have to do it. It's a commitment. If you don't bond, you need to be willing to put it away every year. >> Well, stopping in the middle is not a
good option. So, you're going to bond. >> I mean, boards change and we don't know what the board will look like, but um I think that people on the board generally believe it's important to take care of their buildings and not let them deteriorate. So, I I
>> Jason I Jason and I came on the board. I need to get close. Jason and I came on the board after a decision was made to remodel and build onto the HHS building. We had to sell the bonds, right? Jason
and I had to vote on selling the bonds. We didn't have a choice. >> I'm not sure >> on whether the project was going forward. We had to sell the bonds. >> I'm not sure if you're um making an argument for bonding or if you're >> No, I'm not. I I'm making an argument that it takes commitment and it takes
commitment that this county is going to make and it's and it's you know I took this job and part of my job a big part of my job is >> taking care of the public's investment
and I don't think I could find anybody in the county that would tell me don't take care of the buildings don't take care of that. It's a choice how we take care of it. Bond or or or pay for it. To think that I can't do it on the hope
that a data center is going to solve the problem cuz I don't know if it's going to happen. I wouldn't know if it's going to happen in 5 years. >> Well, we we'll have to take care of the buildings no matter what. I don't think >> arguing about that. I think what what
I'm saying is it's not entirely clear what the options are going to be and it will become clearer sooner, but we don't have that clarity tonight. That's what I'm saying. We have the clarity that we need to maintain the buildings. We don't have
the clarity of where the money is going to come from. That's what we don't have the clarity of. >> Well, let let me put it this way. the we can start down the path of pay as you go >> and a future board can make the decision
we're not going to do it that way and we're going to now bond and do some of the work with bonding. >> Yes, >> that's that's a reality. >> Yes. >> Is this board five of us sitting here today willing to start down that commitment to pay as you go which means
we need to put 2 thou 2 million or three million away this year? two million or three million away next year. That's the we can't commit for 15 years, but we can commit for the a period of time when most of us
are here. Three of you are going to be here for three more two more years. >> Yep, that's right. >> So, that's three votes that could always put that dollar forward. So make the you have to make that decision and that's what they need or they can't keep
working building this program out and figuring out where the rest of this fits in. >> And with those $3 million commitment you're saying take some out of fund balance. >> Yep. >> What is a comfortable taking out of fund balance? I mean, we need to
>> I suggested 2.5 million the first year, probably 2 million the next year, >> and levy levied the difference. And then the third year, you're going to have what, a million dollar levy for debt
service. >> In 29. In 29, it'll be just it'll be over a million. just yeah, it won't be the full payment amount because we're going to have residual fund balance in there to
cover the remaining balance, >> right? >> And how is that going to change our levy percentage? >> Take that that much out of fund balance and that that's a comfortable amount. That's not a comfortable amount. Scott,
what do you think? >> As a percent, so I mean Well, isn't it closer to five uh 500,000 now? Because I think the budget was for 100 million. So, >> sorry if you could repeat that. >> I think it's closer to uh 500,000 is a
levy point now. Uh if we're talking specifically the general fund, um the 1% is 400 about $419,000 a percent fund balance. >> Yeah. So
>> look what Todd's asking is if we if we took if we threw 2 and a half million of fund balance, what does that do to our levy? How much does it reduce the levy? >> The overall levy? It's a it's a overall
levy that was 20.48 now is less than that. >> Yeah. So if we were to go with this capital plan as presented now and then take off another two and a half million it would get us below 10 just over nine
with where the way things are at right now. Now keep in mind that >> you're working on a budget that we don't know what's going to look like >> exactly >> right. it. And I probably should be better at answering your question, too. You asked if it's a comfortable level. That probably is um a comfortable level.
You couldn't plan on doing that forever. Um because obviously every time you take money out of the bank, it's reducing the balance. Um >> and it reduces interest income. >> It it does do that as well. Yes. Um, the other thing I would say, um, uh, if you,
if you were going to have any area, uh, any of the fund balances that were higher than others, the one you would want it to be in is general fund because the general fund when the other funds get in trouble, that's the one that >> is going to help. So, uh, but c certainly you can be using fund balance,
uh, actually probably out of all of them other than probably not HHS. There's and for couple reasons. one, they're within the range, and two, uh, there's probably where the greatest unknowns we have are in HHS right now. >> Linda, did you want to
>> Thank you. Um, Lucas, on the fund balance ratio, so the actual is 67%. Target range is 35 to 50%. So, does that mean that we have like 17%
to work with? Was that right? >> So, >> or not, >> just doing the math to get to the actual numbers that were above then. So, if you want to figure out how much how many dollars were above that maximum, it's uh it's just over $7 million that were
above that top threshold. So, if we were to pull $2 million, set that aside for to be uh for that capital plan facilities assessment portion, we would still have another $5 million there
above that 50% ratio. >> All right. And do people do you feel comfortable 50% or do you feel comfortable with higher? I don't feel comfortable when the target
range is this and then we're way above it. I certainly don't want to be below it. >> If I'm correct, I think the state really wants you to be in the range. I believe that's my understanding that they aren't seeing that you should be well above that range.
>> Those ranges were set by us. >> Well, but they were there's guidelines from the state. >> Well, there there's recommendations from the state. >> Yeah. Well, >> but they were set specifically by us. >> Answer my question, please. Uh I know Scott wanted to comment, but I'll say so there are guidelines from
the state, guidelines from the state, and then there's also what it says in our financial policies. I will always say that, uh having a higher fund balance ratio is going to be beneficial to help weather storms. Um you know, we're at a very high fund balance ratio
right now. There's no denying that. And I think right now we're obviously in a very healthy financial position. And that's a great place to be in when we're facing this budget issue right now. So, it makes sense to use a healthy amount of fund balance to weather the storm while also keeping some of that fund
balance for the following year because frankly a lot of the reason why we are where we are um is because of decisions at the federal level, decisions at the state level and then obviously we did those facilities assessments and they identified a lot of issues. >> So, it's a combination of a lot of things.
>> Of course, it's hard to predict the future. None of us are very good at that, but I think there's good reason to believe that things are going to change in the federal level in the next two years. Um, and who knows about the states? So, I I would guess that our uh
needs are not going to be decreasing locally in the next two years. >> I would say that I uh I try to be optimistic, but at the same time, I also like to budget conservatively. >> It's getting harder. So, um,
>> you know, I work in elections and I I don't know what's going to happen. Nobody knows what's going to happen. And it's good to have a healthy >> function. Lots of things can happen that impact it that aren't even part of the election. But I think it's fair to believe we're going to be looking at uh
wanting to use fund balance over the next several years. And so, we want to make sure we have enough to do that. Okay? So, we wouldn't want to say, "Oh, gee, um, we have uh seven million over the the uh 50%, so let's go ahead and
send spend 7." >> Right. No, I understand that. >> Um, and uh but but I asked that question about did the act absolute dollar number go up in the last year and it did. It went up rather significantly and I'm not sure why that was. Do you have any
thoughts on that? uh >> because we used fund balance last year too and and now there's uh 5 million more in fund balance than a year ago. >> Yeah. I mean we could scour through the budget and see which line items were higher than other ones and and come up
with an answer. Ultimately the fund balance did go up which is a good good thing. Um, but as you said, I think it makes sense that we should probably plan on using a good an amount of the fund balance this year and plan on using some
next year and then potentially the following year as well to help uh weather the storm. I know there's a lot of um changes within HHS as was noted. Um the timing of those changes in the following year, I believe we're going to have a full year of um additional workloads with less funding. So that's
going to be hard on our budget um as well. I also will note and this is not the um the purpose of this meeting um but uh the federal government did recently um propose changing the uniform guidance rules. I know if you look at your emails
from NAO and AMC maybe you would have seen that maybe skimmed over it but they're um uniform guidance those are the rules that are associated with federal funding federal grants what we must do to make sure we're in compliance with those. Um the federal government has proposed changing the rules and
there's a lot of additional requirements on there, a lot of additional hoops and a lot of discretion of whoever the current administration is in place. um coming down to um just philosophies or
if there is a party that uses any land that the county owns and that party has opposing views uh philosophically to whatever that current administration is, they could cancel grants, they could
pull funding back. Um so that's a real concern. So hence the comment that the it's going to be an unpredictable couple of years. >> It certainly is and there's a lot of push back um on that no there was a a webinar earlier today they were
listening on there's been a couple different webinars about that. So just >> just to try and set the tone of there are a lot of unknowns as you say and um again we're in a healthy financial position and that's a good thing to weather these kind of uh storms. Hopefully that rule doesn't actually go into effect or it's a modification of
that. >> And I would say in a way that's why we have fund balance because we don't know when storms are coming and we want a way to weather them without overburdening the uh uh taxpayers. So that to me I agree it's a perfect use of fund balance.
I think I think if you really go back and you look um and and you pull up completed fund or completed years um revenue and expenditures, we typically
always build reserves. I mean that just the way it is. And um Andrea and I have had many conversations about and a lot of it is regarding having um a lot of vacancies. It really started
the the fund balance increase really started with having a lot of vacancies in positions which you aren't spending the money. You allocated it, you were levied for it, and then you can't find you can't find employees. So you and it accelerated really fast and
it's and it's continued with vacancies in positions and if especially you know if it's a upper position and it's vacant for a while it adds up pretty fast and if it's a even line staff it adds up really fast. So,
a reason for our fund balance to go up is we budget 100% for employer employment and then we aren't able to fill it to 100%. And every position that sits empty is $100,000 $100,000.
>> I believe when I started that was a pretty significant issue, but I think last year there were pretty small number of unfilled positions. But 1% is three and a half positions being open almost all the time at least that. So >> yeah,
>> so it adds up. It it does add up. And it's good to be there. And I've wrestled with this for well I started working on this when I saw the budget last when we approved 6.5% as a preliminary and that
pushed the the 27 budget to 17% and then at the end by the end of the year it had gone to the 20.48. 48. Um, I I've been trying to figure out how to judiciously use this and this seems to me that it
will get us over a hump. We'll spend two and a half, three, four, five million to get there and then it will level a little bit when we get rid of the debt as a way to get us to that point. And
then like I said, future boards are going to make a decision whether they want to continue that or whether they want to say no, we'll scrap that. We're going to bond and maybe interest rates will be down and that'll be the really the wisest thing. But I think right now I'm not ready to bond. So you you
probably couldn't talk me into that because I think we'd have to go three or five years before we'd bond. But I think we could do some small projects through this period maybe in groups that we can get some of it done. But
>> Scott, did you want to say? >> Yeah, I was just going to say talk a little bit more about the guidelines uh for uh both for fund balance. They're both at the state level and the county level. They are truly guidelines. What what auditors would tell you is that if you're going to deviate greatly from
those, then you should have a reason. And our reason could be our facilities plan. Uh that we planned on bonding less and using more more dollars for that. As an example, for years, uh Blue Earth County was getting beat up because of their fund balance. And and even some
legislators were saying, "Well, you should ask why they have it." And Blue Earth County was very comfortable people asking because they plan to pay for their jail with cash, >> right? They were saving. >> So there's a good reason why they carried more than the state guidelines. on the 35 to 50% they're under the
general fund. Just any idea where any other counties are at? There's other counties that said, "Wow, we would love to be at 50%." But they're not. And I mean, we're sitting at 66. I mean, it's kind of >> there there's statewide reports and they're all over the board, but yeah, there's counties, especially coming in
the next couple years, they'd love to have our fund balance, but there's there's some that have far more than that, too. So, but yeah, there's there's fund balance reports that the state auditor puts out each year. And I I think there's a number of counties who've used up their fund balance and now there's having a levy push because
they don't have any more fund balance to use. I think that's >> and I think that that you know the key with ours is >> we're not at 50%. >> No. Yeah. >> Right. >> We're at 67%. >> We have room to and this is a you know
we always you always talk about the rainy day. This might be a rainy day and it might be the time to spend down a little bit of it to get us to that point where we can >> kind of >> And I I really appreciate that you guys
made the uh uh the the uh capital fund levy requests pretty flat throughout the next five years because that's much easier on homeowners than when it goes up and down. So, I I really very much appreciate that. And I think that's what
we're trying to do with the uh um uh surplus is to help that flatten out the levy so it's not such a shock to homeowners or you shouldn't even say shock burden to a lot of them. Linda, >> I think it it will be telltale when when
Andrea when we get to August and Andrea's had staff have put everything together for for the budget and because quite frankly I mean we heard it in the HHS meeting they've analyzed some of what the state's done but there's going to be some real
tough decisions around how we're going to meet some of the new requirements. I mean, I was in a meeting just the other day and the feds finally came down with, I think, the work requirement stuff to the state on Medicaid and now the
state's trying to figure out how are we going to implement this and we don't know that our our staff at the >> I'm going to make one editorial comment and then I'll stop that. I I had heard that physicians or providers were now supposed to say if people were unable to
work and of course that puts the patient and the physician on kind of opposite sides because the patient's always coming in wanting the doctor to say no you can't work and the doctor is wanting to get the person back to being able to work. So instead of them being on the
same team working on a health problem, they end up on opposite sides uh because they're put in this position by the federal government or by the state. So it's not a good thing. >> So So pending the outcome of what that looks like
towards the end of 27, we may be ramping up for something that we got to implement in 28. We don't know that yet. We don't know. >> Hopefully through this process, HHS staff can tell us what that's going to look like to some degree. And hopefully we'll get answers before we have to set a preliminary cuz we can
figure it out. But who knows? >> Had a couple of questions. I appreciate the idea of the fund balance use for um when the storm hits. I do think the storm has hit
>> and I think for the next two years we're probably going to be in that situation where not knowing >> where nothing's really stable. It just goes Yeah. just not stable. So from that standpoint,
I support the idea of using fund balance >> for the next couple of years to help get us to the fac I mean cover the facilities cost. Go ahead. I guess what I'd like to see for a couple options is just
give us some scenarios of how much and how we could use it and how we could get that and and if you say it'll get below nine, I feel like below 10. Okay, >> that's right.
>> Jeez, I didn't get to slip that one through. Um, that's great. I honestly think it's I think it's going to creep up when you're doing the re regular budget. I really don't think it's going to stay there. But I I'm at some point we have to be able to push
back to the state that you can't keep pushing stuff off to us. And we have been there. I've been there for 12 years. Scott's been there right next to me. Um some of the rest of you have been there, too. And we're telling them you
can't. And they don't listen to us. They obviously aren't aren't willing to take our word for it. I I I don't know when the public's going to say enough's enough and make a change to actually makes a change.
>> The voters will have to vote for a different policy. >> Well, if that's what it takes. But I I'm not going to take I'm done taking the blame for what the state's doing to us. and it happens time and time and time and time again. Um, some of these
programs are very expensive for us to implement and we don't get the dollars to do it. So, that's where I'm at. I'm I'm comfortable um giving G give us a couple of options how we could how you could play those
numbers out using fund balance. And I'm not opposed to using $5 million of fund balance because I honestly believe at the end of 26 we'll add dollars into fund balance of add dollars and I don't know if in your budget work on not capital but the other
side if there's fund balance that you would like to pull from here into there and I think we got to get to that point to know that also >> for me I think that I I would want to think, well, we're probably going to
have to do this three years in a row. So, I'd want to make sure we weren't using too much in any one year to prevent us from doing that the next two years. So, I I think I I I wish it was 5 million, but that feels a little rich to what uh feels like someone who's going off the board. And I'm teasing you
there, Brad. >> Well, no, I'm not. That was over three years. >> No, I don't. >> Yeah, that was five million over three years. Five million two to two. You know, you guys do the math. 2 million or >> 2.5 million the first year and 2 million
the next year. And at so that >> so that it takes that levy not like this. It takes it more gradual. >> I think that that is a good idea. >> What would we be doing here right now talking about if we didn't have our fund
balance? >> Yeah. Well, it'd be a completely different discussion. >> I mean, we'd be talking about cuts. I mean, we're talking about efficiencies. Um, you know what? I mean, those are always still looked at, correct? >> Yeah, they they always still are. We still will, but I mean, you'd you'd
probably be having a bigger discussion about bonding >> is what you do and adding on to the length of where we're at with bonding. >> I mean, we're to the point, are we? There's no way in the world we can any county I think can make the enough cuts
to be able to fund the things that they need to fund. There are no >> Oh, you you could. It wouldn't be pretty, but you could cut enough. >> You'd hear about it. >> Well, and and I mean, it's always about balancing um the the pressures on the
taxpayer with the services that we're both required to provide and want to provide. and and uh you know each one of us might have somewhat different opinion about that and each one of our districts is different. So um you know uh one district uh has better income and less
poverty and another one has lower income and more poverty and so we have different pressures that are motivating where we're coming from. Can I just make one more comment on the fund balance topic too is keep in mind every year we use there's a use of fund
balance and this year we've only applied what was it $6,000 so far and so through our budget process we will be doing more of that >> and we'll also take a look at whether or not you know we can apply some some of the >> uh you know salary savings uh on that
towards some of the years we've done that before but in some years it makes sense some years it maybe doesn't but those are Those are things that'll be happening over the summer here. >> And I agree with you, Linda, that this storm is here. Um, I'll just make one more comment and
then we'll keep going. I uh was at a meeting today that had a bunch of different county commissioners and Dave or excuse me uh Gail and Malikica told me that they had the demographer come and speak with them and they found it extremely helpful because it gave them a good sense of where they were going into
the future and it helped them to think about their plans not for just this year but for uh the next uh decade and he suggested that we have the demographer. So, I asked Scott about that and he thought it was a good idea and I happened to talk to the city council uh
Jamie Ferrar today and she said she thought the city council would like to join us for that because they have the same issues. So, but we want to be planful not for this just this year but for the next uh multiple years.
What else are you looking for from us Lucas? Well, I think um that conversation about uh giving some direction about the usage of the fund balance um and how to address the facilities assessment needs, I think that's very beneficial for us and we can update the capital plan
budget for that. And then in coordination with Andrea and the operating budget, we can take a better look at the the overall usage of that fund balance um and see where that actually puts us. I also will mention and I think we have stated this before,
you know, in the past we've done kind of every other year it's a either a two-year budget, then a single year budget, then a two-year budget. This year we will be looking at doing a two-year budget again. And I think that'll be very helpful to to take the time and sit and look at not only 27, but 28 and where that's going to put us.
And that'll give us a better idea of how willing we are or how much fund balance we can use in 27 and how much we'll have left over for 28 as well. and then into 29. So, um, just wanted to make it clear that we will be looking at 28 as well, >> but that might be the new norm to do the
two-year budget. >> Somewhere somewhere in here you talked Oh, yeah. Here was >> what we're doing is pushing 1.2 million into next year. And always that scares me. That That's my interpretation of
kicking a can down the road. So that's why I'm very interested in figuring out how not to do that going forward. I'm going to make a request that at somehow
I just I don't like the idea of Well, let me go here first. Um we had the park board meeting the other day after the picnic and it was um they were adamant that we should not stop working on parks
put forward that they had basically two priorities and correct me if I'm wrong Todd one priority was to get the camp host and this document shows us some of that. get the camp host site or the the
park host site there so that we have somebody monitoring it 24/7 so that we have somebody that can clean bathrooms, somebody that can do we pay $16,000 a year to Dakota County to do some of those things. we would get rid of that
cost and to not take those dollars, the $50,000 that was allocated to that and levied for that and sitting there and stop that process to keep that process
going. They adamant to get that done so we protect our investment out there by having somebody there >> through the summer. That was number one. Number two, um there was a lot of talk about the
Neielson Park and that we had I think $30,000 carried forward in capital planning for getting a parking lot in there and it was um the U of M has been in that site a few times and it is degrading because
we're not taking care of their invasives are getting much worse. um tree canopies disappearing. Uh we need to start taking care of it or it is going to be to a point where it won't be able to be
rehab rehab rehabilitation to a certain degree. That was 30,000. My request is that we look back and do put those do allow those two things to go forward so that we can start um
with either of those projects. right now they're on hold. And and that third thing they really are um adamant about is to allow
um the park staff to apply for a grant up to and the grants are up to 100,000 for replacement of the playground equipment and make it ADA compliant. It's 20 years old next year.
They're being told they can't get parts for it much longer and they're replacing stuff every year. At some point, um there's going to be equipment taken off the site because it's not going to be able to be repaired and then then we're
in a really tough position. So, they recommend that we allow them to go forward for the grant. The rest of the money to put in that can come from fund balance for the park that's there. They would re they're not going to go
after the fish cleaning station now. The cost is just too high. Um we need to figure out how to fund raise or something for that. One part of that fish cleaning station is uh people are cleaning on the stainless
steel that's in the pavilion. >> They're taking their fish inside there, >> making a real mess. And that's where the park hosts would definitely be there to monitor that and >> elsewhere. So, it's really it's really they'd like to reallocate the fish
cleaning station towards the Parkco sites to make sure they cover all the costs. So, it's really 110,000 that they would like us not to take away from that. >> Do you mean do you mean 110,000 that's already sitting there or are you talking
about the 2027 budget? >> No, it's already been levied since 2024 and 2025. Yeah. >> The money's already sitting here. It's just to spend it. >> Yes. >> So, they're asking that we don't hold that up.
>> Yeah. and our and what you heard in this report was that by consensus we said don't spend any money on the park. >> Yes. So I think >> be clear the money's already there. It's just can we >> forward or would we pull it back and use
it for the >> future capital purchase? So, so my memory is not perfect and uh you know there's probably things I don't understand that are sometimes happening at meetings, but I believed what we were doing was saying we weren't going to be
putting additional money in in the 2027 budget. I didn't believe we had a discussion that said that we were putting on hold money that was already set aside. >> That was that was the interpret that was the interpretation. That's the way it came down. So, if you're if you're okay with that.
>> Well, but but I want to hear from the other board members how they >> it felt the same way. I sat there in the meeting yesterday and I was like, "What did I do?" You know, I never intended that. >> Well, I don't think that I don't think that was the intent of what we did do. I think we were talking about the 2027
budget and at that time >> they did have they did have the playground equipment in that >> in the 2027 budget >> and they decided now that they now that they know there's a grant they're okay not putting that in the capital plan and
going after the grant and trying to get it but >> then it would be ADA compliant. It would be you know rubber surface like you need to do for ADA. Linda, was that your understanding too that we were saying nothing about money that was
already allocated instead of? >> Yeah, I didn't think it was going to be >> retroactive. No, >> but I >> when Jason brought up the fish cleaning station, I mean, I I I just No, we did not. That's >> that was the direction I was going towards. Yes. We're hinging that and I I
was not >> looking what was already sitting there. >> Yeah. Yeah. So Jess, what we're saying is that at that meeting we had in Goodyu, we were talking not about holding money that was already set aside
in previous budgets for parks, but we were saying at the beginning of this budget process, we were agreeing not to put more money into parks. So it wasn't that we were trying to put a hold on money that was already sitting there. At least that's how the three of us
understood it. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um, if if I could and your decision is your decision, but I will just state I asked and I listed out specifically those items and the dollar
amounts. >> Yeah. and was stated that all of these items, the things going forward and these items that were levied previously and are currently sitting, the money is sitting there in the capital plan report
that those would also be held off indefinitely. So, those were the things that I had said. >> Like I said, my my memor is not perfect, but I don't believe that was the intent of uh those of us who voted for it. And I think you guys are confirming that It
was just consensus. >> All right. Consensus. Excuse me. I don't think that was the consensus. >> You've been around long enough, Lucas. You know that what they say. >> All right. I >> Yeah. >> Do we need to do we need to do anything
different to release those funds so they can go forward? What do you need? Uh it it seems like there's agreement at this time that those items that had been carried forward to the current year would move forward. I guess if
official decisions I guess if Scott could weigh in on >> Well, number one, I mean, you can give consensus here, but we're we're not making any motions. No, no, no. >> If you're changing direction, we can certainly >> But well, as I understand it, what we're saying is there cons is a consensus that
money that has already been set aside in previous budgets for parks that it isn't our intent to have a consensus to hold that money. That is that correct, Linda? Is that correct? So money that was set aside in previous
budgets, we're not asking them to put a hold on that money, but we haven't made new commitments for 2027. The new commitments for 27. Yes. Going back to the other one about what's set aside,
not 100% sure I remember completely. I guess I just want to say that I mean I do support the idea of park holes. I think that's a really good idea and I really important amount of money to spend and the same
thing with the ADA compliant playground. I do think that we have to have that and I think that that's something that I really appreciate that there's a grant out there that could possibly help cover that. As far as Neielson goes, I don't know for sure the history of what we
absolutely have to do, but I'm afraid at this point. I do not support moving forward with Neielson. I know it's a it's a great idea. I don't not saying I don't like the idea. I'm saying we have to keep up Can of Valley Trail. We have to keep up the other park in Canon
Falls. I do want to keep up BSBY. And I see that if we move forward with developing another park, then we have to keep up that park, too. And I don't see that. I certainly don't get any phone calls about, oh my god, we're
desperately in need of this. I think it's a great idea, but anyway, I do support the other two. >> Is that what you needed, Lucas? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Thank you. Anything
else that you're hoping to get out of this meeting tonight? >> I said I had two things. This second one. >> All right. But okay. >> I I do want I do want you to somehow somewhere figure out how to put the
barriers into the um the ADC barriers back into the capital plant. I think we have a known safety risk and if at least if we put it in the plan somewhere we have some footing to say we do have a plan we just
can't get there yet. If we just eliminate it we're saying it's not a it's not a safety problem and we know it's a safety problem. So I have somehow put it back in there and I it can be you can do it 200,000 200,000 I don't care
but put it back in somewhere in the next seven eight years of that plan. >> I'll just add that the the line item for it specifically is in the capital plan currently and then per that board
meeting you know it's it's on hold indefinitely at this time. So, um, we can certainly look into adding that and work with Tim and the timing of other work that needs to get done in the jail, obviously working with Tim and the ADC
staff of what timing makes sense, if we can combine that with other projects and and try and do things as efficiently as possible. I I just think if we approve a cap the plan where it says it's just a line with absolutely nothing
about when it's going to happen. I just don't like that. I like to know that we're actually planning that it's going to be in somewhere and you can always move it. That's not a problem. But it needs to be in there. I just think it
needs to be in there. That's my gut reaction. Go ahead, Todd. >> Looking, you say our our fund balance increased from last year to this year by five million. >> I mean, and we're concerned about spending 5 million over the next three
years. I mean, is spending more than that out of line? I mean, if we're looking at these barriers, you know, I mean, >> well, that's why I say put them in the put them in the capital blend somewhere. If it's if it's 28 29, if it's 30 31, I
I just don't leave them hanging because then they'll just they'll someday never get done. And >> true. >> I mean, maybe >> a little nervous about it, >> you know, maybe just taking two and a half out is is not an issue. Maybe go
three and a half. you know, uh, I don't >> you think that'll be part of the budget discussion when we get the whole budget and are looking at that? >> Scott, did you were you raising your hand? Well, I was just going to say,
yeah, we can bring you more options and we can talk about more of that as the budget progresses throughout the summer >> and and we'll certainly have a better idea of where we think you probably should be and where it's safe >> and it will and we'll, you know, like I said, we'll know more about about stuff
with HHS and things that are coming down. And you never know, you never know what else that comes out of this >> type of government we got right now. They stuff every day. >> Go ahead, Linda. >> Well, AMC now has two people, two
interns, I believe, working there and um have a whole reference on grants and can help counties find grants for specific things. Is that something that
we automatically do or does nobody call AMC to find out what we what might be possible? We are in regular contact with them and in fact we were one of the first counties they reached out to to find out about our needs and we've had conference calls and stuff with them. Um every time I get uh different grants
from them I I get them out to the appropriate department head. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I will say most grants have enough >> tails to them that they don't really work. And as we've recently found out on another one that we found out after the fact that there's tails that make it not
the same thing we thought we applied for. >> But there's probably wasn't what we applied for. >> No. As an example, I mean there's different ones on charging stations and stuff, but in in there you have to agree that your whole fleet's going there. Okay. Well, we're not we're not ready for that. >> No. >> No. I was thinking specifically in the
world of law enforcement whether or not safety equipment would be something that there would easily be grants out there for. >> There's safety equipment but not for that because if there was there'd be you know 87 counties looking at it >> and every
>> minus the couple that have them, >> right? Okay. >> I I don't think you know I I think we you are always looking for grants. I know. Well, we just did one with HHS the other day, grant, >> but they all have they all have that
tail part of it that >> Well, they have an agenda. >> We And I honestly think >> we're seeing and I think we'll continue to see that those tales will get >> more um they'll strengthen them more and make
them harder to accept. I >> mean, Tim, >> I agree. We got to keep looking. But >> Tim gets copied on most of them that I get. And I mean, it's pretty rare that some of them look like they're a good fit. Most of them aren't a good fit. >> Anything else anybody wants to say, ask,
comment on? >> Stacey, was there anybody in the audience or online that ever had their hand up? Okay, good. >> Is there is there what is there any direction we're going to need until we get to August now or
I think the best thing we could do right now is let staff and department heads work on their budgets and get because our numbers, you know, you guys hear me say this every year, they the numbers we have get more firm as we go farther into the year. And the first real test we
have of that is once we hit six months, >> those are starting to get pretty good numbers and then like I say, they get better and firmer. and your work with with um capital and kind of putting some of those scenarios together. Um if you
can get some of that to us at some point and just so that we we have some options that you're looking at and maybe we'll each comment on them. Not that we need to have a meeting but each get a look at
them. >> Yeah. the scenarios as far as the use of fund balance. Those will need to be done in coordination with the overall operating budget because they go hand in hand. It's a matter of if we're going to use fund balance, it's either going to be in the capital plan or in the operating fund or both. So, it's it's
still just once we have better numbers related to the overall operating budget, then we can really kind of tailor key into the the usage and what it's going to look like. Um, aside from that, we can we can look at some different scenarios and see how it
is. But until we really know what's going on with the operating budget with those more precise numbers, it's >> it might not be the the most meaningful information. >> That that should be in August because anything be anything before then it's like, okay, well, what does this look like? Well, here's what it looks like.
>> It's not the real budget. So, >> well, and it and it can't really be tied back to what >> dollar levy increase is that >> we got to get to August. >> All right. So, thank you everybody and
thanks for your hard work and your patience with all of our questions and comments >> and uh thanks everybody for coming and being interested and wanting to stay on top of things. I appreciate that too.