All right, good afternoon.

Welcome back to our Finance Audit and Budget Committee chaired by myself, Commissioner Ted Terry, joined by committee members, Commissioner Michelle Long Spears and Commissioner Shakira Johnson.

We have our agenda before us today.

Have a couple updates and a couple agenda items.

So we'll just start off first with our meeting minutes from March 10th.

This is item 0569.

If there's no edits or changes, I'll open the floor for a motion.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion seconds signal for the discussion.

All in favor of your hands say aye.

All right.

And it says Malden and Jenkins, but it is a it's meant to be the um momentum firm, right?

Yes, the momentum firm uh led by uh the CEO of momentum firm, Lakeisha Ciseg will do the presentation.

Okay.

Um the reason it says Malden and Jenkins, it really role is is taking the report that was done by Malden and Jenkins.

That's right, yes, yes, and working with us to implement it.

Okay, great.

All right, and presentations being passed out now, and CSA come on up.

Welcome back.

Okay, perfect.

Hello, all ready.

Hello.

You let me know when to begin.

Good to see you all.

Good afternoon.

Uh hopefully you have the printout of the report today.

Um, good to see you again.

Lakeisha Sai, managing principal of the momentum firm.

Um, and as COO Zach Williams mentioned, um last September we awarded the contract to help implement uh the Malden and Jenkins operational assessment, which laid out over 250 operational improvement activities uh across 19 departments, and we've been uh sort of shepherding that process along with departments to uh realize progress as early as possible.

And um we promised at the beginning of this process to engage the board um early and consistently, and this is one of our quarterly updates to each one of the committees that have departments um who were assessed aligned to them.

All right.

Today I will uh this has been a pretty consistent format with the other um the other committees that we've presented to this month.

We'll be back in June uh for the next quarterly update, and we will have enhanced some of the items that we're reporting on.

So we're taking note of the different questions that are coming up in each committee, and we'll be refining this report and process for more detail in the future.

And of course, more progress to share in the next time uh you see me, hopefully.

So uh we'll talk a little bit about the operational goals that our process has uh defined, in which we're looking to realize results in.

Um I'll talk about our implementation management process, how that's going, um, and I'll provide an update on um the implementation status of recommendations that uh departments are overseeing.

The departments that are included are up for discussion for the FAB committee or finance, um, the office of man uh the OMB, um, the Office of Management and Budget and Purchasing and Contracting.

Okay.

So just a refresher that following the Malden and Jenkins assessment, you're over 500 pages, like I said, 2006 over 260 recommendations.

Uh, we laid out some change drivers or goals rather that uh the implementation of this assessment is aiming to achieve, and we are uh realizing many results in these areas.

Um some noteworthy things on this slide is uh through this process, we are attempting to do things like reduce year over year internal audit findings, improve customer satisfaction, identify and achieve cost savings opportunities where reasonable, um, uh automate processes and better integrate our technology across the county and enhance our uh data-driven governance capabilities with uh a goal being over a hundred percent of departments reporting KPIs this year.

Um, you know, this this slide just represents the process that we're taking to support departments with planning um or sequencing rather progress.

Um we're taking things into consideration like the type of goals or impact we're attempting to have, as well as the level of effort required and our focus uh for this assessment or implementing this assessment rather is in the uh top quadrant.

So we're looking at the quick wins as defined in the Malden and Jenkins assessment as high impact opportunities that have you know require low effort to implement and major projects, very impactful things, but you know, our heavier lifts to get across the finish line.

Nonetheless, we don't want to lose sight of those because of their impact potential.

It's in the major project area that we anticipate some departments may require additional support.

Um, and we're tracking the types of support that's required and helping overcome those obstacles throughout this process as well.

Um this slide lays out our implementation management process, and I'll just uh bring your attention to what we're actually tracking or monitoring.

And and it's the implementation monitoring table.

It's this uh it's these areas that I said we can continue to enhance as we come back and report.

Uh but so far we're looking at the recommendation status, the projected timeline and rate of progress, uh, the type of additional support needed as reported by departments.

We're looking at the reasons behind why some recommendations are currently being reported as blocked or rejected.

Um, and in the future, we're gonna be able to quantify some of these cost savings as well as um align the number of recommendations met by challenge area so we can start to see uh where and how uh we're making impact and progress.

Uh this dashboard represents um all 18 departments that were assessed.

So you'll see that the 26 266 recommendations for the assessment there across the board.

Currently, there are 59 recommendations that are being reported as met, 11 um blocked across the entire uh organization, um, and over 123 recommendations requiring some sort of additional resource.

So the reason why that number is higher than what's blocked is because there's some recommendations that were reported as in progress, but they still require additional support of some sort in order to complete or meet the recommendation fully.

Um that was across the board.

So that dashboard view is uh displaying the consolidated insights across all 18 departments.

And now I'll go specifically into detail for finance, OMB, and purchasing.

Okay.

So for these three departments, there are a total of 39 recommendations identified in the report.

Currently, five are being reported as met.

One recommendation is blocked, and there are 30 recommendations that are being reported as requiring some sort of additional resource in order to be able to complete it.

Okay.

We'll look at the common challenge areas that were identified in the report as they emerged across these three departments, their governance issues, org structure challenges, and technology limitations.

Very consistent with the top three categories across the board.

Um enhancement we've made to the reports this week is in the appendix towards the back.

We've now included a glossary of definitions.

Um so hopefully that uh you know clears up a few things when we're describing what we mean by governance issue, org structure challenge, et cetera.

Umhead, so as I mentioned, we did ask uh on an ongoing basis, we're asking departments to um to uh share their projected uh completion date for some of these recommendations.

And one of the things that we're noticing, as you can see from this graph is that most of the projected completion dates are deferred to the 2027 and beyond timeframe.

Um in April, we are re-engaging departments individually again to get more qualitative um insight and and understanding on why some of these initiatives have been projected as deferred to 2027 and beyond.

And it's gonna be our job at the momentum firm to try to accelerate progress and hopefully find a way to move some activity up so that we can realize some of those quick wins.

So uh challenging um our our team to work with departments over the next couple of months.

So when we come back and report um in June, we would hopefully like to see more activity sort of you know, up in the um summer to fall time frame of this year, um, you know, kind of moving up uh beyond that 2027 time frame that's currently projected.

All right, so I mentioned there there are different types of support that we're tracking that are required, and and we're just trying to get a breakdown and understanding of that.

And so for the three departments in the FAB committee, um, cross-departmental support, third-party assistance um slash assessments, and additional funding were the you know, three major categories here.

Uh we started to report on this following um a report we did back in December where we were asked by a commissioner to provide additional detail on support that departments are requiring or believe is necessary beyond funding, and uniquely we find it's interesting that cross-departmental support has been coming up very frequently as a resource requirement need, and that's something that we are working with the COO and other leaders to uh address internally and sort of redesign some operations to to facilitate enhance cross-departmental support.

It's kind of an interesting insight beyond uh a funding limitation.

Right, and just some uh call-outs um from uh you know what was reported to us by uh these three departments over the last month um and some some interesting insights.

So I mentioned this, but um, you know, most recommendations, oh, actually, no, I did not mention this.

Let me clarify that.

Separate point.

Most recommendations targeted for 2026 um are owned by the purchasing and contracting department, and they fall in the inadequate um data tracking challenge area.

So, you know, this is an example of an area that we're able to kind of lean in um more closely.

It's not a it's not a unique challenge to purchasing by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, nonetheless, most of the recommendations that are targeted to be completed this year has been have been reported by purchasing as falling in that category.

Um, so that's that's great because if you saw the graph, a lot of uh activity was projected to 2027 and beyond.

So there is some, you know, anticipation of of progress this year, and and a lot of that was reported out of purchasing.

So I wanted to call call that out.

Um recommendations uh are weighted much more heavily currently towards the longer term with over 80% of financial recommendes recommendations targeted for 2027 and beyond.

Uh, this is something that again we can uh through this process get more information on, um, dig a little bit deeper into next month and try to understand if there are any opportunities for us to accelerate progress or or help this department overcome some of those blockers.

Second point is that of the 14 recommendations that require additional funding, uh over 13 do not yet have a defined cost estimate.

So this was a finding that emerged in a few other committees as well.

This is what so we're positioning ourselves again through this process to support departments.

Uh we're feasible to better articulate some of these uh cost estimates for um the purpose of implementation, right?

Because if if they they understand that they're gonna need third party assistance, but they're not clear on what the requirements are exactly how much it costs, this obviously will impede progress and you know, timeline.

So we're gonna work with them to get a better understanding of that.

You all may uh recall from the dashboard, there was just one recommendation that was blocked, uh reported in this committee, and that comes from finance.

Um it was noted that it required both additional funding and staffing, and it's actually been reported this month as being approved in the FY26 budget.

So hopefully um we shouldn't have any blocked.

Um, hopefully the the next uh in the next quarterly report.

Uh so that's progress made.

And then the last point is that um, you know, just several recommendations aligned to this committee are still in the early planning stages with key details not yet defined.

So that I believe connects to point number two, where we have most of the recommendations that are you know being reported as requiring additional funding, um, not yet having a cost estimate.

And so again, uh we think this process is helpful and and we are going to in the next month, like I said, work closely with these departments again and try to get a better understanding of how we can help overcome some of these hurdles and accelerate uh progress and quick win implementation.

Right.

I will um end on sort of across the board where we are, what it means and what comes next.

Um, and I've kind of alluded to this already, but you know, there are uh three areas primarily that across the 19 departments have consistently come up as challenges from or their org structure issues, governance issues, and technology limitations.

And what we're doing over the next week is working uh with the COO's office and defining an implementation roadmap.

So what we're doing is aligning what we're calling anchor initiatives, some of these initiatives that impact more than one department.

We're gonna align them to a roadmap and get a better understanding of you know how we sequence some of this progress and governance issues, org structure challenges and technology limitations are certainly three of the areas that are um uh at the top of the list for uh addressing across the organization.

Um yeah, and as I mentioned, we hope to improve the reporting process as time goes on, ask additional uh questions to departments as they're self-reporting this progress.

Um I'll pause to see if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cisse.

Uh, questions from commissioners or comments.

Commissioner Longspears.

Thank you very much, um, Mr.

Chair, and we appreciate your thorough assessment and being present with us today.

I do have a couple questions for you.

The first relates to the projected implementation timeline with uh the vast majority of them being pushed to 2027 plus.

And you had mentioned that you are going to kind of try to drill down on that a little bit more.

Does that give you any pause though that everything has been pushed out so far?

Any concerns you would want to share with us?

I wouldn't necessarily say concerns and and without looking at specific instances of data.

I think I'll be a little reluctant to call out something from memory, but um I would say it, you know, visually not necessarily concerning.

What I would say is that there's a lot of uh work in progress, and perhaps this timeline doesn't really show that.

There's a lot of activity happening now.

Um this is about completion date, right?

And so I think working us working more closely with departments to try to get creative about ways in which we can accelerate um the closing out of some of these recommendations is gonna be what we do our best um with over the next month or so, but there could be a variety of reasons why a department is anticipating that the completion of a recommendation is deferred.

Um without calling it a specific concern.

I think it's an area of opportunity for us to explore how to kind of uh accelerate impact.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

So I just observed if I'm reading this right that there are 12 projects anticipated completion by December.

And then 21 is 27 plus.

So that would be our 2027 plus as well as the unsure and blank.

Yes.

We're we're actually going to um, yes, that is correct in the way you're interpreting the sort of the XY axis here.

And what we'll do um as a revision of this for the next cycle is we're actually the next time we ask departments to report projected timeline, we're going to break it out into quarters and get very specific.

You know, we're gonna look at, you know, start tracking and monitoring performance progress on a quarterly basis.

So 2027 could be the first half of 2027, right?

Or it could be the second half.

So we'll try to get a little more specific and and even go uh into the year 2028 and see where that where they land if if anything is going beyond 27.

Okay, fantastic.

Thank you.

My next question is slide 14 summary insights for the FAB committee.

Point number three.

You talked about the one blocked recommendation, and the item is uh calling for the creation of big business analyst type positions.

And I was delighted to see help resolve some of the C V 360 issues, because I believe that's been a challenge for my office, and I understand other departments and district offices as well.

Are we looking for two positions, three positions, or is all of that TBD?

Um CO Williams, did you?

If it's if it's one of the things that we could be determined, I understand.

I just know that some of the CV C V 360 problems have been incredibly challenging, and I'm glad to see that it appears that has been recognized.

Yes.

Yes.

Um the question specifically is are we going to add funding and staffing?

Well, it states here on point three that the blocked item calls for creating business analyst type positions to help resolve C V 360 support finance users and service liaison with DOIT.

I'm just trying to get an idea.

Um that that sounds like an awful lot of work.

Right.

I would hope there'd be more than maybe two or three positions that really focused on C V 360.

So where we are now with all of this, and and uh Ms.

CISA and I have had this conversation where we will be coming into the conversations with the departments to see, you know, kind of our assessment on their responses thus far.

In some instances, we may agree 100%.

Uh in some instances, that may mean a an addition of positions or or new uh funding.

But in some instances, it may be reclassifying vacant positions.

It may be re uh you know, changing how we do things, our practices and such.

So I think we're at the stage now where uh Ms.

CISA and her team have gathered the information departments and provided initial responses, and together we're gonna work to see what is our best best path forward.

So I I could not, as I stand here to say today, say, yes, we're going to increase staffing or something like that.

And when um in the timeline, are we hoping this item will be addressed?

This year, 2027 plus.

Oh, absolutely.

Well, we will have a path forward probably in the next after our next meeting or that one blocked item.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yield back.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

Yes.

Thank you, and thank you again for the amazing presentation as always.

Um I brought this item up or comment up during the presentation with PWI in this uh idea that we consider these items that are blocked due to funding as we're doing our mid year budget and 2027 budget.

So if we can work, I know you're meeting with the departments in April.

If we can get push them to get some more clarification and to quantify those funding needs, that would help us make sure that we're making these considerations for the funding requirements as we're working on our mid year or 2027 budget.

And then, Mr.

Chair, I don't know if we consider since it is funding and we're fab, do we look at all the funding requirements across the board?

Do we have each committee consider their funding requirements and then bring us recommended?

Like I don't I'll leave that to your discretion as the chair, but I think that would be impactful as our part of this process to make sure we're listening and trying to it um put these funding items in our budget consideration.

That's all I yield.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Um thank you, Ms.

CISA, for the um update.

Um I know this is like you said, it's a work in progress, and you know, you hope to have progress in stages, and it does take a long time to uh to do this because it is very comprehensive.

A couple things that um I'd like us to maybe hone in on over the next few months to see if we can can make some progress from some that you've recommended, some that appear they might be stalled, and that's a little bit to your point, Commissioner Johnson, is just if there's some things in here that the committee members feel should be a priority, then let's start talking about it if funding is an issue number one, uh, but then recognizing that some of it is operational and is under the purview of the CEO, so we could just uh you know provide support or a sounding board for some of these things.

So a couple that I'll just highlight here, um OMB R200.

Um so this is actually what we have been talking about about moving up the completion of the budget process by November 1st.

And you know, we know that's a charter change.

Um I'm still wondering out loud for the law department about you know what if we if we there are things that we can change via home rule that would help us with these processes um moving forward with some of those changes versus waiting for the perfect document to all come together to do at as one referendum uh because it appears we might not make the deadline to call a referendum for an organizational act change.

Um so I would love it if if on some of these items, and I don't know if the budget is one of them.

To me, it seems like changing a date of when a budget is required wouldn't be a referendum uh change.

And so it appears that most everyone we've talked to up here seems to think that makes sense.

So if we can move forward with that, I would say let's let's let's prioritize it.

But maybe um attorney Welch, if we could just get a some guidance from the law department about whether changing the budget date is a referendum.

Okay.

Um next one was R201, which I think is really interesting because it actually might solve the other one that we were just talking about.

So it says the county should explore methods to involve county commissioners in the operational budget development process at some point prior to the CEO's formal presentation of the recommended budget.

So literally what we've been talking about.

Potential methods of increasing county commissioner involvement in the operational budget development process include requesting that the BOC pass an official budget priority resolution at some point early in the budget development process, and they cite City of Atlanta as an example, or by inviting county commissioners to participate in one or more of the strategic budget planning sessions held near the start of the budgeting process.

So again, you know, this that this and of itself commissioners, such as like having the constitutionals come in earlier, um, having each of the committees go through some um budget themes and things that they would like to see in the CEO's budget and start those hearings and those meetings in the fall ahead of the budget process.

So either one of those could be the solution.

Um but I do like the fact that City of Atlanta and maybe other jurisdictions do this as well, where um the legislative branch either is sort of side by side working in that strategic budget discussion and planning, or simply by active resolution, you know, indicate here's where our priorities are, and that might help sort of ensure that what comes out of the CEO's budget December 15th is mostly aligned with what we are expecting, and that might actually um speed up the adoption.

So that's R201.

Um under purchasing and contracting, I do agree with Commissioner Long Spears.

I would like there to be some emphasis and priority put on CB360.

And um, I mean, it looked like there was a couple things within that, whether it's um I guess having additional support staff to help with C3 CB360, um, says implementation requires training.

So that looks like it could be a cost or at least a third-party assessment.

So if we're using three C V 360 and that's like our system, um having everyone up to speed and trained on it and knowing how to use it makes sense to me.

The one thing I was curious about, Zach, and this is PCTR 238.

The department should establish a separate contract maintenance division to reduce some of the workload of the three procurement teams and to create separation between the purchasing function and contract management function.

And it says not feasible slash rejected, but in the I think in your analysis, Ms.

CSA, the it's you have pros and cons.

And so um I'm interested to dissect those pros and cons a little more detailed because I uh I'm I'm picking up that there's aspects of the having a team follow a contract and procurement from the very beginning to the very end.

Um but then just wondering like this idea of a sort of a comp contract maintenance division just to kind of follow what's already been done and make it a little bit more flexible.

And so I'm just I'm trying to understand.

Yeah, is that a big change or is that just something that we can it I mean it sounds like it could be a small change, but it did say not feasible rejected, so would love to um if we can maybe not not today, but you know, between now and the next meeting dive a little bit deeper into this one.

And and part of it is because I do think that sometimes like for some of the commissioner items, it does seem like you know, we're we're having to kind of bird dog um kind of getting contracts that I think we approve at the board of commissioners, but I guess in essence they're our office contracts, um, but we have to engage with team A B and C, I guess.

Sure.

And just maybe even at the very least, some not saying special attention, but just making sure that the commissioners contracts and that process has a way to kind of be efficient and stay on it so that nothing kind of drags out for months where someone might not get paid while they're you know doing services for us.

And if I could uh, Mr.

Chair, just real quickly, I want to mention or remind the committee that uh about uh I'm gonna say June time frame, something like that.

We brought on board in IGP, National Institute of Government Procurement to do an assessment and so forth of the procurement department.

Um I look forward to um discussing that in Fab, uh, wherein we will take into account recommendations like this and many others and kind of talk through what we feel is going to give us the optimum procurement system.

Okay.

Okay, so what the work that the momentum firm is doing will support will feed in into the all designed to do the same thing, which is strong.

Okay, good.

So there's going to be a little bit more honing in on those issues.

Okay.

And then the only other thing that I flag that seemed like to me might be the easy wins, Ms.

C say, is the R244 purchasing contracting should work with DOI2 to develop a process to automatically email the end user department a form for vendor evaluation each quarter.

The form should be auto-filled with the award number, contract vendor, period of performance and scope.

These should be maintained in a database for use and more comprehensively evaluating prior vendor contract performance.

I mean, we have the full suite of Microsoft software.

I know for a fact that they have forms and templates.

I mean, there's there's a a suite tool option for everything these days.

So simply setting up a I can't remember the IT definition of it, but it's sort of like it's a it's like a decision tree that if it's just built into the system, yep, all the contracts under this department will just basically be sent that form automatically.

So it really is just a reminder for them, hey, we've already basically fill in all the gaps, we just need you to actually, you know, to type out a couple comments, right?

How they're doing, things are going great, things aren't going so great.

And then that way we can, you know, as it says here, I think in the I guess it was Maldon Genius that wrote this, um, know how our vendors are performing.

I think that makes sense.

So hopefully this is not started, but it seems like that one should be pretty straightforward.

But is there any is there any resistance?

Uh R244, a PCT R244.

Okay.

Yeah, but as we'll check in on that.

I don't know if that's something, I don't know.

I don't know all the IT back end stuff, but I thought maybe that one to me like made a lot of sense and it could be automated.

I know there's a ton of contracts, so obviously automating it would make a lot of sense.

And I mean, if it's not every quarter, maybe it's at least twice a year.

You know, I don't know.

Um I mean, uh Director Butler, do you how is the are contracts like how do you how do y'all currently how do y'all currently evaluate vendors in process during the contract period now?

Is it like at the end of the contract?

Is it like halfway?

Just curious if you have any any thoughts on that.

Sorry, Commissioner.

Um so our preference is throughout the life of the contract.

Um, but that's difficult for the user departments to do.

So at minimum, we've been asking for at least quarter or at the conclusion.

Okay.

Either every quarter or at the conclusion.

Yes.

Okay.

We would love as it's progressing, whether good or bad, we want to see all of that.

But is the reticence that it's just like takes time to fill out paperwork?

Um I'm making assumptions, but I can see how if you're in the business of doing whatever it is that you're doing and you know, there's nothing that's at issue with the vendor, you don't really care to do an evaluation.

But now when things become a problem, well now you're gonna do one because we have drilled into them.

We can't really help you if we don't know that something's going on.

So you need to help us.

And also, I'd be I think it's good, and I'm looking at attorney Welch here and Attorney Phillips, uh well, I can't see attorney Phillips, that you are.

Um that you know, document documentation is really important.

Exactly.

So if we document that work wasn't done up to standards or wasn't done, you know, that is really important if there's ever like a a challenge of oh, you said you did this and you didn't, and we you know, we'd have it have it documented basically.

Right.

It's possible that's already happening maybe informally or on a sort of thing.

I mean, there's already a a process, but you may not see this in whatever you're looking at, but we we don't oppose having an automation process for it.

Yeah.

What what we oppose is that we manually send out emails to people.

Gotcha.

Because we don't have the bandwidth to do that throughout the life of the of the contractor at the end.

So we we urge the user departments to please track your contracts, track your vendor performance because you're engaging with them every day.

And you know, we want the positive and the negative because we use that in evaluation.

Yeah, and I mean I think that would help us out as well, you know, because sometimes when um we get change orders or contract extensions, you know, it depends on the contract, right?

Like, you know, we m someone might say, well, how's it going?

or you know, are why are we renewing this contract or you know, exercising the option to renew well because they got good scores, right?

And I think sometimes the answer has been more anecdotal.

Yeah, if we think they're doing good job, we'll keep it going.

But maybe having that documentation would would be helpful, you know, for the whole procurement process in general.

Yeah.

Anything to make it easier on the customers.

So we kind of thought through that as we responded to the different things.

We don't want to add to already heavy processes.

The the goal is to reduce some of these levels.

Um, but we don't want to make it so cumbersome that no one wants to participate in anything.

Okay.

Does it make sense for there to be um sort of a for a contract amount threshold?

So these some of the smaller contracts that maybe you know are just simply, you know, they're like we're just like buying some goods or something, but uh it's more like performance of an HVAC repair or a road paving contract.

Like that's that's what we're trying to evaluate, right?

Like actual services.

Uh we're evaluating everything.

So some user departments have been, you know, ramping up their submission of how great their vendor has been.

We've been seeing nines and and eights, and then we've been receiving threes.

So you have to manually send them those forms.

The user department, we have it posted on our PNC website.

Actually, no, the in-de-cab PNC website.

Okay.

So the user departments can access that on their own and submit that to uh particular inbox, and then it's just tracked, manually tracked, but it's tracked nonetheless.

Gotcha, okay.

Zach, is it possible?

And I see our IT director back there.

Um, is it possible that IT could just look at that particular recommendation?

Because it says not started, but it sounds like that would be helpful to everyone that has to do that.

And if it means saving some time and making it a little more automated, maybe that would that would help the departments.

But maybe we could uh if it's possible, could we between now and when Miss CSA comes back, maybe that could potentially go from not started to complete it on it.

Okay, great.

All right.

Um that exhausts my questions.

Any other questions, comments?

Okay.

Um but did y'all like the idea of starting a budget um I think we all agree the budget's process earlier potentially either.

We've definitely been saying that.

Yeah, um, but look, let's look at the um let's look at the way Atlanta does it um as the example uh because it looks like they're passing an actual resolution on budget priorities, um, which maybe that could be one way that we can sort of just you know jumpstart that process.

Okay, we'll we'll research that a little more.

Okay, great.

Anything else, Missy thing?

That's all for now.

I'll see you all next quarter.

All right, see you.

Oh, actually in the next committee.

But well, yeah, see you all next quarter.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, very good.

Okay, let's go back up to the status updates.

We have financial statements, Director Diane McNabb.

All right, we're getting back into the financial statement swing.

Haven't done these in a while.

Yes.

We're excited.

And what I've got today, you know, I told you that we weren't scheduled to fully close until April 1st, but I was gonna try to bring you something today.

And what I've got today is the enterprise finan uh operating statements.

And so I wanted to review those with you.

The next time around, I'll bring the governmental funds.

Okay.

Now the first one you see is uh watershed management.

And I've highlighted a couple of things I thought you might be particularly interested in.

The uh revenues are currently under budget, but we haven't finished all the revenue accruals.

I can't say yet whether it'll be whether the accrual be as high as getting it up to budget, but I do want to point out that uh the revenue is higher than it was last year already without any accruals.

The the comparison to the prior year would be the final of the prior year.

So to the extent that we we have accruals, that's gonna make it that much better than the prior year.

And then the other uh budgeted line item, you can see that the expenses are only 63 percent of budget in total.

That's because of purchased and contract services, which you can see was under budget by seven million dollars.

And that's a uh line item that's particularly difficult to budget with accuracy because it generally carries over from year to year.

Um our contracted services and the projects that they're working on, uh we we don't generally know exactly how much is gonna how fast it's gonna go.

We don't generally know exactly how much is gonna how fast it's gonna go.

And so the amount budgeted will cover the full project.

And so and you'll see how that compares to sanitation.

And then the other costs in the budgetary line item, you see that's way under budget.

That's because the budgetary line item includes what we want our reserves to be at the end of the year.

So that one always comes in uh well, we hope less than the what was budgeted.

Okay.

And you can see everything else is pretty much in line.

Capital outlays was slightly over budget.

Capital outlays occur in multiple funds in watershed.

And so sometimes it may a little bit more may go in this fund versus another fund, but they still are not over budget in total.

And that's what the departments are required to be is within budget in total, not on individual line items.

But we do we when we're evaluating it and reviewing financials, we look at it on a line item basis naturally.

Okay.

All right, any questions on that?

And Commissioner Johnson?

The debt services is a lot higher.

What is attributing to that one?

We've got new bond new debt that is coming online.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

Are you because of all the debt, you know, the Wi Fi a debt and the GIFA debt and then the bonds that we've been issuing for the capital projects?

Got it.

So I would expect it's going to continue to go up.

Okay.

The next one is sanitation.

And again, you can see that sanitation is slight is slightly below budget and slightly below the prior year.

But again, that has to do with accruals.

We uh didn't have a rate increase or anything, so we really didn't expect a significant increase in the revenues.

Um, but uh I do expect it to at least get hopefully it will be above last year by the time we get done with our accruals.

Then you can see that the line items again are the two that we highlight are purchase services and other costs.

Purchase services, you can see theirs is much closer to what the original budget is.

So they've been progressing within this past year more further on those projected services.

It doesn't mean that the other department is behind by any means.

It just means when they plan to do the work varies.

And then on other costs, that just again the difference is compared very comparable from last year to this year, but again, the budgeted number appears real high because that's where our budgeted our reserve budget is.

Okay.

Any questions on that one?

Yes.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

For the other costs, I understand that there is reserves, so does that mean that we have budgeted a large amount of reserves for the sanitation fund?

Well, it's that's a big difference.

It would mean that we were hoping to have a three and a half million dollar reserve.

Okay.

Understood.

To add to our reserves.

Am I speaking right?

Yeah.

To add, I just want to verify that with TJ.

That is what we budgeted to add to the reserves.

To the reserves.

Okay.

Thank you.

And as you can see that the um without the accruals, we lost $10 million in sanitation last year.

Which was expected.

You can see that the budgeted loss was six million dollars.

Okay.

Commissioner, or Commissioner Johnson.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, airport operating is next.

Hold on.

If you I'm sorry, that's okay, no problem.

Um, first of all, I might need stronger glasses.

So I'm wondering if you could email this to me, please.

Sure.

And if I have any questions, may I follow up through email?

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

Um I'll try to get them printed a little bit bigger because Neil, it is bothering my eyes too.

I've been leaning in trying to see them, so I've missed part of your conversation trying to read through the numbers.

Um, forgive me if you already addressed this, but the net position beginning, and you look at the percent actual to current budget of 229.61 percent.

Could you explain that again?

Those percentages are irrelevant.

They just appear there.

The percentages that are relevant are the ones up next to the line actual budgeted line items.

Okay, so the far right column, is that what you're saying?

Those to the Note that the uh middle column, the third from the right, that column is the current year expenditures compared to the budget.

Okay, so the third from the right are all correct except for in the change in net position, net position beginning, and net net position ending.

Is that right?

Yes, yes.

Okay, so I'll run at the bottom.

Okay.

The percentages are correct.

It's just that the percentages don't tell you anything.

They're not intended to uh give you an indication of something one way or another.

The miscellaneous revenue and increase of 642 percent, again, apologies if you address that already.

No, I haven't.

I I that I can I can uh check into that for you.

That looks a little large.

I'm just curious.

Oh.

You see what I'm seeing?

Because they because they they had only budgeted 20,000.

Right, right.

Is that what you're doing?

Pardon me?

Was that just an oversight?

No, I don't think so.

They just um it it's just a a revenue source that you can't necessarily predict and count on.

Understood.

Special pickups or something like that.

And so we try not to overestimate it.

Okay.

All right.

Well, in the interest of time, I'll just hold any other questions, but uh I will certainly be paying attention to that column.

Thank you.

Oh, well, please feel free to reach out and ask me any questions about this.

I love financial statements.

Let's let's stay on stay on this for one quick second.

The um because I think you uh what you said was very important.

Um the the loss, the negative.

So can you explain the net position beginning?

So that's negative 13 million.

So that's for three pieces.

Okay.

It's between a company's retained earnings and our fund balance?

Sort of in old definitions, counting standards have ch been revised and changed a bit.

But that's sort of the beginning fund balance and the ending fund balance if you're accustomed to beginning net assets and ending net assets.

And so how should we treat that negative?

Is are we trying to balance that negative at some point in the future, or do we just have to accept it as a loss?

Well, I the part we need to recover it eventually.

It's not something that we feel like we've got to recover immediately, because there's two big liability numbers that are on the balance sheet of the sanitation fund.

They have a big unfunded pension liability.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

So what we what's been and then we have a big um uh post-closure liability, post-closure cost liability.

We're required to accrue as we use the landfill, we're required to accrue what it's gonna cost us in the future to close that section of the landfill that we have used this year.

Okay.

Okay.

But we won't have to actually fund it, pay the cash out until some future year when it's actually closed.

Right.

But Zach will be here.

Yeah.

So it while we have a uh big deficit here, much of that is attributable to the post-closure cost and the retirement cost.

But the thing that is important to remember about that is that we do have to eventually fund that.

So if we don't begin to catch up on these liabilities and begin to put the money aside, when we get to the point where the landfill is closed, we won't have another source of revenue to pay that liability.

Right.

I understand.

No, that's important.

Uh are you able to just in a separate document break out the pension liability versus the closure liability?

Sure.

Uh because I think those are two different policy questions.

Yes, and that's actually.

A lot of departments are have these unfunded pension liabilities because the whole pension is not 100 percent funded.

So that's just we're acknowledging that, but we also hope the stock market does really well and we have a bunch of new employees who are younger and healthier and live forever.

So you know, it might balance out by 2080 or something, right?

Maybe.

Maybe.

We're doing pretty good.

The healthier they stay, the longer they stay in the system.

Okay.

All right, touch.

Okay, but I think understanding the land the closure cost, uh, that's when seems because we have didn't we?

I thought we closed one of the cells two years ago.

And we have to do certain things when we close them, but it's not the full-blown cost, because we have to monitor methane, I think, forever.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then once the whole landfill gets closed, there that is a lot of the closure cost will be used at that point too.

So we use it as we go as we close individual cell.

Okay.

And then at it then of course we've got the whole big landfill that at some point is going to be and um and Zach maybe let me let me tag in here for a minute.

So when it comes to the unfunded liability you know the unfunded portions but then what what are we trying to accomplish in this year's budget which is the the operating expenses so ideally we would be putting aside money for the pension and the closure but what's the the delta gap on just running the sanitation department just day to day this year.

So how short are we going to be is that the long and yeah because I think we we didn't we we built into the budget an expected rate increase.

I mean that's so and is the is the goal there to make up for more of these negatives or is it are we focusing mostly on just the actual day-to-day operations?

And to start I believe addressing some of the negatives but it's going to take a number of years to get back into balance so what we will be bringing forward is a multi-year rate increase.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Well um if it's possible just break those out of what we're trying to what percentage we're trying to be able to show the way over five years how we will over five years okay eat into some of these deficits.

Okay.

And I assume you'll be presenting that at PWIS Okay.

So Mr PWI chair we're just going over the uh sanitation so just heads up it's coming your way.

Um okay any other questions comments on the sanitation fund.

Okay great.

All right next one airport Okay's revenue is uh is miscellaneous revenue for us.

And you can see that that has declined over last year and is short of budget again we will have some uh accruals that will bring that up and then again the same two line items it's interesting how we're consistent from one fund to another the purchase contract services very comparable to the prior year less than budget I'm sure that's because they have ongoing projects that they may have hired professionals for that didn't get uh that not as much of it got started last year as maybe used this year.

And then the other costs again very comparable from year to year.

I'm not sure that a negative means that they've reversed something out from last year.

And we do have still a few accruals on the expenditure side that we expect to see so I imagine that negative will go away even though it's a very small one.

And that also had the uh other in other costs are reserved for fund balance.

And you can see that we had um revenues in excess of expenses of 2.7 million.

So our net assets increase from 18 point two million to 2.9 million 20 point nine million.

But that's also because it's possible the purchase contract services hasn't fully been expended so it might go down to the expenditures lapse at the end of the year.

So whatever they didn't do last year had to be rebudgeted this year.

Rebudgeted okay gotcha.

Okay.

But what I'm saying is like we had we we ended with more in the fund balance but we're also budgeted 2.2 million in contract services but only show 800 eleven thousand so that might that might come into this year.

Right, okay.

But I I still think that um you know we try to not just we don't carry over well I'm I don't want to speak for for TJ but we don't generally carry over budget because something was left over in the prior year.

That's not how governmental budgeting is supposed to work.

It's supposed to lapse at the end of the year.

Yes we know okay.

Have you not seen the December the last December meeting we don't give them what they were getting for this year and what they didn't spend last year.

They only get what they are going to be spending this year.

Right except for commissioners right Zach?

And then uh will the uh will airport landing fees be under miscellaneous revenue that's basically everything for miscellaneous miscellaneous revenue is a group of accounts.

Okay.

So I think it would go in there as well.

Okay.

And we can always show you what the breakdown of those that's available and why don't we just um if you don't mind since that since that's a huge that's most of the money, um maybe just the next report, just um do the sub categories just for just to know.

That's fine.

And once we finish our um dashboards, you'll be able to drill down to open go out there.

Well, this is our C V 360 dashboard that we're working on.

Okay.

And you'll be able to drill down and you may be able to do it with open gov too.

Um, but you should be able to like click on that number and see what the detail is.

Oh, interesting.

Is that like open checkbook kind of thing?

Yeah, but a lot more complicated.

Okay.

Because you know, we have many, many funds.

We have thousands of account numbers.

Okay, so you need a key.

So if you know, you know.

All right, anything else on airport?

Quick question, Commissioner Long Spears?

Thank you very much.

I know we're running out of time, so I'll be brief.

Under expenses for the purchased and contracted services, it looks like about 11,000 down from last year.

Any idea why?

Um I'm not sure what they did last year that we didn't do this year.

Again, those projects generally go across year ends, and so one year may be up, the next year may be less, and the next year may be higher.

That would explain that.

All right, thank you.

All right, Len, it's like stormwater is the last one.

Okay.

Now you see that revenue is up, but it's still slightly under budget.

That's going to be some accruals.

And those accruals will be less than the accruals that we see, for example, in the general fund.

These this is tax funded.

Storm funding.

Um so that's um and this particular tax is has a high collection rate.

So I expect that accrual to to send it back up.

Then contracted and purchased services again, went up slightly from year to year, but again, lower than what was expected.

Okay.

And I think were y'all were we budgeting an increase in the fund balance?

Is that yes?

Am I reading that right?

And you see that it did.

It did.

If you go all the way down, our revenues exceeded expenditures by $60 million.

And our beginning fund balance was $11.8 million or net assets and our ending net assets are 17.8 million.

Okay.

But we were budgeting negative 10 million.

So does that just mean projects just didn't have to be?

That was cut it, yeah.

Basically it was using up the rest of the funds in um capital, I think.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Any questions, comments on stormwater management, Commissioner Long Bears.

Um again, I will be brief.

Um the net position beginning this year, the year to date actual is 11 million seven hundred and ninety-two thousand.

The net position ending is 17,841,000.

So roughly six million dollar difference.

Last year it went from 107 to 119, so about a 1.2 million dollar difference.

Do we know why the revenues were slightly higher.

If you if you go up to the rev total revenue number.

Slightly by three.

Yeah, by three.

And then if you go down to expenditures, they were only up by a million.

But then the biggest difference is in other financing uses.

Uh oh, yeah, okay.

And I think that's probably was transferred for capital projects.

Okay.

So from the year to date of 5.5 million there this year is 1 point million.

And you said that's a real that is due to a transfer of capital projects?

I'll look into that one.

Let me let me double check that.

Okay.

Okay.

TJ, do you want to say something?

Go ahead.

All right.

So uh yes.

Diane is correct that that is a uh transfer that's occurring.

So it's not reflected here, but it is.

I actually we um submitted that uh journal entry yesterday.

Oh, okay.

So it'll be a part of the adjustment period for 2025.

Oh, good, thank you.

All right.

I didn't realize that was coming through.

Did yesterday.

Good time.

Thank you so much.

That uh concludes my questions yield back.

All right, seeing no other questions on this.

Um all right, thank you, Director McNabb.

Okay.

And we'll um then I'll have you coming back for the others, I think in the is it May or June?

We'll figure it out, but every quarter, right?

Yes, but I need to I want to bring governmental funds next.

Oh, okay.

You want to just okay, so we'll do that to the next meeting.

Okay.

May I ask a question?

Mr.

Fab Chair?

Yeah, go ahead.

And uh Diane, if you wouldn't mind staying there, is that how you're wanting to do it moving forward, or you just want to do it that way because we're just getting started with the quarterly reports.

I think that what we talked about was um in so at the end of the first quarter, which would be like March 31st, we'll present the 1231.

At the end of June, the second quarter, we'll present the March 31st financials.

And so we'll make sense, of course.

Did you have a chance to look at the org act where we talked about it the last fee meet fab meeting where it really does spell out the requirements for public access and when they should occur?

And I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance.

Okay, all right.

You might want to take a look at it.

Yeah, I will.

Committee members now might want to look at it as well as a refresher.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Yield back.

Yeah, and if it's I mean, since we since uh I asked the law department to look at that budget date change, I presuming that um changing how things are posted shouldn't be a referendum, also, but maybe just add that to the question for org act changes.

I double checked the memorandum that we sent in December on the org act and we address the question of the date change.

We do not believe that that is a powers question.

Okay, if that's the only thing that you're changing, the date.

There are a number of other changes recommended in the budget section, but simply changing the date would not affect the powers.

Okay, and then um in terms of this other one about just how the financials are presented in terms of like posting on the bulletin board.

Did we look at that on the your memo?

Probably not like a digital bill.

Yeah, I'll double check.

I mean that it seemed like a small change that maybe shouldn't be too much.

We'll double check that piece.

Okay, all right.

That's yeah, just wanted to we'll just clear that up because I don't know where the county bulletin board is.

And get the dates fixed.

Okay.

Yes, the dates, exactly.

Okay.

Um all right, let's uh actually jump over to item zero five zero four, which is the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of tax anticipation notes uh for 2026 due December 15, 2026, in the aggregate permissive amount of blank to blank name of winning bidder for the purchase of obtaining a temporary loan to PAKES current expenses during the 2026 calendar year and I see um the lease.

Yes, we have our financial advisor from PFM here.

Yes, welcome to the mail, and she's going to go over the presentation with you.

Okay, great.

You can't make it a little quicker than you.

I will make it very quick.

Yes, good afternoon.

Is it up on the thing?

Might be soon.

He's getting it out.

Okay.

Well, hi, Elisa Mellon with PFM Financial Advisors.

We serve as financial advisor to the county.

It's been a few months since I've seen y'all, so hi.

Um here today to present on the all's annual tax anticipation notes that you issue every year.

Just a quick background on what is a TAN.

It's a short-term tax exempt borrowing that's issued by local governments to help them kind of wage the gap in between the receipt of tax revenues and expenditures.

Um there are Georgia law restrictions and federal law restrictions on how much you can borrow, and it is due by the end of this year.

If you have any questions on those restrictions, let me know.

Um for the sake of moving quickly, we'll not go through those.

But why does the cab specifically need a TAN?

Um, as you know, the bulk of your operating um revenues come from property taxes and they were received one time a year through September through November.

Um, but you obviously have expenditures every single year.

So as you can see in this graph, um expenditures exceed revenues in almost every month except for those months where you are getting those tax receipts.

So those tax receipts have to last you from September all the way through the next October.

I mean, through the next August when you before you start receiving this next um set of revenues.

So this causes depletion in the county's cash balance over the years, so it causes the need to borrow kind of that short-term debt to get you through those few months where you're having those negative cash balances.

Um based on the 2026 cash flows that we have seen thus far, the maximum deficit that we were looking at is about near 150 million.

Um and that's based on those federal requirements on the previous page.

This is just a quick overview of when we're gonna come to you, the timeline for the TANS.

So just given kind of how the like Cal and Fab and full board meetings line up, you may see some overlap in documents.

The today you're kind of reviewing the preliminary resolution, which will allow us to go out and take bids on the um TANS, and then we and that will be approved at the full board meeting on April 14th.

And then we will come back to you on April 28th with a result of those bids and recommend a winning bidder, the interest rate, and everything at that point.

So you will have two approvals here.

It will be the April 14th.

And then the final approval of the final rate and bidder on April 28th, and then we'll close shortly after.

Okay, so we're not we're not doing the thing we did last time on the other bond.

This is going to be a week delay or a four-day delay.

I think the last bond we did at the water bond we had to do it that morning.

That's because that's because we're doing a competitive private placement.

We do a competitive sale, but we don't get ratings, we don't do use a prospectus document or an official statement.

Um and so the bit the banks that we receive bids from are willing to hold their bid firm for several days, which gives us you know gives y'all and us a little more breathing room.

Okay.

So I think the way we have it, and I I think April 24th is a Friday, but do not quote me on that.

But I think we have bids coming due Friday, and then we'll come to you Tuesday with final and we'll work through the documents and work through everything um over the course of Friday afternoon and Monday.

Um but again with a public sale, we do have to have the sale that morning and then come to y'all immediately after.

So that's a much quicker turnaround.

And that is why that's the difference here.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Um and then here is just kind of where y'all have been over the past 23, almost 24 years.

Um issuing TANS for the majority of them.

The two things I kind of want to highlight here is both the change in the borrowing amount and also the change in the coupon or interest rates.

Those interest rates are going to fluctuate as the market rates fluctuate.

Um, they're fluctuating a lot today.

So let's hopefully they calm down in the next couple weeks.

But that's also the benefit of going to banks, it's a little more stable than being out in the public market.

Um so I just want to kind of highlight the fluctuation in rates there.

We have gone down in rates since last year.

But again, it's very volatile today, so that could change in the course of the next month.

Um the other thing I wanted to highlight here is how the borrowing amount has changed.

So in 2012, we are at 157 million down to about 115 million if you're looking at the 2025 A's from last year.

So that that borrowing amount is going to change as your reserves change.

As you build up reserves, that borrowing amount is going to go down.

So you'll see in 2018 you only had to borrow about 44 million, and then there were two years where you did not have to borrow any.

Um but once we draw on those reserves, that borrowing amount goes back because you kind of have less money to fund that gap in between expenses and receipts.

Okay.

So that is really all I had for y'all today.

I flew through that save time, but happy to answer any questions.

Yes.

Um what is the anticipated TAN loan this year?

150 million.

150 million.

Uh huh.

As the budget increases, um, the amount of the TANS increases as well.

And then as our reserves, as our budget increases, but our reserve don't.

Then that budget has to cover the increase in the budget has to go directly into the TAN amount.

The general fund budget.

Not oper.

All governmental funds.

All government funds.

But we're not including the um the housing budget costs, right?

Because that's the that wouldn't be a TAN.

Because that'd be a separate uh debt service, wouldn't it?

Uh not the operating costs.

Capital cost would be a separate bond issue.

So if we were building housing, that would be a capital expenditure that would be house.

Yes.

But the operations of the programs, whatever those programs are, whether it's rental assistance, down payment assistance, those are expenditures that have to come out of the current budget.

And TJ, we may be able to do that.

Yeah, I just thought the part of the housing bond was.

Where the housing budget is this year?

Yeah, I thought how the part of the housing bond was to gain access to money through that bond.

Just for the capital projects, we we can't borrow for the operating expenses.

Well, but do we know or so?

What are the operating expenses?

I mean, it seems like it would take a while to get those programs up and running, wouldn't it?

So the the way that we structured it this year, there's 12 million dollars that was approved in the budget with the intent that there will be a uh a bond issuance at some point in that would cover the debt service.

But we don't think that you know, based on the timing of when the budget was approved and when the debt is gonna be issued, that we will really be using the the bond funding uh this year.

So that's we won't have any debt service due this year, likely.

And so that's gonna allow for some of that funding that's in this year's budget to be used directly for programs and other operating costs.

I see.

Okay.

So you are expensive.

So you do need the money through the TAN.

Potentially, yes.

It's part of the budget, and it's not necessarily just for the bond issuance.

Okay.

So basically the amount is so much larger because the budget is a lot larger this year.

Okay.

And we didn't increase our reserves any, right?

Uh we did somewhat, but I mean it's it's a number of factors.

I mean, it's the size of the budget, it's where the the reserves are.

So that's a lot larger than that's a lot larger than the last several years.

So I'm just trying to make sure we're not like over borrowing if we don't need to.

We have very strict internal revenue code that we have to follow in projecting our cash flows.

Oh, so you're just basing it on a formula.

So if you that first slide that I flew through and did not touch on it.

Um Georgia tax restrictions, which are much more linear, but the federal tax restrictions really they kind of define what is a cumulative cumulative cash deficit, and then they also give you a little bit of wiggle room there with that working capital reserve of five percent.

Um just because you obviously don't really know what the expenses are going to be throughout the end of the year, so they do give you a little bit of a buffer there.

But it's a very detailed calculation, bond council reviews it very thoroughly.

All right, well, that's why we hire you to run those numbers.

Any questions, comments from the commissioners?

Okay.

All right, so we'll just um hopefully this will be approved at the April 14th meeting, and then y'all will go to work and then you'll come back on April 28th.

April 28th.

Yes.

Okay.

Which is a BOC meeting.

All right.

You got your dates right.

Thank you.

So do we need to approve this out of committee today, though?

Yes, I believe so, right?

Zach, we need to approve this.

Yeah, so we'll look for a motion to motion to move to approve.

Um second.

Mr.

Chairman just put quick.

Any questions, comments?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this question, I guess is for Diane or TJ.

So if we're looking at a hundred and fifty million dollar TAN, what would we need to have in reserves going forward where we wouldn't have to have a a TAN such as the 150 million plus what we've got now?

We'd have to increase it by 150 million.

But there are governments who have Gwyneth doesn't issue TANS, for example.

That's ultimately my point is is is how many months reserve operations would we have to have to be able to cover the 150 million dollars?

I would say at least six months.

At least six months, okay.

And currently our policy says one month, and we're thinking about two months right now.

Up to two, okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, great questions.

I think the the CEO is pledged for a four-month reserve by the end of the first term.

So two more months due after that.

That will allow us to reduce the amount that we borrowed.

It will reduce that's a good point, too.

Yeah, and save the interest and the issuance costs.

There you go.

All right.

Like to hear that.

All right.

Um we'll have to get to these other items next time, committee members.

Um, we need a vote on that one though, Mr.

Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Um in favor, raise your hands say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye.

Motion curious.

All right.

Um okay, so we'll get to the CIP update um next meeting, and we'll pick up the other two items.

Uh this time I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Meeting adjourned.