I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Thank you. Well, good evening, supervisors, good evening staff, and good evening, loud, and I'd like to call the order of the March 13th, 2025, loud and county board. Good evening supervisors, good evening staff and good evening loud. And I'd like to call to order the March 13, 2025 loud and county board of supervisors budget work session. Board members, for this last work session, I want to stress the importance of this being the time for us to offer changes, additions and deletions to the budget. Board members should try to offer all desired amendments and ask questions you have during the work sessions. Please only offer motions that you intend to support so that we can be efficient with our limited time during each session. In addition, if you'd like to offer motions on items that do not appear in your proposed budget, please work a staff prior to the work session to assure your motion is accurate and accomplishes your attended result. When we get our final vote on April 1st, if we're not halftime, it would be able to make large scale changes to the budget during the meeting. And the vote on the budget could be delayed if there are substance changes that we're not discussed and voted upon during the work session. Supervisors, there are a lot of motions on this day and may be a couple of discussions. We could be here for a long time. I am going to beg you, this is me begging. Please, please, unless you think you absolutely have to say it, you know, thank you. Can everyone please drink me for the next religions? I'm going to to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all. Is this written on the line? Is she has she joined us virtually? here, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? I can hear you. I can. I'm presented to Virginia Co-section 2.2-3708.3. And the Board supervises rules of order. The Board supervises Brisbane. We requested to participate in this meeting by electronic communication. At physical core, the Board supervises this present in this president in the board room, and the board is asked to make arrangements for the board of supervisor Brickman to be heard by all persons in the board room. She has made this request within the required time frame, and the county attorney determined that her request meets the qualifications to participate remotely. The board recorded in his minutes that, by the Brisbane participate remotely from my home in sterling due to personal remotely. The board will record in his minutes that Mr. Byser-Brixman participate remotely from our home in Sterling due to personal reasons. Mr. Byser-Brixman, before I go to Ms. Burke on so we can do the toad board update, is my understanding that you'll be with us only for about an hour correct? Yes. Thank you for accommodating me this evening. I'm sorry. I said yes ma'am and thank you for accommodating me. Yeah, so and that's a good question. Thank you. Thank you for accommodating me this evening. I'm sorry. I said yes, ma'am, and thank you for accommodating me. Yeah, so, and that's my question. I, we did talk today, but between today and now, I think three or four more motions have hit this day is I, I do want to know what it, what it was you wanted to take part with discussion, want to take part of it. I can make sure that happened before you left. After Ms. Burke gives the tote board update, it is LCPS. Is that what you wanted to do or something else or what was your burning intent? I would just be interested, well I don't know any other motions that have come through since Supervisor Glass's motion, Supervisor Kirschner's motion. And my motion? Yeah, I gave you my motion now. Yeah, so I don't. Yeah, I think Supervisor Kirschner and Supervisor Takoni's motions will take a while. I might put it in the committee as a host. We can just talk these motions through and then figure out how to do that. So that's going to take a while. So it was my understanding earlier that you did want to see the LCPS discussion, correct? Yes, that's fine. Okay, all right. Ms. Burke, would you like to give us any updates on the top board or anything anything else? Just to summarize that the action, the straw votes the board has taken throughout the work sessions have resulted in 9.1 million dollars of changes from the County Administrators proposed budget. Should you choose to take all of those reductions through the real property tax rate? It would sit at 80 cents, which is a cent and a half below the homeowners equalized rate. that real property tax rate it would sit at 80 cents which is a cent and a half below the homeowners equalized rate. At that real property tax rate there's $455,000 available for allocation. Should you choose to keep the tax rates consistent with what was in the County Administrators proposed budget? So at 80 and a half cents and the personal property tax rates as proposed, you could choose to contribute more to the revenue stabilization fund. However, right now the board has taken no straw votes that affect the revenue stabilization fund. Rho 28 is just shown for illustrative purposes. Thank you, ma'am. Before I call up, Dr. Spence is Willoughby, and is Vice-Chaird Donahue here? Oh, there you are. Vice-Chaird Donahue. Loud and you can't see the audience probably, but if you could see the audience, every department head and some of their staff are here with us tonight. I'm gonna say this now, Because sometimes I say this at the end of the meeting and half the people are gone and we've argued and we're cranky and all those things. So let me say why we're still fresh. When I say, I don't believe there's a better county government staff than loud in county government staff, I'm not joking. And because I have been one in other counties that I'm very involved in the National Association of Counties and I see other counties doing things, I really think I have some facts by which to speak. County employees are public servants in every way. You might not get the emails, I mean I get to cut the ribbons or break grounds, but the service you all render is impeccable. And I know that many of you can take all of your skills, your talent, your passion, and your education to the private sector and probably make a good deal more money. But you choose to do this because you believe in public service. And your employees and the employees of the county choose to do this because they believe in public service. And so on behalf of this board, please go back to your staff and please express our deep appreciation for the work that they do every single day. We get to be in the paper, sometimes that's not that good, but we get to do that part, but you all are the ones that make this county tick, and by all subjective measures, we are of phenomenal county, if not the best in the country. So thank you to all of you, and thank you to your line staff. With the school board, please come up. I'm sorry, not the school board, the school administration, please come up. Well, no, and you're coming up too. And Ms. Midsdani, you're coming up as well. The motion is part of the wrap up motion at the end, but I didn't know if they had anything they wanted to add or if there were any questions for LCPS before we do the wrap up motion and they are part of the wrap up motion. Good evening and thank you for coming over. We do appreciate it. Dr. Spent, would you like to introduce the people who are wishing to table? And then if you have anything you'd like to add that we didn't talk about when we came to your house, we'd love to hear it. Thank you, Chair Randall. I appreciate that. Sitting to my left is School Board Vice Chair, Antony Hu. This is Mansfield since her greetings in her regrets that she couldn't be here. She's out of town, but we're capable representing the school board this evening with our vice chair. And then to her left is Sharon will be our chief finance officer. Nothing to add further than we appreciate the terrific conversation we had in our last joint session about this budget and our happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We've become an end-and-and as the at-large member of your board, I know how would a hard job that is to represent every single child in this county. So thank you so much. So, Vizier, do you have any questions for LCPS staff or vice-chair down in here? Ms. Rickson? Thank you, Madam Chair. If I might just take a minute. I was thinking, I spoke with you earlier today, thinking about making a motion about a question and answer to an LCS question that came today about school meals and debts that have been a purring for families in need, excuse me, in need. I spoke with my school board counterpart actually subsequently, and we agreed that the schools are also identifying and a little bit fearful that there may be, especially with what's happening on the national level, that there may be more need upcoming. But what we have decided, and without objection, I think that we'll be able to do this is to bring that topic to the joint committee to discuss how the county might further support should those needs surface in the upcoming months. Ms. Brickford, if you don't mind, I know what you're talking about because I know what you're talking about, but I don't think anyone that doesn't know what you're talking about has any idea what you just say. Can you feel a little more? In the question packet, I believe it was myself. I think it was me asked about school meal debt. And if we are still offering free meals like that we did during COVID, LCBS that money ran out in 2023 and then they did identify $160,000 meal debt in 2024. The schools have managed to be able to clear that debt, but it's my understanding from school board member that they have fears that this school meal debt might be a continuing problem that will be exacerbated by what's going on at the national level with the federal government. So I spoke also with by text with supervisor Glass and she does not have an objection to bringing this topic to joint school board so we can kind of flesh it out. I just wasn't, I didn't know enough tonight to make a motion because I see $400,000 sitting there but I think that we can work something out and have a fuller discussion about it at joint school board. Wonderful. Does that make sense? That did, that was, yeah, that was great. Thank you. Anybody else for LCPS? The only thing I have, and I think we don't know this yet, is we are getting a sense right now of what cuts might be made to the Department of Education. It is my understanding that the entire department was not working in the building yesterday, and now they were back at work today and that there could be a significant cut to the Department of Education. We don't know what that means for the federal money you all receive. We don't know what that would mean for the transfer if we were needed to make up that difference. We don't know any of those things yet. I'm going to ask that throughout the year and I know Dr. Spent you and Mr. Himmstree talk on a regular basis about these things. We don't just do budget, we don't start budget in March and finish in April. We start budget, it's almost an all year process. Ms. Donahue, you and I, it's going to be important to talk as the at large members of the school board and the county. And it's going to allow, I think, maybe more, a lot more things of, well, I won't say more substantive and more weighty, but maybe more substantive and more weighty will come to the joint committee to have those discussions as well. My only thought right now, Dr. Spence's, from what we understand, some of those, well, let me ask you like this, are any of your federal money earmarked in such a way? I mean, they're like this. When we send money, when we do a transfer, we do a transfer, and you've all spent how you believe is appropriate, we do a transfer. When you get federal money, is it the same thing, or do you have money that is earmarked for Kitchner's special needs? Do you have money that's earmarked for Head Start? Do you have money that's earmarked for ESL? And how does that work for LCPS? Or is it just the federal government, government gives you money, you do what you want to with it? How's that work over there? No, thank you for the question, Madam Chair. It is the former. It is earmarked specifically. Generally speaking, all the federal dollars come with a specific purpose. So for example, impact date is for military connected children and to support them title one dollars come in and to support schools which have a higher proportion of low income students Child nutrition funds as you know come to us to subsidize the free and reduced lunch program So each of the federal funds that we received generally have a specific purpose attached to them and So then if the funds come in and it's and it's directed if fun cuts are directed that purpose, you then have to cut that free and reduced lunch or you have to cut something and then it comes from the general fund or what would you do? Yeah, that's the question, that's the contingency conversation that we are having right now. We would either have to absorb that in the operating budget by making additional cuts to the operating budget or absorbing it within the operating budget or identify other sources of revenue. Okay, all right. Well, we will do, we would take up your budget in the final budget wrap up. I don't think there'd be any issues at all, not that not any that I have heard from this day. and if there were any issues and I haven't heard them yet, then somebody would be in big trouble because we're going to finish this tonight. So thank you all and thank you very much for what you do for our kids every single day. You guys do a magnificent job. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Supervisors, I actually ask come with the attorney to come back and talk to us. And I didn't mean to create a panic upon that ask. But I didn't, but I believe I did, but make a little bit of panic. With the comments, the attorney's office, please come to the table. The reason I asked the comments attorney to come back is because it felt like I couldn't be here on Monday and for that I apologize when we had the comments attorney. And it felt like what happened was more of a comment or an intermission than the whole story for me. So when I saw that the indictment were up, okay, well, you all see it. I'm sorry. There's one open right there. There is a scene. Oh, unless that's. Sorry. Can you all not give me much confidence right now? Because you're me. Not litigated. No, I know. I know. There we go. They're standing up.. No, I know. There we go. They're standing up. They're standing up. There we go. All right. When I hear that there's more indictments, I think you guys are doing the job being to do. When I heard there were more plea bargains, I didn't know what that meant. I know what plea bargain is obviously, but I didn't know what your plea bargaining. And so I'm not sure if more plea bargains mean what I was hoping they meant, which is for first time offenders, for nonviolent offenders, I am hoping that there are more people who are going to diversion programs. I am hoping there are more people who are going to the specialty court programs. I personally believe that we put the specialty court programs in for first time offenders. And I was hoping I would see more of that. So I didn't know what was happening in the plea bargaining. So that was my first question. My second question and one that was really, really important for me is I can imagine how frustrating it is. If you all think that there is somebody who probably should be given another type of diversion program, and it wasn't available. A lot of times when we're in the budget cycle, one thing we're also doing is trying to figure out what we should be asking for for the General Assembly for next year. And what we know is so many programs were cut at the General Assembly level. I didn't know and I still don't know what you all have at your disposal to four people with mental health issues for people that that I don't know what you have to work with. And so help me understand what you're working with so that we know when the time comes, what to ask for for the general assembly. So those are my questions. What do we work and look like and what do you need for the version programs? You got to your mic on, sir. There was an issue that came up this afternoon that two experts in the field have worked on Elizabeth and Nicole. I'm going to turn it over to them because part of this was an issue that really was not an issue, but I'm going to let them talk about that. So just very briefly, I made a comment in response to one of Y'all's questions about diversion programs. I know one would be very clear, the word diversion is a legal term of art, meaning it is a very specific program. So when I off-handed said I would like to robustly do this diversion like juvenile program now that we have lost some of our funding for our JCSU we no longer have as robust of a diversion program because of state funding. That was a misspeak on my part. This is we have identified county services it is an accountability program. So let me respond to say that our office is working with county services for a juvenile accountability program. It is not diversion. When you ask the question. I think that's so interesting because you say you said a legal term of my ears heard with the therapist ears. And the version is actually an appropriate term and for how I heard that. Yes, ma'am. And that's why I think when I responded the way I did, I was communicating to somebody who understood and unfortunately I got a little bit of a backflack about that. But to be clear, we as a team and thank you to Mr. Anderson for giving me the support to identify local services so we can fill that state gap. Now that we don't have as a bus of a technical diversion program, we are currently identifying county services so that we can refer children away from coming in the front door of a courthouse if there are those county services available, identifying that program and then figuring out a way to refer juvenile to that program obviously is a goal of mine. As far as other diversion like programs that we have we do also have specialty dockets. Our office robustly refers people to those specialty dockets. First of fence? Yes, first of fence. Anybody who will qualify within those dockets. Ultimately first defenders very typically are going to be eligible for a deferred finding. We are, there is a new statute 192298, colon two, whereby people are getting deferred findings. So somebody who is eligible for a deferred finding is very unlikely to say, hey, I want to sign up for this really robust and vigorous drug treatment program, they would rather take that for finding. So the people that we're finding in our specialty dockets are folks who have probably been through the process multiple times and this is really the treatment of last resort so that we are not funneling these people into the jail system. And I think for me that is my unrest because specialty dockets really shouldn't be the treatment of last resort because I mean I want them to very early on go through the very robust drug I understand your hands are tied to some degree which is really unfortunate because and you all know this The most dangerous thing is for a person who is using or doing these things to say things like... know this, the most dangerous thing is for a person who is using or doing these things to say things like, oh, I can do a bit, right? Or I can do this again or I walk the free. I mean, you don't want to have that. And in my opinion, especially when someone's using an operating vehicle, in my opinion, a vehicle is a delivery dangerous weapon when someone's under the influence. Yes, ma'am. So I, I, I wanted the, the, the, those courts to be in place for, for a first offender, but I understand that at this point, that's not even your option anymore, which is very unfortunate. So then how robustly are you using your specialty courts? So, our specialty courts, so we have two specialty courts in our general district court that is our veterans docket as well as our behavioral health docket and our circuit court is where we have our recovery treatment program. Each of those dockets have their own parameters, their own types of charges that can be accepted who are the candidates that they're looking for ultimately. They all have to be loud and county citizens and many times we have an international airport, we have the Leesburg premium outlet, we are on the corridor between West Virginia and Maryland so we have many people unfortunately coming to loud and county committing crimes who may be otherwise eligible for those dockets but are not eligible because they are not loud and county residents. The very first training I received when I started as a prosecutor in this office was a sit down with all of our specialty dockets to learn about what those parameters were. Mr. Anderson put on that training so that all of the new attorneys in our office understood what resources we had in our community and how we could direct our fellow accused citizens into those programs to avoid the act of jail time. We are doing that robustly. Those numbers fluctuate up and down at various times. Those are factors that maybe we have control over, but there are a lot of factors that we have no control over. We very recently met with our GDC judges because they are getting referrals from us and they're getting referrals from the Defense Council, but there are other active members in the community that they're not seeing the referrals from that they would like to increase those referrals to. So again this is a coordinated community response. We are trying to get everybody to buy in. You certainly have buy in from this table. Trying to get a broader buy in is what we're looking for. I think those are very important programs. We worked really hard to get them in place. And I don't want to see, I mean, I know Mr. Anderson worked hard to get them to the first time. And then they cut, and then boards after that took them away. My very first term, we put them back. And I don't want to see them go away again because they're not being used. They're gonna get used to it. Judge. Chair Randall. Sorry, I'm used to being in a courtroom. Chair Randall, they are gonna be used, and we would absolutely. I'm going to go away again because they're not being used. They're going to get used, Judge. Chair Randall, sorry, I'm used to being in a courtroom. Chair Randall, they are going to be used and we would absolutely ask for this board support. We are trying to put together a behavioral health docket in our J&D R corps. Amen. There is desperate need. We can show you the numbers. So whatever support you can give us, Mr. Anderson and I are meeting with our chief judge, Pamela Brooks. To pitch that April 16th, to pitch that to our general assembly. Any support that you can give us Mr. Anderson and I are meeting with our chief judge Pamela Brooks. To pitch that April 16th to pitch that to our general assembly. Any support that you can give us please. But certainly the support is here at the stable. Okay. All right. Does anyone else have any questions? Ms. Brick's been. No, ma'am. Thank you. Wonderful. Mr. Kersner. Yes, thank you. And thank you for coming back. I know the chair was making you sweat. So it's good. I don't really get to make purpose. I don't get to, I'd like to say I make prosecutor sweat as a defense attorney, but I don't think that's necessary, too. But this is one time the chair got to do it. Just a quick couple of questions to follow up on this. I know under the previous administration, we were not having, we increased a whole bunch of posts, I think, up to 50 in the drug court, circuit court drug court. Have we seen that grow at all? Have we been able to utilize that as much? So I will tell you we don't have the, or at least I did not bring the exact numbers in our drug court program. We have two attorneys who fully staff our drug court program every week on a weekly basis. I did that on a temporary basis when I first started. Again, our numbers in the drug court program will go up and down based on the charges that are coming in as well as somebody's success in the program. And so ultimately, but I can't tell you right this minute chair Kirschner, there are exactly 30 people. I got promoted. You're your honor and I'm chair. Sorry. But I, so I can't tell you that exact number, but I can't tell you that we are not only staffing the recovery treatment program absolutely, but we're actively referring people to that program. And it's not critical to our budget process, but I'd love to see what those numbers are because that'd be real helpful to kind of know. Because I think we're funding, or we have the ability up to 50. And so. That was actually the question I asked. Yeah. Did I miss that? I thought I was listening the whole time. Sorry. I missed it. I obviously was a judge. The powers that be that create the parameters. The powers that be that now. The powers that be that create the parameters of who is eligible for that program are not entirely sitting at this table. I understand. No, I appreciate that. The second question is, I know since Judge Welch has retired, how has the veterans' dog been operating? Part of one of the reasons we went and met with the judges very recently in the GDC was to make sure that we are getting more referrals into our veterans program. Our behavioral health docket is doing awesome. Okay. Numbers wise, our veterans docket is where we would like to see some improvement. Great, glad to hear it. Thank you. Okay. Miss Glass. Thank you Madam Chair. And Chair Kirschner? That's not even funny. That's not really that fun Unless you know you want to call me governor Randall if we can have a very good time with that Thank you for mentioning that and when you were talking about the the veterans docket. Do you all interact with other organizations to I'm thinking of nonprofits, churches, to bring folks in that may be able to be part, you know, be able to, you know, use the docket. So, supervisor glass, thank you so much for that. In fact, that was the precise conversation in that meeting that we have with the judges were, what community resources can we use as referral sources to include places of worship and other mental health behavioral health services. Ultimately, at the end of the day, if somebody is in court and they're being referred to the docket, it is going to have a prosecutor's signature and defense attorney's signature on that order going to the judge. But that does not mean that other referral sources can't come to us and say, hey, Miss Lancaster, I think this person would be an excellent candidate, you should not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're not sure. So we are actively seeking that and yes they can come to us and say I My it's Elizabeth that Lancaster at Laudan Ducca of please reach please reach out. We will happily refer those on to the people covering those cases. Okay. I have another question. One of the departments came in and they had spoken about different cultures that are coming in that may need translation, Spanish, other translations in our communities. What are you all doing regarding that? So we are limited, unfortunately, obviously we are statutorily and constitutional office but created by statute. So we are limited from that perspective. There are 139 languages spoken in Laudan County public schools. So there are obviously an incredible diversity of languages that come into our courthouse. Obviously Spanish is predominant. We do have the Office of Supreme Court does have onsite Spanish interpreters who are hired. We can request if we do have other languages spoken so we can either file a motion or request directly from our interpretation services. Hey, somebody who speaks Arabic or Urdu or some other language. For victim meetings for court cases, court hearings. If we have a case that comes in where we have 200 text messages that are in a foreign language, we can file a motion right to the Supreme Court, or offices, Supreme Court, and ask for funding to have that translated in whatever language it is. A lot of the times, though, unfortunately, we are in court calling what's called language line. That is a service, a national service where you call in, you state the language, and then that person interprets over the phone in the courtroom. It's not ideal. But that's where we are. There are a lot of languages spoken loud, and it's wonderful. The diversity is great, but it does create some barriers in the courtroom. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. For sure. Mr. Anderson says sometimes it's difficult to get translate. It was in the courtroom. Thank you. Mr. Sains. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to kind of piggyback off your questioning, Mr. Kushner, if we can get clarity, if it's okay, Madam Chair. Can we get for the last four years, all the different courts, the veterans court, behavioral court, drug court, everything the last four years? So 22, 23, 24, obviously, we're in the middle, 25, that'll be good to see. Thank you Thank you. Absolutely. Yeah, thank you. That was actually the thrust of my first of my question that I wrote to you. I would percentage increase. And that is because I think multiple don't know that you have to actually charge and have a adjudication before you can actually put somebody in a program, a diversion program, a special court program. And so saying that somebody's been charging adjudicated, that them bothering. Saying that, saying that, saying that, believe bargains are up, that them bothering me. I just want to know, like, what's the rest of the story? Like, what happens? What's after that? And that was the pause and the sentence that I just wasn't getting before. Finally, I would say that the last question I asked you is not in here, but you did answer it. And I think it's worth answering to everybody. And that was this question. If anyone was charged with simple cannabis use with no intended distribute or anything else, has anyone ever been adjudicated and gone to jail for that since this administration has been in office? No, ma'am. Okay. The answer is no. The answer is no. That's a fine answer. That's a fine answer. Thank you for coming back. I do appreciate it and I do look forward to seeing those numbers of our specialty courts. Thanks a lot. Thank all of you. I appreciate it. So But parks and rec, please come to the table. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to just go straight to emotion and I'll talk inside the motion. I move the board to provide just lower the amount allocated for the Independence day event at the Hallam Burnie Hansen original park from 80,000, 52,300. I further move the board supervisors allocate 10,000 to the town of Hillsboro to eight and their fireworks display. Second. Oh. Motion made second by supervisor Kirschner. First let me say this. Quite frankly, I don't really believe fireworks is a great use of taxpayer money just period in general. I mean, I think you're quite literally sending taxpayer money up and smoke quite literally. I don't know but I believe that's a good use. We have been doing fireworks especially for sterling and love its feel for many, many years. Sterling's amount has been right around between 13 and $14,000. Leavitzfield has been between 16 and $17,000. That was originally done because those two areas didn't have Haways and those kind of grandfather there. Later on, we started doing doing Franklin Park and that has run between 52 and 53,000. The idea that we're gonna now do $80 plus thousand for another area is something that I just, I cannot see doing that. If we're going to do it, and I, you know, listen, I have all kind of issues with it anyway, but okay, I'm not going to go $30,000 higher than we do anywhere else. I will also say, I made a call to Roger Vance, who is the mayor of Hillsboro. Hillsboro has 120 people, literally. They do an amazing whole for-for-gen-life celebration with food trucks, with moon bounces, with reenofit addition, with dependence, and with an amazing fireworks show. They collect the money themselves and they spend $25,000 on it. Probably about 5,000 people come to that show. Now, I'm told, Helen has about 10,000. So even if we double the amount from 5,000, 10,000 people, that still wouldn't mean $80,000 for me. That's still just $50,000. I don't know how you double that and get to $80,000. So $80,000 is just beyond the pale of what we should be doing for fireworks. I understand that we want to do the model over the county and in different places. Okay, but I also think even though it won't be at a public, at a county-owned park, you give $80,000 to that part of the county. You're going to have other parts of the county coming in and saying, why can't we get some money, even if it's not in the park, why can't we get some money in lands down? Why can't we get some money in Ashburn? You're going to get that, why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they? So I appreciate what a great event it is and all of those things, I appreciate all that. I'm going to make this amount, I'm trying to make this amount at least even to what Franklin Park does. And not more than that. And I would say if this scales up over time, it scales up with what Franklin Park does. Mr. Attorney? Yeah, I'd like to ask Mr. Torpies some questions because we're missing critical information, which is. What is right there? I know, but before the Moshe but before the motion may be good to get the facts. So what exactly was the basis of the cost estimate to Hanson? We have the chart that shows it for the other ones but not for Hanson. So the size and scope of the Hanson event was so much larger than any of the others that we have ever done. And that was in year one. Franklin Park, we have been providing fireworks since the park opened, which was about 26 years ago. When Franklin Park opened, love its feels been about the same amount. I'm sorry. Okay, so basically it is- event versus the fireworks. So the fireworks is the same amount for the Franklin Park shoot as well as the Hands and Park for the pirate techniques. It's the same amount where the increase gets into is just the sheer amount of staffing that it takes for that many people, LCSOs cost for that many people and then the other things that are associated with the special event, the entertainment and it's different for the size of people or the amount of people that you have at Hanson as opposed to just Franklin Park. You have to scale that up. You have to scale because of the size of the venue. That's correct. If you're going to have a firework show at Hanson and you're not properly staffed up for it and you have 10,000 people showing up and there's inadequate Security. There's inatt's office. There's inadequate safety. There's inadequate even programming. For those people to do, you're gonna have a problem, right? That is where the budget came from, yes. So that it was the same title. Could you scale it then? A little bit. So when we were looking at the item, the question that came in this morning, one of the things that would have to come off because we can't take the, necessarily the fireworks, obviously, we can't take the security and the staffing out. So it would be the other types of things, the entertainment and the various types of vendors that come in to make the event whole. So really it would scale down to a fireworks display. And that was it. Well we do do those things at the other venues. That's correct. Okay. I understand the dollar amount. But if we're trying to do the same thing in every place, and one venue happens to be larger with greater demand, look, we do very little, especially in this part of the county that builds any kind of sense of community whatsoever. There's nothing more gratifying to me than to see, especially at Hanson, a whole heck of a lot of first generation Americans and I said Americans, even though they may been born somewhere else, they're Americans. Come out to something like this with unbelievable demand in the first year when it wasn't advertised and wasn't even a county thing. So 10,000 is the starting point of what this is going to be. This is actually probably going to be a lot bigger. I would encourage everybody to not shortchange it for the type of money we're talking about here. Ms. DeCroni? Thank you, Chair Randall, and thank you, Mr. Torpey, for coming prepared with some estimates. How many people do you think it could get to? So we know that- Mr. Crony, I put you a mic a little closer to you. Yeah, we know that you're going to start in 2026 with a county sponsored event. What numbers are we looking at, do you think? It was 10,024. Honestly, I don't think that the park is going to be able to take much more of an increase to that. So it may scale up a little bit, but we may just like we are at at Franklin Park we get to a point where we're not able to allow any more people in because of capacity issues. Now if you were limited to the 50,000, 50,000 what would you be able to do at Hanson? I mean it sounds like you can't do an event there. We could do an event but as I mentioned it would be a basic fireworks display. So we would shoot fireworks and we would have staff there for the traffic control but there would not be any other type of activities or entertainment or event type activities going on. Could you take the like 12,000 people if it went up to that for the fireworks display? And would that at the 50, 2000? The capacity issues are going to be about the same. Okay. But have you done fireworks in a town before? Have we given money to a town before for fireworks or is this? The closest would be where we shoot at Love It's Bill which is right adjacent to the town but we have been shooting those fireworks for many years from the park which is outside of the town. Okay so you don't give it to the town. No. You don't give the money to the town. Okay. And I guess I am concerned about security. Do you think security would be an issue at Hanson with this reduction in the amount? No, our estimate would include the LCSO as well. No, but if it was at 52. That's what I'm saying. With the reduction, the where we would take those reductions because we couldn't take away the security and the staffing needed even for a display. It would be with all of the other types of entertainment that make it a special event. Okay, all right. Thank you. Mr. Sains. Thank you Madam Chair. So Mr. Trophy when did we start doing fire when this county start paying for fireworks for the sterling community? I think we are in our fifth or sixth year. I have to go back and but it's not been sterling is the most recent one. Love it's Bill and Frank Lompark had been for a while. Yeah, so with respect, I wouldn't say many, many years, but it was just recently started in the last four to five years or so. So in regards to the money, you could do fireworks, maybe $20,000 where you just actually light some fireworks in the sky, have some security and have fund staffing for parks and rec staff for county employees. So clarify or expand upon the amount of money that it was originally asked for $80,000. That would cover obviously fireworks, county staff, parks and rec staff, sheriff's department on site. But that would cover other things like food vendors, hired entertainment, all of the stage and Correct. So technically with the motion that Madam Chair put forward, you could do a fireworks event. Just wouldn't be with say person with the clowns and balloons and all those type of things. Is that correct? That's correct. So you still would have given the fireworks display in a fireworks show, but it just wouldn't be on the concert and, you know, whatever else. Would that be accurate to say? That is correct. Okay. And then Professor Robates' memory again, so we pay, how much do we pay at Franklin Park? Are you talking for the entire event? Yes. For the entire event at Franklin over the past two years, we've been averaging around 53, 54,000. Okay. And I know the sterling event is smaller, so how much is that one again? As last year was just over 14,000. Okay. Okay. So again, we could do a fireworks display at 80,000. We could do a fireworks display at 60,000, 50,000, 40,000, 15,000. We'll still have the fireworks that just depends on all the other stuff that comes along with. We want to have concert, or folks, musicians, artisans, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what the price difference would be, but we still would have a fireworks display. We could do just a fireworks display. Okay, et cetera. Is that what the price difference would be, but we will still have a fireworks display. We could do just a fireworks display. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carstern. Thank you, ma'am chair. Mr. Torpe, good to see you. So to me, it really sounds like this is really kind of a discussion of how robust we want this to be. One way or the other. Is that a fair statement? So in other words, as Mr. Sains points out, do we want to have a lot of the extras or don't we want to have a lot of the extras? The other question I have is how, my understanding is up to last year the HOA was paying for this in large part, is that right? Up to last year, this display was on private property, yes. I understand, but last year it was held at the park. No, well yes, this past year it was the first year it was held at Hanson Park. But we didn't pay for it, the HOA paid for it. That is correct. Do we know what they spent? It was approximately. Yeah, I don't want that. They spent around 80 and. Yeah, it was around $60,000. Around $60,000. Correct. And were there any issues that arose from that? There was issues with traffic. There was issues with just a sheer number of people that were coming in, which is why we upscaled some of our staffing and some of the estimated cost for a raise. But was the sheriff's apartment there? Would they be required to pay for the sheriff's apartment? Would they automatically be there because it's an event? No, it's an off-duty assignment. It would be considered off-duty. That's correct. We pay for that at the other events as well. If we did authorize only the 50-2300 as proposed by this motion, is this something that the HOA will help to contribute additional to so they can have a fuller display. I know it's not just for them and so that's why I'm not entirely against the funding of some of this. I do think it's important to I think support our celebration of our nation's birth as a whole, as it longs it's evenly distributed to some degree throughout the county. But I guess my question is if we authorize only the 52,300, Do we know if the HOA would contribute the rest to have a more robust as we I said at the beginning display or not we don't know. I don't know that. Okay. I don't know that. But I guess that they would have that option. In other words, we're not going to turn that down if they say hey we'd like to we'll take care of the fireworks of the do partner at times, yes. Okay, fair enough. Do we partner on any of the others right now? Frank the park or? We used to partner with the Love It's Bill Community Center Advisory Board. There is somewhat of a partnership with, just from the standpoint, that the talent of Love It's Bill does the Independence Day parade. and that's kind of advertised all as the same thing that leads to the fireworks at night, but they do partner financially with any of these other places. No, so we take care. For the places we do, we take care of the most good expense. That's correct. Thank you. Good, Mr. Turner. Okay, Mr. Cometman, Mr. Fixpin already on this one. Mr. Fixpin, I call you on this already. No, ma'am. I don't remember if I did. No, Mr. Fixpin. Yes, thank you. Mr. Torby, how many people attend the Franklin Park event? Last year it was a little over 5,000. Okay. And I'm assuming that the Hallum Burn Hanson Park is bigger than Franklin Park. Can you put that in context for us? Is it bigger? Do you know by how much? It is about 40 acres larger, but it doesn't necessarily equate out because Hanson Park is split by Evergreen. And so the event was on the north side of the park. So it was more people in a smaller acreage area. Well, not just more people, it's twice as many people. Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. I'll have. So let me just say a couple of things again. One, we have a town with 120 people who do all the events. They do the entertainment. They do the moon bounces to clowns, the band, the bands. They do all of it. And the fireworks put $25,000. All of it for about 5,000 people. For about 5,000 people. They do all of it for about 5,000 people. What we're actually saying is we can do it and we can do it safely. We as can do all the entertainment. I'm not sure that's, I'm not, I'm kind of okay with that. I don't know that us paying for entertainment is a great use of taxpayer money. And all by the way, let me say the most that's going to end up in the paper. This is the 4-per-July celebration. What happens when Juneteenth comes to you all and says they want some way for Juneteenth? Because not everyone feels like the 4-per-July was their day of independence. What we're going to do on that day? Because I'm going to watch the sea up here what happens on that day. We have people up here who don't want to get money nonprofits. Okay, being consistent on that. But you're getting money to this? I'm sorry. There are better ways to use this tax payer money. And we're do the fireworks. And we'll do the security. the security, They will be safe and we'll give them a big fireworks display. If people need to have entertainment, then there are other ways to get at that. And there are other communities that do raise money for the entertainment. And I just think if little tiny Hillsboro can raise money for the whole thing, including the great day of entertainment, for 5,000 people, then other communities can partner together. I know it's not just Brambleton, I get that. The Brambleton can partner with us. There are thousands of people that live over there. You're telling me they can't find any way to partner together to raise enough money to have entertainment? We shouldn't do everything. Finally, I'll say this. I've heard somebody say the term, well, we have the money now. That is a terrible way to think about this. That's a terrible way to think about this. Because one, we don't know what's going to happen with the economy in two years from now, three years from now, four years. We have no idea. But the other thing is, you don't just say, well, the penalty has to money now, so that's just put it on this. That's not responsible. So I'm not sure if I agree that any of this should happen to be quite honest. But because Franklin Park is at 53, then okay, 53 is where I'll be willing to go. So whether this passes or doesn't pass, I'll see you all on June 10th. I made the motion, seconded by the person on the person saying aye. Aye. Oppose. No. No. So that motion will fail. I think that was three six. Would you say aye? That was three six. That was three six. Wait a minute. I mean, what's the motion? Where were you? She said aye. Okay, so that was three six. Okay, three six. Thank you. Thank you all, 36. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I'll wait a minute. Did that mean say Hillsburg is okay? You all. That's a mess. Okay. All right, thank you, Mr. Torpy. Appreciate you. All right, the next item is the probation and parole. Oh no, it's not. That will not do in that one. Ms. Brickman, we're not doing that, correct? Correct, Madam Chair, there's no motion on that one. Okay, so then the next issue is Well, I'm not sure how to do this next one then Yeah, let's do Sylvia let's do a surprise glass because it's a little it's a little easier and the other ones are gonna take a bit more of a Discussion miss glass Would you like to make your motion and we can talk within the motion? Because that's what I said we're going to start doing now. Yes Madam Chair. I move that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to change the PRCS. Care's coverage guidance to cover the full cost of tuition for all children eligible for assistance under option one, utilizing grant funding for fiscal year 2026. A further move that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to return to the finance government operations and economic development committee as part of the fiscal year, 2027 budget development process with long term funding options. Motion's being taken by the same discussion of motion, Ms. Gilles. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. As stated in this motion, and I sent an email to my colleague Zad asked to support, as support to provide 100% coverage for children who attend CASA, Yes, and PRCS summer camps, and who are recipients of current PRCS cares option 1 discounts. So that's people who may be receive green reduce lunch, those who are on WIC, SNAP TANF. This would make finding childcare for families already on the eligible programs and who may really need it much easier, much more attainable. We are financially blessed in this county and we could use some of that money toward helping children. Some of whom are homeless, as I said the McKinney-Vento students who, with having quality childcare when school is not in session, our PRCS programs are safe, reliable, beneficial, and fun for the children enrolled, and covering 100% of the fees make these programs all the more reachable for families. I'm grateful that there are, that we have, we're able to fund. We have the fund to cover the tuition for fiscal year 2026, so that this motion does not affect local tax funding nor the tax rate. Confident staff can return to the board with ways to continue with the 100% tuition assistance that is both sustainable and financially savvy for the county. And I ask my colleagues for your support. Thank you. Ms. Glassman, do you say where this money would come from? Yes, so it's coming from, there's an existing funding of 2.7 million dollars that comes from the Virginia Department of Education, Child Care, Stabilization Grant. Okay, that's where it comes from. Chair, yes. Yes, Ms. Well, let me think, Ms. Glass, let me ask you one more clarification question. Is there a transportation piece attached to this at all? I believe there is for the McKinney-Vento students. I believe there is. There's a need to be stated. So we know when we're, can you want to do that little more, I can go to Megan if you'd like me to. Because as we have this discussion, when you go to Megan? To add it in Madam Chair? No, I just think before we have the discussion they need to know the whole, all of what we're discussing, that's all. Okay. Okay. This is Berg. I was just going to explain to the board that we have currently have grant dollars that can be utilized so that this is why the reason, this is the reason why this motion has no fiscal impact. I cannot speak to the transportation issue. You just asked sorry. Okay. Mr. Torpe? Yeah, I think the transportation issue that we were, that was talked about in some earlier questions was the schools are putting some money towards those particular students for transportation. And if 100% was covered by this grant that we have currently, that grant money that the schools have, could go towards further transportation as opposed to going towards the 25% of the cost for the program that those several students are in. Exactly. That is what I was clarifying. That's what I was clarifying. Mr. Luterno. Thank you. So I think this is sort of, this is a policy question more than as a budget one. And honestly, it doesn't really need to be, I don't think, dealt with immediately because it's not going to have a local tax impact. My concern would be if we took all of the eligibility here, which is quite a few students already, I think it was 300 something elementary, I forget the press. But, and suddenly, if you look at this chart on this motion, all of it became free. Wouldn't the enrollment jump up considerably, or wouldn't the demand for the enrollment jump up considerably, if there was no cost associated with it, for everybody that's eligible here? The potential is for it to go up, yes. We have grant funding that we think we would be able to handle an increase in that with the 2.7 or 2.4. That would be available to go towards that. At least for next year we could do that. And I think that was the nature or the reason behind the secondary motion was to further the conversation at finance for beyond. Well, yeah, except once you do something it's pretty hard to roll something like that back, right? So, you know, elected bodies don't tend to do that. I am perfectly okay with having a robust discussion if we need to start increasing our level of support, particularly for those McKinley students, well I think should be tuition free, but I'm concerned about what the unintended consequences are here of just jumping into a longstanding policy change that I think could pose logistical issues, pose capacity issues, impact the entire program pretty quickly. And I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree with 100% for every one of the categories, maybe it could go up. But I think we need more analysis around, because I don't know how many students are in each category and all that kind of thing. I would want to get into all that before I made a policy change like this that I think could have effects on what is an important program, especially, you know, we see pretty good demand for CASA across the board, word demand, then we can already meet, and then we, you know, and I know it's easy to say, Well, it's fun to buy a grant. Well, yeah, for the short term it is, but that grant money is gonna go a lot quicker if the enrollment goes up. So I prefer to have kind of the plan in place first and then make the change. And I don't know, I just would ask staff, do you think this could be something that could be discussed and potentially changed outside of tonight in this budget work session? Is there a pretty big topic to spring on us and a wrap up? Yes, I think it's appropriate to do it in other ways. Okay, so I may have a motion just to send this to finance for the overall discussion. I'm sure. Mr. Sains. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I am in support of the idea and actually I did have some more questions the number of students would be affected. Do you foresee if this was an act of what the enrollment go up? How fast would we, with the switch, deplete the grant funding on both sides? And of course, there is a conversation I have about philosophy because right now, as I I told Ms. Glass, yes, the board possibly could support this. And then in a few years, then the board might make up might change, and then that philosophy of that board might change and say, you know what, nope, let's take this away and then what would be the cause and effect of that. So Mr. Torpid, do you feel, I guess we just heard from Ms. Burke saying this possibly could be discussed a little bit further once we get a little bit more information? Do you feel you need the, should we do this now or could you possibly come back later on as Mr. Lerturno is suggesting to finance and have us. I mean the grant funding that we have is not going away. We don't have a deadline for use of this particular type of funding. So, but there is a limit to what we have. So I think as Mr. Berkowitz saying, it's very appropriate for us to come back and perhaps have the long term plan in place for something even while we have the grant funding available and then beyond. Okay, all right, and let me ask this question. So say if we were to approve this tonight, how soon could we make the switching and get this going? Would you do this right now in the middle of the school year? Or would you say no, next wait until the next, you know, the school year starts and I guess everybody goes back in school in August now. So in August or what would be the plan if we were to say yes tonight? Typically when we have changes to fees, it is done at the start of a school year. So we would put this in place, we recommend putting this in place and rolling this out as a part of the registration process so we would do those types of advertisements that this program is out but then it would go into effect in the next school year. So even if we were to take this up now you would not happen now you would wait for the next school year. That's correct. The motion was dealing with FY26. So next school year. Okay. All right, thank you. Mr. Turner. Okay, I'm sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sure you did come. No, she did not miss and then you, Ms. Bricksman. I'm sorry. Thank you Madam Chair. I fully support this motion, especially since Mr. Torpey said that it wouldn't be implemented till the beginning of the school year. I mean, how long have we been talking about childcare? And we know now that a year of childcare costs about a year as much as a year of college tuition right now. We also know that the new administration is making folks go back to DC. Again, we'll see if there's offices there at the time when they when they finally do go back to DC or their jobs. But we know folks are stressed about that. And if it does come to fruition, next school year is going to be the time that people really need this. We've got plenty of money in the grant in the grant fund right now. I'm really happy to hear that. So it's a zero effect on the tax rate at this point in time. And I just can't even imagine why we would not do this. And again, I'm also happy to support bringing it to finance so that we can have a more full discussion about it. But tonight I'm in full support and I'll be voting yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kirstner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to support this. I think obviously if there's a need there and we have the grant funding, we need to apply it wisely. I am a little, Mr. Litturna brings up a really good point. I guess my question, kind of for the thought process of the board here is, is this really, it is a little bit germane to the budget process, but this doesn't have to be decided tonight, it could be decided next month of the finance, the next finance meeting, and so it could be fleshed out a little bit more and more questions. Because it's a little difficult to ask some of the more broad questions within a two minute, especially that we're doing everything within the motion itself. So it wouldn't affect the funding, it wouldn't affect the program if this was able to be discussed next month. And it's fully correct. And you could still implement the funding and is there any if I through the chair could ask miss Brisbane is there is there room on next month's finance meeting April or May to have a discussion on this Yes, likely I'm fine with that. I would want to check with staff and I know I'm not on finance, so I might be fine. I'm getting it implemented till next fall, so we have some time. I think I would be in support. I do have some questions. I don't have time to ask those questions within the short period of time. I do think that probably there is a need there and we have the funding. We should look at that. I think there is a good point, what's going to be the long term effect and maybe have it fleshed out and thought through a little bit more. But and I know I spoke with this glass earlier and I really do want to support this. I'm not sure without a full more robust discussion whether it's such a good idea to do it now, but I think it should probably pass in some sort of form. I'm not sure if I'm there quite yet tonight. That's all. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Where does the grant funding come from? It was a federal program administered through the state, the Department of Education. So it was the childcare stabilization grant that we got through Virginia. So that could disappear within hours. I think as I would eat in our hands. But, sorry, I think I have the microphone. I'm just kidding around here. But I mean, the point here is, this is a pretty turbulent environment, probably the nexus of that turbulence is federal funding for programs. And we're talking about, this program should be funded years ago. I think this is a terrific idea. And we should have done it years ago. And I'm all for it. I think it's great. But if we're relying on grant funding, that's basically a federal source for the grant funding, then we've got to figure something else out because it's clearly an unstable funding source. That's just, you agree? to disagree any thoughts on that on that? Well, we do have the grant funding already in place. And so that's, I'm not concerned about that funding going away. I hear what you're saying about future opportunities for grant funding. And I think that was the basis of supervisor glasses discussion about future program enhancements enhancements and to be able to continue that beyond the time when the grant funding that we have in place runs out. I mean, you say we have the grant funding in place and I accept that, except if we expand the program in this way, we really don't know how much grant funding we're gonna need because we're gonna have an increased population. And so the point is when is the grant funding going to sunset if we don't get it replaced by something? Yeah, it would be dependent. How quickly we go through the grant funding is going to be dependent upon how much the program would expand, yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Burke. I apologize. I just wanted to share that we currently have the grant fundee in hand and it exists. So I don't believe we will lose it based to guest changes. The packet does say our estimate if participation in the program does not expand, it would take six years to fully expend the existing grant fund. It's the number I needed. Thank you very much. Say that one more time. We currently have $2.7 million based on the current number of enrollees not projecting an increase, but if it stays at the same amount of participants or qualified children, it would take six years to expend the existing grant funds we have. That's a long time. That's a long time. Correct. And even if we did expand its sum, even if it was four years, that's still a long time. And the thing about Cosset and Yes, because sometimes that, you know, I hear the concern. Sometimes, you know, if it was, if it's, if this is rental relief, I'm not going to start giving someone rent or leave if I can't keep giving them rent or relief because that's almost cruel. The difference is this is these kids grow up and grow out the program. And so it's not the same thing. I mean, so you start with kid A. Four years later, that kid has has gone anyway and you've at least given that family some relief during that time. Depending on what happens with the grant program or the other expanse, whether it doesn't expand. Mr. Torp, if the grant program were to expand, if the program were to expand because more kids came into it, do we have the space for them? Well, we are working on expansion currently and based upon on what I hope is still going to happen on April 1st. We're getting additional staffing for the COSA program and expanding that. We also are coming back later with our child care item to have a discussion which includes future recommendations for the COSA program and things. So we are expanding capacity where we can. And we do believe that we would be able to handle some expansion in this area if that would happen. And back to the issue of transportation. That would be a different, you would now have a different money available for transportation, correct? That would be the schools. The schools exactly, So it wouldn't be this money. Listen, especially because people are losing jobs, but we'll have to find other work. And the work they find might not be at the same salary. I do want to be able to help people as much as possible as soon as possible. And which is why I think that being very careful about where we put taxpayer money right now is very important. And so I think this is a very good item. I appreciate you bringing this item, Ms. Glass. I think this is a very good item. And I would support it right now, knowing that part of this discussion, because if you read the whole motion, part of the discussion is still going to finance. So we can still discuss what will happen next, what happens, you know, how this continues. And so we don't lose anything by saying yes right now, and still being able to go to finance. And knowing that we have possibly up to six years, maybe less dependent on how much it expands, gives us some breathing room to do that even right now. And again, this is exactly how we should be doing to help people, in my opinion, during this very, very turbulent and hard time. Ms. Glass, would you like a closing, Mr. Senji, please turn the light off. A point of clarification. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah, no, the second part of the motion does direct, you know, forward to come back to the finance committee, but that's for the fiscal year of 2027 budget development process for long term funding options. But the first part of the motion does not direct it to come back to finance. So that's my point of clarification to staff, interpret it that with this motion if it was the past night, that you would go start figuring out how to allocate the funding and get it going for the next school, you as you said, or did you interpret it as coming back to finance after you've done some research and homework and coming back to finance to present. My interpretation of the motion would be that we move forward on making this happen in the FY26 budget process or the next school year. But then as we move into the discussions about fiscal year 2007, we would have that discussion further about what happens beyond the time of the grant program. Right. Or the grant money running now. Correct. So yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. I'm understanding it too because if you vote for this now, the first part of the motion says in the go ahead and get going and figure this out. So since that was your clarification, clarification, you clarified? Okay, last but you like a closing. Yes Madam Chair, I don't think I can say it any more than you did, Chair Rendoon. On how this would benefit our families that are in trouble and are in need. I just want to thank my colleagues for your understanding that this motion came so late today, but I didn't have the full answers to my questions under the packet leak really last night. And I want to thank staff for helping me with this initiative, and I hope that you all can support this. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Glass made the seconded by mr. Sains all people say aye Post Okay, that that motion will pass I think that's 702 with mr Kirschner and mr. Laterno abstaining on this motion. All right, okay, I think Mr. Brooks, when you're going to drop off now, right? Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Okay, you take care. Okay. All right. So the next discussion is going to be a little more, I'm not sure I would do this. I think I do have to move us into a committee as a whole. Because we have two motions on the day is that are both attempting to do the same thing, but in very different ways. And I just don't know how to do this. And so what I'm going to do is this. I'm going to put a half an hour on the clock to go to a committee as a whole. I'm going to first go to Miss Tocroni to briefly describe what you're trying to do. Then I'm going to go to Mr. Kirschner to describe what you're trying to do. And then briefly, I'm going to have to tell you briefly. Madam Chair, can I make a, I would suggest we put time limits because we're going to be here all night long. No, we're not. That's why I just said the committee's a host going to be 30 men. But that's still, if we need to put everything in the same. Okay. We're going to be here. We're going to be here. 30 minutes. And we're going to, well, that, when your question has been asked and answered, thinking very much Mr. Sains, 30 minutes is what we're going to do. And then we will have a discussion so we can try to figure out what they're both trying to do and how we get there. If we get there if we get there at all because it may be that neither one of these things will be something we're going to support Mr. Crony would you three minutes would you start please briefly describe your what you're trying to do? I know she doesn't no she doesn't okay All right,'t. Okay. No I won't. All right. So this is a motion I brought at the first meeting and Chair Randall and Supervisor Lutorno were not at the first meeting so I'm bringing it back because Supervisor Hershner and I are trying to do the same thing. We're trying to lower the vehicle tax and give relief to residents. So my motion keeps the reduction in the vehicle tax on the personal property side. What I'm proposing is to reduce the personal property tax on vehicles to 325 and restore the general tax rate that includes data center computer equipment to 420. By doing this it yields 10 million of additional revenue for FY 2026 and then for half a year it's 5 million for half a year if you look at tax year 2026. The 420 rate has been the historic rate for 35 years, from 1987 to 2023. So that's the rate that has been on the books for literally 35 years. We have a revenue stabilization fund that is fully funded at 127 million. Restoring the historic weight to 420 increases the general rate 5 cents and brings in 10 million, which is a small amount compared to the 669 million we collected from data center computer equipment in tax year 24. I understand it increases the amount we're getting from data center computer equipment on the personal property tax, but again, it is a small amount. And we have a fully funded revenue stabilization fund. This is the reason we have this fund to reduce the risk. So my proposal is to again lower the vehicle tax to 90 cents from 415 to 325 and restore the general rate to 420. Supervisor Brisbane. Are you good with that? Well wait, I have one other thing Supervisor Brisbane, how this would impact, I'm still talking. Supervisor Brisbane asked how this would impact small businesses on their computer equipment and we were given an answer to that question, it would be $8. So it's an $8 impact to small businesses. Meanwhile, it would be in 90 cents reduction on the car tax, which many small businesses are going to appreciate it. Mr. Christmas, would you like to describe yours? Yeah, my motion is very, very simple. It's really a question. Right now, as we remember at the beginning of our discussion on the tote board, we had, there were additional approximately 10 million I think that we received from the state to the school so that we could now reduce the tote board which actually, Gervaud's done another half cent on the tote board. So really my motion does, it's a choice between the supervisors. I think my motion is the better choice and that is to take that essentially 10 million by moving the tax rate back to 80.8.805, which is where we started, which is still one cent below the equalized rate for the homeowner. So we have tax savings there and then taking that money and applying it to the car tax. So basically the concept would be, and actually it gives I think greater and broader tax relief to our citizens. So it's really a question. Do you want to give that 50? I think it's an average of $56, $57 savings on the average house out of one half cent across the county. or, and you can see from the graph, depending on the value of your car, and how many cars you have. out of one half cent across the county or and you can see from the graph Depending on the value of your car and how many cars you have you could have anywhere from 14 to $368 savings per car So if you're probably the average household in Loudoun County who has a 20 average 20,000 dollar car and you have two cars in your garage You're actually going to get twice the tech savings as you, on your car than you would on your house by doing it this, in this way. And for those people who don't have necessarily own real estate in Laudan County, they would also benefit from this additional tax reduction on the car tax itself. Far more than, and so it'd be much broader to be cross the board. It's a wash, it doesn't cost anymore, it's not a raising of taxes, somewhat of what Mr. Crony is suggesting, even though she's suggesting raising on a data centers. And I think the most important thing for this board, and then I'll shut up and be quiet and let everyone discuss. I think the most important thing is we have given Mr. Hemstreet guidance to keep this balance between personal personal property and real property. And what this does is actually move us slightly in the right direction by ensuring that that balance maintains. So that would, I mean, I'm quite frankly in favor of both motions, obviously mine first. And it would take it all the way down to $3.09. And as to Crony's only takes it down to $3.25. So if you're choosing between the two, like I said, I would favor both. But if you're choosing between the two, mine is much better. Mr. Curskler, thank you so much. Mr. Hampstead, would you like to add anything into those two statements before we open up for discussion? Yeah, the only couple things I would add is that the Cervais a decrony's motion actually is 5.3 million and so that's that's which lowers the the recommended rate for this part of the proposed budget lowers the personal property rate on vehicles to 348. So her motion increases the general rate which is not just on computer equipment it's the general rate so it's all property that's in that rate. And then it, which generates an additional 5.3 million and then reduces the 348 down to 325. Okay, so I just want to make clear mechanically on what that's doing. Supervisor Kirsner's motion takes the 9.1 million that is currently available from additional state funding and instead applying it to a reduction on the real property tax rate, it applies it 100% to the tax rate on vehicles which starting at 348 which is where the proposed budget starts and tax year 26 would lower it to 309. So that's just mechanically how each one operates. Okay, so buzzers, you have questions, thoughts for July down? We have 23 minutes left and we remember we're on the clock. If you have any questions, thoughts Mr. Stans? Thank you Madam Chair to Mr. Hemsory and Ms. Burke. Out of the two motions, can you please clarify which one would staff prefer? So staff is not able to recommend that you increase the general rate on personal property tax. We've said that for over three years now. We just can't recommend that you do that. So then you'll be in favor of Mr. Kirschmuss motion. So we've made our recommendation through the proposed budget. The adjustments that are are proposed by the board are up to the board. Mr. Kirschner's motion fits with the fiscal policies that the board has. Okay. And then the clarify also, I think Mr. Kone's motion is pretty much the exact same motion that she made. I think it was the first night of budget sessions that we've, board voted down, is that correct? It is the only difference with her motion is I believe she made the first motion as a substitute to the opening motion. Subsequent to the opening motion, the board recognized the 9.1 million. And so her technically, her first motion started at 80 and a half. This motion tonight is starting at 80 cents because the 9.1 million has been applied against the real property rate. Okay, thank you. Mr. Letharo. Thank you. Well, I appreciate my colleagues for thinking about these things and trying to come up with some creative ways to handle them. I'm not going to support raising the tax rate. I do think you do catch cats and dogs in that rate. I know it's not a big amount of money, but, and then quite frankly, we're already making data centers a special exception. I don't know that a tax increase on top of that right now is necessarily the best, the best look. Mr. Kirschner, I was initially skeptical of this and my bias is towards reducing the real property tax rate because that is assets that increase and there's pretty wide variation. So we do have constituents that get 10, 15% increases that will not get a tax cut even though we're lower than equalized rate. However, when I looked at the charts that staff provided about the savings in every scenario, the real property versus the vehicle property tax, unless you don't own a car and you own like a million and a half dollar house, which seems pretty unlikely You're gonna save more money with his motion And quite frankly for a lot of family especially if you have multiple cars multiple drivers. I now have a teenage driver with a car And my household is quite a bit more money actually So I think I'm convinced that you know, I wouldn't if we weren't below the equalized for it anyway, but since we are I think I'm convinced that I wouldn't, if we weren't below the equal rights of the rate anyway, but since we are, I think the majority of people out there are just going to appreciate as low bills possible. Now the one downside is we can't apply this personal property tax savings until a full year because of the tax years on personal property. So we have collections occurring in May and October on personal property tax, which would be, is going to be at the current rate. And then this goes into effects the following year, which was always going to be the case even with the lower rate that we have. I am saying though, if we do real property, that's an immediate thing that we can kind of say is taking place July 1. This is not, but in the long run people will save more. So I'm leaning towards supporting that approach, unless my colleagues convince me differently in the discussion here. Ms. Umpsted. Thank you Madam Chair. I mean I did some simple arithmetic on how much my family would save under both scenarios. And under Mr. Kirschner scenario, my real estate tax bill is going to go up $33, but my car tax bill is going to decrease by $530. So for me, in our household, this is an easy one. And so I am happy to support Mr. Kirschner's version. Thank you. Okay, all of us who still have Hyundai's, that's not going to apply to any of us. I said my son has a Hyundai, my own Hyundai in fact. Mr. Turner. Thank you, ma'am chair. Mr. Hemstreet, is it true that if we raise the general personal property tax rate to 420 by definition. We are becoming more dependent on data center, personal property tax revenue. Yes, that's what I thought. To supervisor, Luternos point, this is pretty obscure and I'm going back to Econ 101 to pull this out. But the timing is interesting. So if we go with supervisor Kirchner's option, we are realizing a savings and car tax a year from now, and we are realizing an increase of a half a cent in the real property tax in present-day dollars, present value dollars, versus a decrease in the property tax in future dollars, which would minus inflation. Do I have that analysis correct? Anybody? In my opinion, no, because your current tax rate is 86.5 cents, you have not modified the tax rate. So you still need to set a tax rate for tax year 25. Okay. My last point very quickly is based on a discussion I had earlier today, which is a really valuable discussion. I think it would be who've all of us recognized that this we're in an incredibly flush year right now. And everything that we do with tax rate in this year could very well in a year or two or three have to we're going to have to come and hand and say, well, we're sorry. Remember that great tax cut we gave you three years ago? Remember the money we paid for fireworks three years ago? We got to get all that back because the turbulent environment has caused us to do this. And so I think this is good what we're doing. I think we're in a great position to be able to do it this year, but it's a cautionary tale. This is not going to last forever. Thank you. I would associate myself with these comments. Are we not already lowering the car tax? The proposed budget. The proposed budget. The tax year 26 lowers it to 348. The proposed budget lowers the car tax already. Correct? And we've already got through, got rid of the vehicle licensing fee. And right now we're a penny and a half below the equalized tax rate. All that's already happening. So now we're going to do this because, again, because we look like we can this year. And when I'm going to go back to what I said before, we don't have any idea what's gonna happen in a couple of years. And the reason I'm being, I actually, if I support it one, it would be Mr. Kirchner's by far. The reason I'm being a little hesitant is because I had the opportunity on yesterday to go to the Council of of governments and to see the real impact of what is happening right now to the Northern Virginia region and to Loudon County. And I think the impact is going to be much greater than anyone has any idea. Now in some ways that's an argument for lower in Texas because people are going to get hit hard. And in other ways it's an argument for holding steady to see how we need to spend this money in some years to come, how much we need to maybe help people in other ways. And so I'm a little six and a half dozen and a half dozen and the other. Mr. Cronney, with all due respect, you're actually talking about us being more dependent on data center revenue than we are now. When I talk about trying to find ways to not be as dependent on data centers, your idea would not get us there. It makes us more dependent on the data center actual revenue. That to me is holiological, I will not be supporting that. It's a curse. Yours makes sense. I just wish I knew better with what it's coming, because there's just so much unknown coming that I don't know if it's smart to say, let's give the tax breaks right now for the car tax, or we'll realize those next year, or let's hold on to this money, because we may need to dump a whole lot of money and to so many other things just to help people eat. No kidding. are let's hold on to this money because we may need to dump a whole lot of money into so many other things just to help people eat, no kidding, eat. When I know what's about to happen in the next couple of years to come, get things to go the way they're going now. Cogs, I can share all those Cog numbers that you all on Tuesday, but those numbers really rattled me and it makes me think that we want to give some some relief right now, but also we want to keep something back so that we can give relief in other ways later on. And so that's my that's my that's my unrest right now and not knowing which way to go. Mr. Kirstner? Thank you, ma'am chair. And just to answer some of your questions and I think hopefully address some of your concerns. It's a pretty simple choice. Do you want it? This is really a wash at the end of the day, quite frankly. It's just about how the relief is going to and what form it's going to come in large part. That's okay. It really is. So one of my arguments for my motion in this particular situation is if we basically take that, my motion is to take that money that came from the state that we've applied to the tow board and rather than applying it to real property, apply it to the car tax. And so to me that is quite frankly a better use of that extra money to give greater and broader relief People I think will feel that impact on a regular base on an annual basis more and I think they will appreciate The work that this board has done a lot more than they would by you know, I think the average is and if I don't if you can if I can ask Megan or Mr. Hemsfield, the average equalized per half penny is $57, is that right? And savings? Am I correct? Per penny or per half a penny? $57. So the average homeowner is only going to feel a 57 dollar difference whereas if you look at this chart, the average car at $20,000 is going to have 56 per car. So this is Latin County. Most everybody's got at least one car and quite frankly, I don't know what the average. This is something I tried to dig up and I spoke to several people and couldn't quite figure out exactly what the average car is. But I would venture to say that the average car is somewhere between 20 and $30,000 in value in this county. And so if you, if many people have two cars or one car at that value, they're going to feel it significantly more. And so I think this is just going to broader. And I don't think it impacts this in future years. Yeah. I think we just, okay, no, you make a good point. You make a great argument. You make a great argument. So yeah, yes, you weigh in and then I'm going to stop conversation and we're going to go to motions. So I would say our reliance on data center revenue is here. I think that ship has sailed. We are reliant on data center revenue. Lamb County is. So what I'm trying to do and I appreciate supervisor, Kirchner and I are in the same place. We want to give more relief on the vehicle tax because people want to really feel relief and this is the way to do it. I just think that the board has traditionally not wanted to increase the real property tax rate and that's where we're headed. I mean, we're moving the 9 million to pay for reduction in the vehicle tax and return the real property to tax rate to 0.805. So I believe that that's traditionally been our position. So my motion is keeping that reduction in the personal property tax side. It is going back to the historic rate of 420. And I understand if this year, it may not be something we want to do, but by golly, I'll probably bring it up in another year because it has been our tax rate for 35 years. The 420 rate has been our tax rate for 35 years. And so I will be bringing this back in FY27, you can count on it. But I do think a supervisor Kirchner has a great alternative. I just would say the traditionally the board has not wanted to go to the real property tax rate. Because that's more about residents. Increasing the general rate would increase the rate on data center computer equipment to pay for a bigger reduction in the vehicle tax. So that's where I was headed. That's where my mind was having data center revenues pay for a bigger reduction on the vehicle tax. I know that some residents would like a 0.80 real property tax rate. So I would just say that going to 0.805 even though it is below the equalized rate might have an impact on some residents. But I'm happy if mine's not going to pass, I'm happy to support supervisor Kirschner. Yes, he and I both. Would you like to make your motion? I can make my motion. How much do you do that? Okay. Can you start at the clock? We're going to go to motions with eight minutes and 45 seconds on the clock and they happen hour. Look at that. We would like to make a motion. Yeah. I'll make it. I'll move the board to the board. Okay, I move that the Board of Supervisors make adjustments to the Tope Board to reflect the real property tax rate of 0.80 for tax year 2025. The general, um, personal, wait a minute. Sorry. Yeah. Property tax rate. Sorry. The real property tax rate of 0.80 for tax year 2025. the general personal property tax rate of 415 for tax year 2025 and 420 for tax year 2026 The personal property tax rate on vehicles of 415 for tax year 2025 and 325 for tax year 2026 And the appropriations proposed in the county administrators FY 2026 proposed budget. Motion made by my supervisor to crony so second motion. I'll second that for vote. Thank you. I'm supervisor plus. Mr. Crowley would like to have an opening. I think I think I said everything. Anybody else like to speak on Mr. Crowley's motion?? Mr. Crenn's motion was seconded by Mr. Kersner. All the people say aye. Aye. All opposed? May. Can the eyes raise their hand so I can see that? So that was 351. That motion will fail with Mr. Glass, Mr. Crononey, and Mr. Kirstner voting for that motion. Mr. Kirstner would you like to make a motion? Thank you Madam Chair. I move the Board of Supervisors to make adjustments to the tote board that would return the real property tax rate to 0.805 and lower the personal property tax rate on vehicles to 3.09 per 100 of assessed value for tax year 2026, which is able to be funded by the recognition of the state revenue to Latin County Public Schools. Second Mr. Kirsten, would you like to speak on the motion? I pretty much have spoken my piece again. I'm really glad that it looks like we do have the support up here that this board, I think this really is a much broader relief. And I'm so grateful that we have the revenue this year to help do this. I've always said I hate this, the car tax is one of those little pesky taxes that I understand taxes are one of those necessary evils that we have to have. But this is just one I really dislike a lot, a lot of states don't have it. And so I'm glad that we're able to provide some relief. I think it'll be broad, it'll be good and I think it'll be appreciated by the citizens. Anybody else? So let's want to wrap up what we're doing here before we get to a final motion on the first. We have lower church equalized tax rate, a penny below a penny. We have lower church tax twice card tax twice. We have first and property tax. We have taken away the vehicle fee. We have fully funded the school system. We have funded all of our reserves. We have funded all of our contingencies. We have funded all of the department requests at least the first and second level. Is that correct Mr. Himmstreet, the first and second level of department request? Generally speaking for the most part, first and second level of department request. There are people out there that are going to say things. There are. They're just star. I'm going to send every complaint I get to, I don't know, I'm sending them to you Mr. Words just because I don't know who was it just send them to Mr. Words because at this point I'm not sure what to do with them to be honest. No. Wait, he said, he said, his inbox is full. I mean, because you know, I'm not sure what to do with the VNN to be honest. 800,000. Wait, he said, he said, his inbox is full. I mean, because you know, I'm not quite sure where, he's looking at me, so you're the person to forget them. We would do the final wrap up motion on the first, but this has been a incredibly, incredibly good budget year and Mr. Hempstreet and Ms. Burke. Thank you all for everything that you've done and all the work you've done. Let me say this one more time. Budget season starts right around July and we end April 1st and it starts again around July. So just so everyone can know that and once again I say thank you to all the department heads and to thank you all of your staff. Just to curses the motion, I second the motion. All the people say aye. Any opposed? That motion will pass 8-0. One with Ms. Bricksman being off the day is. I believe that is all for tonight. Go hammer. We are adjourned. Toronto. We do have one final wrap up. I'm sorry. I got a wrap up, I got a wrap up motion. We are not adjourned. Everybody sit down. Mr. Worsh is trying to run because he knows he's about to get all those motions. All one 800 works. One 200. So wrap up motion, wrap up motion. All right. I am to the board supervisor direct staff to prepare the FY26 appropriations resolutions based on the FY26 proposed budget and amended through straw poll votes taken during the March 3rd March 6th March 10th and March 13th work session with the tax year 25 real property tax rate is 0.05 per $100 of assessed value tax year of a tax year 2025 personal tax of $4.15 per $1.00 of assessed value tax year 2026 personal property tax rate of $4.15 per 100 dollars of assess value and a tax year 2026 personal property tax for vehicles to $3.09 cents per tax rate of $4.15 per 100 dollars of assess value and a tax year, 226 person property tax for vehicles to $3.09 per per $100 of assess value. That is the motion. Is there a second? Mr. Vice Chair, is there a second? Second, Madam Chair. It's normally seconded by the vice chair of the finance chair. The finance chair is not here, so it's normally seconded second by the vice chair. I have nothing to say. I've said all that we're going to say, all what you want your computer back. You're not taking it home with me. Why? Anyone have anything else to say? All people say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passed 801. Ms. Horsi now may leave. Thank you. Welcome, sir. 1-800.