Work Session Minutes of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
Subject: Proposed Capital Improvement Budget
Location: 120 Wilkinson Avenue, 2^nd Floor Conference Room
Date:  May 19, 2005

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Mike Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland; Council Member Marla Dorrel arrived late, and her arrival time is noted in the minutes. 

Mayor McAlister called the work session to order at 4:38 p.m.

Mayor McAlister stated that Ms. Dorrel suggested a group consisting of Town Council members be formed to work with staff prior to the operating budget work session to work with the ideas set forth below in Mr. Roseland’s and Mr. Joyce’s May 4, 2005 memo to Town Manager Bill Coleman, as well as any other council ideas.

TO:                 Bill Coleman, Town Manager
FROM:            Nels Roseland & Michael Joyce
RE:                 Budget Reduction Plan and Recommendations
DATE:             May 4, 2005

We need to have the council consider a serious and significant budget reduction plan. The proposed town manager budget with the $7.86 monthly garbage fee increase is not acceptable approach to meet our budget needs.  This increase will provide an additional $3.1 million in new revenue.  Before we consider any tax or fee increase of this scope, we need to ensure the town has undertaken every effort to reduce expenses.  We should recommend a 10% or $6.8 million budget reduction target, which represents 10% of the Cary Operating Budget, with the exception of the Police Department. The Police Department has proven to be the most cost efficient police department of any large city in North Carolina as documented by the UNC Institute of Government.  The table found below summarizes the current year general fund operating budget, police department exemption and overall budget reduction target:

The budget reduction effort should focus on the following programs and divisions:

1. Reducing Recycling Program Costs - Cary has the highest recycling program costs of any big city in NC. (Can we be provided a model of a recycling drop-off center with no door-to-door service and one that has a user fee model for those who choose to keep door-to-door service?)

2. Building Inspection/Permit Program - Cary has the highest building inspection cost of any big city in NC. (Can online and facsimile permitting processes reduce expenses?)

3. Fire Department - Cary has the highest fire department cost per response of any big city in NC. (Can we have information provided to justify why this is higher in Cary ?)

4. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources - While important, not as critical as police, road building and garbage collection. (Can we be provided a model of separating the two Departments?)

5. Yard debris collection – Not all citizens utilize this service and some communities pay HOA to have private landscape contractors perform this service. (Can we be provided a model that eliminates this service or sets it up as a user fee service?)

Eligible measures to reduce these expenses should include, but not be limited to:

1. Contracting or privatizing services with private sector vendors. Garbage and recycling operations are prime candidates.

2. Eliminate any recurring pay increases for non police department personnel.

3. Eliminating excess administration and staffing costs. Reduce staffing ratios. Compare Cary staffing ratios to other large cities (e.g. Charlotte/Raleigh) and adopt similar staffing patterns.  Convert full time positions to part time with limited or no benefits.  Except voluntary early retirement.  Eliminate vacant positions.  Utilize more volunteer services to replace paid staff.

4. Reduce and eliminate non-salary budgets. Reduce, delay or eliminate any new equipment, vehicle or heavy equipment purchases.  This includes contracts, operating charges (e.g. cell phones) and recurring service payments.

5. Maximize receipt collections from existing revenue sources.  Maximize collection of park and recreation fees.  Provide other fee adjustments to the council for consideration (manager's discretion).

6. Reduce or eliminate $2.5 million "base budget" adjustment measures found on page 3 of Council preliminary budget overview.

7. Eliminate General fund subsidies of Non Core Municipal Services - e.g. Cary Cultural Arts programs and non profit grants.

Information provided to the council on these options should describe short term and longer term budget savings.  We should be open to other measures provided by staff that are constructive and true efficiency measures.   Senior staff should use their best judgment, search for true efficiency measures and refrain from submitting unrealistic issues or recommendations.  A description of pros, cons or negative service level impacts should also be included in a concise format.  Town manager recommendation should be provided within 30 days to all council members.  This information should also be provided to the Citizen Budget Review Committee.  Below is a summary of IOG findings regarding the cost of providing Cary services.

IOG BENCHMARK SUMMARY FOR CARY

Household recycling. Cary 's cost per collection point was $59, the highest among the 13 participating cities. Cary provides weekly curbside collection of recyclable materials with its own employees. The least expensive cost per collection point is $16 in Salisbury , where the city contracts out the entire recycling collection program. The cost is $29 per collection point in Raleigh and $44 in Durham . Yard waste/leaf collection. Cary ranked toward the least expensive range of the 13 cities. The cost per collection point was $35 in Cary . This compares with a high of $65 per collection point in Durham . The cost in Raleigh is $54.

Police services. Cary 's cost per call dispatched was $84, the least expensive of any city participating in the project. The most expensive cost per call dispatched was $229 reported by Charlotte . Raleigh 's cost per call was $183 and Durham 's cost per call was $143.

Emergency communications. Cary 's cost per call dispatched was also very low in this area. The cost was $9 per call. This compares with the most expensive cost per call dispatched of $17 in Salisbury . Raleigh 's cost per call was $12 and Durham 's cost per call was $13.

Fire services. Cary 's cost per fire department response was $2,583, the most expensive among the 13 cities. The least expensive was $863 per fire department response in Winston-Salem . Raleigh 's cost per fire department response was $1,237 and Durham 's cost was $1,097.

Building inspections. Cary 's cost per building inspection was $63, the most expensive among the cities. The least expensive was $31 per inspection in Durham . Raleigh 's cost per inspection was $56. Both Cary and Raleigh provide building inspection services within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction that varies from one to three miles beyond the city limits.

SOURCE: North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project. Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. UNC Institute of Government. February 2004.

Mr. Roseland wants to look at a menu of options for efficiencies on the expense side to help council balance the budget. He is open to working with a small group to accomplish this.

Ms. Dorrel arrived at 4:41 p.m.

Mr. Joyce stated that the media has spun Mr. Roseland’s memo the wrong way. He concurs with a task force and does not need to be involved.

Mr. Coleman stated that the memo raised good issues requiring focused and detailed work. He stated that a small group will probably be more efficient than handling the issue at the work session; and that the complete operating budget addresses a number of the issues raised in the memo.

Mayor McAlister appointed Ms. Dorrel and Mr. Roseland to the Budget Committee. Mr. Smith and Mrs. Robinson will work with one another to decide which of them will be the third committee member. Mayor McAlister stated that this group will meet provide responses to issues to be brought to council at the operating budget work session. He stated that the group will go through issues raised by Mr. Roseland’s memo and identify areas within the budget to create an efficiency list. The committee will provide an in depth study of those efficiencies and provide recommendations, but council as a whole will make the decisions.

Ms. Dorrel stated that discussions should focus on expense reduction and not necessarily efficiencies. The committee should discuss what that means, the impact on service levels, solid waste collection fee, etc., and start from the goal of a percentage or dollar amount reduction.

____________________________

Mr. Fogleman stated that the purpose of the capital portion of the work sessions is to answer council questions from the April 26th work session and to discuss individual project funding for the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. (A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.)

Mrs. Robison asked about the amount of fund balance required by the Local Government Commission (LGC). Mr. Fogleman responded that the requirement is one month.

Mr. Fogleman stated that reducing from six months to four or five months may be a good comfort zone to begin with when considering how much to reduce the fund balance.

Mayor McAlister asked about the effect of fund balance on AAA bond rating, stating that there seems to be no clear answer, however the appendix in Exhibit A made this issue more lucid. Mr. Coleman responded that the fund balance is only one aspect of the bond rating and its importance is based on other factors, such as wealth rating, history of planning, financial performance in the Town, debt per capita, etc. He stated that the four major reasons for the fund balance are: cash flow, emergencies, unplanned opportunities arising during the year, and to give an indication of financial health and well-being for bond rating purposes.

Mr. Roseland stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) will reimburse the Town for the Highway 55 loan and asked when the Tow of Cary will get the money. Mr. Fogleman replied that the contract states early 2007. He said that the debt was issued at a low interest rate and that the Town can reallocate cash toward upcoming road projects or pay down the debt.

Mr. Joyce stated that Cary has a high percentage of cash on hand and a higher debt per capita and asked if the Town can look at 30.01 on a Certificate of Deposit. Mr. Fogleman responded that it can be a factor in looking at AAA jurisdictions. He stated that what is looked at is the amount of debt service and the amount of coverage in fund balance in the event something goes wrong. Mr. Coleman added that nationwide numbers for AAA had per capita debt similar to that of the Town.

Mr. Roseland stated that Cary has a lot of cash and a lot of debt, and wants to consider moderating both levels.

Mrs. Robison said that the Town should look at historical trends and time span debt per capita compared to other municipalities in order to add credence for comparing numbers. She said that Cary has seen fluctuation over the years while other cities may have remained stable and Cary may be spiking at this time.

Mayor McAlister referred to the driving and cost factors for General Fund debt service where in 2001 Cary had limited debt; now the Town is looking at a spike. He stated that other municipalities pay for improvements with cash; however, the Town has gotten away from that as is seen with the rapid increase in debt.

Mr. Joyce suggested rather than paying off debt service today the Town would be better off postponing debt projects.

Mayor McAlister stated that it makes sense for the Town to slow down on new projects rather than pay off debt with fund balance if we’re going to immediately borrow more.

Mr. Joyce asked about the $15 million for debt service. Mr. Fogleman responded that $15 million is an arbitrary point to begin and demonstrate debt capacity generated as the Town pays down debt each year. Mr. Joyce asked if the $15 million was considering no new debt this year. Mr. Fogleman responded yes.

Mayor McAlister asked if that debt was based on a debt load of $108 million or $281 million of unissued debt. Mr. Fogleman responded that it would be issued per the end of FY04, in addition to a big issue in July selling appropriate debt to current projects. He said it is a debt on what has already been appropriated—approximately $145 million affects the Genera Fund. Mayor

McAlister asked if this was far short of the $281 million of unissued debt, stating that the Town would have an opportunity to save if some projects were eliminated. He said that the debt load can be held at $153 million based on driving and cost factors in the General Fund debt service. Mr. Fogleman said that it demonstrates where the Town would be and what the future holds for the Town.

Mr. Fogleman said to provide a an idea of the full annual impact at various debt levels we should look at the Town’s history and the FY06 funding options for transportation, in addition to $15.1 million expected in FY07 or FY08 depending on when a project is started.

Mr. Coleman stated that the Town’s goal with the Capital Improvement Budget last year was to limit new debt and projects funded with new debt were minimal. With the 2003 bond referendum, the remaining funding from that, and looking at a continuation of debt funding through the years to build projects specified in the bond referendum, staff looked at the financial position and the types of projects the Town needs to do with regard to transportation and parks. He said if over time the Town spends one-seventh of it into the future the Town would meet the goals set out in the established plans. He said that the Town has positive trends in growth, tax base and sales tax. The approach with this year’s budget is to appropriate an equal amount of the bond referendum authority to do these projects without dramatically increasing the debt load. This debt would come on line in 2007 or 2008, which should allow enough time to have clear idea about the recovery of the tax base and sales tax growth.

Mrs. Robison clarified that scenario 1 in Exhibit A is the same as the requested projects. Mr. Fogleman stated yes. Mr. Coleman added that the question now is to determine the appropriate projects and method of funding.

Mr. Joyce stated that the last thing he would want to cut or delay is transportation.

Mayor McAlister asked the amount of debt service to be added in 2007 if nothing else is done. Mr. Fogleman replied that by 2007 the Town will be up to $15 million, which is $4 million over 2006.

Mayor McAlister asked how long bonding authority will lasts once it is received. Finance Director Karen Mills responded seven years. She said that Town then can ask for an extension of another three years for total of 10 years, stating that the authority will not run out until approximately 2013.

Mr. Roseland stated the one-seventh recommended approach results in debt service due a year later and the Town would be due approximately $15 million to $17 million which could pay off previous debt and help make the debt more manageable.

Mr. Joyce wants to consider a ceiling on debt service.

Mayor McAlister stated anything committed in this budget is in addition to the $4 million in debt service coming on board in 2007. He said that the Town could be looking at a significant increase in 2007 if we continue to borrow for projects.

Ms. Mills stated that debt service is a percentage of the total General Fund expenditures; the Town will approach 15 percent next year. Mr. Coleman stated that $87 million is everything combined. Ms. Mills stated that the Utility Fund debt service is 40-45 percentof the Utility Fund.

Mr. Roseland said that questions need to be answered about projects recommended by the Town Manager and how to pay for them, stating that council may have to trim the Town Manager’s recommendations.

Engineering Director Tim Bailey explained the road projects in Exhibit A. He stated that there is a current backlog of sidewalk projects requested by citizens; the signalization project will fund two signals; the street improvement project is up to a 60-year cycle, but streets are in pretty good shape based on prior funding. He stated that funding will eventually need to be increased to get back on track with 20-year cycle; the transportation plan update was directed by Council at the retreat. Mr. Bailey stated that Chapel Hill Road widening is ready to begin; High House Road widening, Stone Creek Village portion between Davis and the railroad bridge, is ready to bid; the Ten‑Ten Road intersection improvement project deals with concerns in this corridor and uses a phased approach over several years in the 10-year plan. The Tryon Road Widening Phase 2 is west of Piney Plains Road and the Town in the last part of easement acquisition and will bid late this calendar year--scenario 2 would fund the project over two years instead of one year and would delay the project.

Mrs. Robinson asked how much of the $4,250,000 would be used with scenario 2. Mr. Bailey responded that permits would still be obtained and would probably use at least $1 million but no more than $2 million to keep the project going. He said that the bid could potentially be awarded while waiting for the cash flow and would commit to next year; however, potential financial issues exist and this is not typically done.

Mr. Roseland asked about the Town’s coordination with Raleigh . Mr. Bailey stated that Raleigh is done with the section up to Dillard Drive and just beginning the design to close the gap between Dillard and Campbell where the Town’s project stops.

Ms. Dorrel asked about the relationship of the work on Routes 1 and 64 to the traffic on Tryon Road . Mr. Bailey stated that traffic projections are too low. He said that the projections were reached before the state began the project. He expects high demands on Tryon Road in the future for this reason.

Mr. Bailey stated that Waldo Rood is a small intersection project to fix service problem; the bicycle facilities funding is to keep the bike program rolling; The Demand Responsive Transit Service Program is to buy buses for C-Tran; TCAP downtown roundabout is the second one—one is already funded in front of the elementary school; and the traffic calming program funding is down significantly compared to previous years.

Mr. Smith asked about the amount of street improvements done by the state. Mr. Bailey responded that the street improvements in the budget are only for Cary , which has 359 miles of streets that are local roads, and the state has about 100 miles of major thoroughfares. Most of Cary Parkway belongs to the state and the Town has a portion which we are trying to turn over to the state. He stated that most of the multi-lane roads are state maintained.

Ms. Dorrel stated that the Town recently changed paving methods and asked about the differential for paving. Mr. Bailey stated that the Town may need to replace curb and gutters in five to six years and will probably see a spike in budget numbers at that time. He stated that the current paving into gutter program is the most cost effective method.

Ms. Dorrel asked if staff has seen any improvement with the rating system since it’s been changed. Mr. Bailey stated that the rating has increased a lot and receiving street improvement money early can save be a costs savings. He said that the Town spent $5 million in bond money to get to this point and has spent about $1.5 million a year on street improvements to get ahead; the Town will begin to slide the funding level is kept at $500,000.

None of the council members were in favor of scenario 4.

Mayor McAlister concerned about the cuts involved with scenario 2, in particular leaving out the Ten-Ten Road intersection improvements, considering the level of existing improvements.

Mr. Bailey said that funding is reduced assuming some level of development, and as development comes to the Ten-Ten area gaps are being closed and a lot of work will be done as those projects move forward. If the Town waits it may be less costly for Cary , but at some point those gaps will have to be filled.

Mr. Joyce asked about unspent money. Mr. Bailey responded that it all gets spent.

Mr. Joyce asked about the FY05 $200,000 sidewalk balance. Mr. Bailey responded that the funds are committed but not spent. He said that council has assigned a grouping of sidewalks and that construction has just begun on Walcott way and the Town is committed and into the design. He said that staff gets close to the target to spend the allotted money for the year and very little money is left over.

Mrs. Robinson is comfortable with scenario 3 with the following changes: add $2 million for the Tryon Road widening and $500,000 for the street improvement project so that we don’t fall behind.

Mr. Roseland stated the transportation plan also needs to be updated and sidewalks need to be done. He supports scenario 1, adjusting Tryon Road down to $2 million or $3 million in order to keep up the momentum.

All council members agreed not to do the TCAP roundabout this year and to delay Waldo Rood left turn lanes, to cut Tryon Road widening to $2 million, keeping the momentum with right of ways and aligning with Raleigh’s timing, and to keep in Ten-Ten Road improvements.

Mrs. Robison would like to keep in traffic calming.

Mr. Bailey stated that staff discussed the possible need of more funds for street improvements and it was decided that additional funds are not necessary this year but will possibly be needed for next year.

Mrs. Robison asked for an analysis of the projects on the sidewalk improvements list. Mr. Bailey said that staff can provide prior years but that requests are continuous.

Mr. Fogleman stated that staff will look at projects still on the list and, based on restricted funding sources, and will bring back options there is need to pursue further.

Mr. Coleman wants to add lane additions at Cary Parkway and High House Road and staff will provide a number at the operating budget work session which will be around $500,000 and involve no debt funding.

____________________________

Mr. Fogleman stated that staff can move and reallocate debt service from Middle Creek and East Cary parks to Bartley Park with no new debt increase. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Director Mary Henderson stated that $600,000 was previously budgeted for East Cary Park and there is also greenway money. There have been issues dealing with park site access. The Town has since acquired the Lawrence tract, which is in the same general area but on the other side of Walnut Street , and that project is moving forward. She stated that there is $2 million for phase 2 of Middle Creek School Park . In looking at outstanding projects, staff thought that East Cary Park is a more difficult project, but the Lawrence project will serve the same neighborhood. She said that Bartley Park is in the south but closer than the Middle Creek School Park site. Staff considered reprogramming some of the Middle Creek money to do the first phase of the Bartley Park project. She stated that staff is no longer asking for $2.53 million; staff is suggesting reprogramming prior decisions and delaying the two projects for better choices at this time.

Council concurred with reprogramming the Middle Creek School Park project to do Bartley Park .

Mrs. Robison requested more information about the East Cary Park , but understands the reprogramming of this money for the Lawrence tract project.

Mr. Joyce likes scenario 3 and would like to remove open space.

Council consensus is to go with scenario 2 with the reprogramming idea, less having to find the $2.5 million funding for Bartley Park .

Mayor McAlister asked if first year debt service payment is included. Mr. Fogleman said that it is the full debt impact but will not incrementally impact the $15.1 million total discussed earlier. He said that roughly $250,000 of that is due to the funding appropriation for Bartley Bark and that debt service around $65,000 incrementally would be seen over what has already been appropriated.

Mr. Smith asked why Bartley Park is currently a high priority when there are other needs in Cary . Mrs. Henderson responded that several subdivisions have been approved for development in that area.

Ms. Dorrel asked about the Herb Young Community Center renovations and how scenario 2 affects what would be done with scenario 1. Mrs. Henderson responded that there were some gym enhancements of approximately $14,000 and some changes made to the customer service area. She said that it leaves in maintenance and appearance issues, and some major cleaning that needs to be done to the showers and the kitchen.

Ms. Dorrel asked about the $20,000 for the reception area. Mrs. Henderson said that is a lower priority than some of the other things. Ms. Dorrel wanted to ensure that the locker room improvement was included. Mrs. Henderson confirmed that the kitchen is part of the renovation, the reception area is not being done, maintenance issues will be addressed.

Mrs. Dorrel asked if the Higgins greenway renovation was a replacement and if the greenway would be removed. Mrs. Henderson replied that engineering staff has worked on a stream restoration target. She said that the storm water project would replace the greenway as it is today. Mr. Bailey added that there is an effort to make enhancements, and that money is available to ensure that it remains in the current condition and is usable.

Mr. Roseland is opposed to cutting open space by one half.

Ms. Dorrel asked about acquisitions for the Town Center Area Park . Mr. Coleman said it is included. He said that $2 million is funded with $1 million in the Utility Fund and $1 million in debt from the bond referendum.

Mayor McAlister asked if the Town has set aside $1 million per year in open space two years in a row. Mr. Fogleman said that it has been done two years in succession; this is the third year for the $1 million appropriation, and $11.2 million kick started it three years ago.

Mayor McAlister stated that the open space bond referendum was successful, and the Town should not back off what we’ve been doing. He thinks $1 million is appropriate and would fit with scenario 2 or 3.

Mr. Roseland stated that the Town has not acquired open space parcels in the last two years. He said that they received a clear message that it is the most cost-effective least controversial way to manage growth in Cary .

Mrs. Robison asked about the Town Center Park land acquisition and whether an approximate percentage is being dedicated. Mrs. Henderson stated that the Town Center Park money is allocated with existing money. She said that staff’s goal is to buy park sites while marrying with open space goals. Staff has identified priority areas and plans to combine with the open space plan and connect with greenway trails. She stated that the Town has four top priority park site acquisition areas.

Mrs. Robinson wants to go with $2 million. Mrs. Robison concurred in order to keep land acquisitions on tract, and stated that the Town should continue to pursue open space for water quality and water shed protection issues.

Mr. Joyce asked about the greenway open space acquisition remaining balance listed in the April 26 work session exhibit. Mrs. Henderson provided a history and stated that a balance of $2.2 million is marked for acquisitions, open space, greenway land and park development. She said land has been purchased.

Other council members did not agree with Mr. Roseland’s statement about open space.

Mr. Joyce stated that there is currently $3.2 million available for open space and that opportunities would not be lost open space funding is cut this year.

Ms. Dorrel stated that she would like $2 million and it may change when the funding issue is discussed.

Council decided to go with scenario 2 with the exception of open space and parkland acquisition being increased to $2 million. The Higgins greenway will not be seriously compromised and public use will continue. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that he can live with scenario 2 but prefers scenario 3.

Mr. Coleman stated that decisions made at this work session can be compiled for funding discussions at the operating budget work session.

____________________________

Ms. Dorrel asked about the delay with the radio system upgrade project due to consideration of working with Wake County . Technology Services Director Bill Stice responded that Wake County has no vested interest in providing coverage to Chatham County . He stated that the other issue is that their entire system would have to be upgraded for capacity for the Town to use one or two sites. He said that the county’s entire system (radio channels) would have to be upgraded, and that for less money over a 10 year period we can upgrade the Town’s system.

Mr. Roseland asked about the viper system. Mr. Stice replied that it was never designed to replace any of the existing 800 systems used by municipalities. He said that the Town’s system will be compatible with the viper and Wake County systems. We will competitively bid the system. Cary has a project with the lobbyist to request federal funding for the radio system.

Mrs. Robison asked about the aquatic center project funding in 2003 for $5 million which has been on hold with anticipation of proceeding in FY06. She also asked about expenditure requirements for the design work. Mr. Coleman stated that aquatic expenditures can draw down on the $5 million.

Mrs. Robison left at 6:31 p.m.

Ms. Dorrel was surprised at the first year funding for the storm draining project. She suggested it be funded between $200,000 to $$300,000. Mayor McAlister stated when council considered and approved the funding it was at $500,000.

There was a general consensus among the council to cut funding for the storm draining project from $500,000 to $300,000.

Mr. Coleman pointed out that with sewer staff is programming into this year and future year budgets odor control facilities at north and south Cary that meet the ultimate solutions with construction and technology.

Mr. Roseland asked about regional plans for sewer. Public Works and Utilities Director Kim Fisher stated that there are parallel processes with the wastewater plant and permitting process. The Town plans to meet their deadline. The state’s burden is to provide the permit within the time frame so that the Town can meet the deadline. Mr. Coleman said that he does not think there’s a risk; the state has told us that we have to have the discharge facilities. He said there are always possibilities of delay but there isn’t any question that the Town will receive the permit.  

Mr. Joyce referred to the April 26 work session materials, stating that in looking to fund projects he may have voted differently last year on the budget. He would like to revisit park projects based on prior year decisions because that’s the biggest lump of cash that can revert back for other projects. He wants to look at the $33 million. Mrs. Henderson stated that if non-active projects are removed the amount equates to about $5 million. She will compile information on the impact of delays.

Mr. Roseland asked about the plan for aquatics based on the hotel motel food and beverage money. Mayor McAlister stated that council agreed to pursue interlocal funding to augment $15 million of local money. He said council will convene a new aquatic work session after the budget is adopted. There is no need to do so before the budget adoption since we have $5 million at this time.

Mr. Coleman stated that County Manger David Cooke told him that in early June the Town will get a formal draft of the interlocal agreement dealing with the allocations and restrictions on the funds.

Work session ended 6:43 p.m.