Page 1
Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting with School Board (Tuesday, June 17, 2025)
Northumberland County, Virginia
Members Present:
James M. Long, Richard F. Haynie, James W. Brann, Chip Williams, AC Fisher, Jr. Other Staff Present:
Mr. Luttrell Tadlock, County Administrator
Mr. Drew Basye, Assistant County Administrator
Ms. Morgan Wilson, Executive Assistant
Mr. Carl Hayden, IT Technician
Ms. Mary Dodson, Benefits & Bookkeeper Administrator
1. Opening of Meeting 1:00 P.M.
Information: A. Call to Order
The joint meeting with the School Board was convened by Chairman Haynie and held at the Northumberland Courthouse located at 220 Judicial Place, Heathsville, VA 22473. The School Board Chair then called the School Board meeting to order as this was a joint meeting. Attending the meeting was Betty Christopher, Dave Curran, Denise Mazyck, Cheryl Davis, and Dana O’Bier.
2. Joint Meeting with School Board
Action, Information: A. MOU - Financial Services
County Attorney Eric Gregory stated that this document was created with the Board’s guidance and several modifications have been made along with way with the Boards’ feedback. The central component is the transition of the School Board’s financial management staff and for the County to hire a Finance Director to oversee such staff members. He explained that he has exchanged several drafts with the School Board’s attorney through direction from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gregory stated that Mr. Kost has also drafted a version of the MOU, but he believes that is an earlier version and that they have moved beyond that draft at this point. The MOU is in draft form before both Boards, and they are looking for further direction from the Boards on any additional changes that they would like to make to the document. The MOU can be accessed in Board Docs.
Mrs. O’Bier asked if the School Board attorney was invited to the meeting today.
Page 2
Mr. Tadlock stated that he did not reach out to their attorney. He explained that he emailed the invitation to Dr. Leslie to send out to the School Board.
Mr. Gregory also stated that he did not forward that invitation to her either because he was under the impression that communication would come from the School Board.
Mrs. Christopher asked if Dr. Leslie extended the invitation to their attorney. Dr. Leslie stated that she did not.
Chairman Haynie asked if the MOU presented to them was the version that the two attorneys had been discussing. He also asked if the Boards had the option to make additional changes. Mr. Tadlock confirmed that this is the version the two attorneys have been working on, and it is a working draft that the Board can make further suggestions on.
Mrs. O’Bier expressed her concern about the school’s two finance department employees keeping a job and remaining a school division employee as section 3 of the MOU counterargues their discussion at the joint meeting in April.
Mr. Gregory thoroughly explained section 3 and stated that it reads, “the Board of Supervisors agrees to employ the individuals currently serving in those positions on a trial basis, for a minimum of 90 days from the MOU execution date as the Finance staff.” He stated that the trial basis time frame was requested to be extended by the school’s legal counsel. “In the event that the Board of Supervisors does not retain either of these individuals on a full-time basis after the 90-day period, then such individuals shall be paid two months’ salary as a severance upon separation, such severance to be paid out of funds identified in the FY 2026 School Board budget, unless otherwise agreed to by the County Administrator.” Mr. Gregory explained that this is a working draft, however this is the latest language version worked on my him and the School Board’s attorney.
Mrs. O’Bier stated that there is nothing concrete in that section that guarantees those employees would stay with the school system. She wondered if they would be answering to the County’s Finance Director or the school’s Finance Director that they are currently advertising for. She believes that there are a lot of logistics that need to be discussed.
Vice Chairman Brann stated that they should start from the top of the MOU and go through it together. He read aloud the MOU for both Boards.
Page 3
Mrs. Mazyck questioned the fourth WHEREAS and asked for legal counsel interpretation because she interprets that statement as the school division not needing to employ a Finance Director.
County Attorney Gregory stated that he cannot advise the School Board, but as far as interpretation on the County side, it’s his understanding that section 1 provides that the County would create a “County Finance Director” position. He believes that the idea of the MOU is that the School Board eliminate their finance staff, those employees be transferred over to the County and the newly created Finance Director would oversee those employees and serve the school division’s needs. Mr. Gregory stated that the school’s Finance Director is not a part of the MOU, but he sees no harm with the school having a Finance Director because eventually the idea is for the school to take over their financial duties again.
Mrs. Mazyck feels that those points are unclear the way they are laid out in the MOU and agreed with Mrs. O’Bier on the uncertainty for their two finance employees.
Supervisor Williams stated that he’s not comfortable that the School Board does not have legal counsel present at the meeting and he’s not going to be satisfied if the MOU does not get passed today. He asked that the School Board make an attempt to get their attorney online. Mr. Gregory stated that he sent an email to the School Board attorney. He offered to make a phone call to her for the School Board if they allow.
The School Board agreed and asked Mr. Gregory to give their attorney a phone call. Vice Chairman Brann continued and stopped at section 3 to try to address Mrs. O’Bier’s concerns.
Supervisor Fisher asked her to elaborate on her concerns.
Mrs. O’Bier stated that she doesn’t think the timeframe should be on a trial basis and that it should be a year-long contract like they receive with the school system.
Supervisor Williams doesn’t believe that individuals should be protected regardless of performance. If employees are not performing, keeping them on the job is not the right thing to do. He specified that he is not saying these two individuals are not performing well, but in general that is his opinion for why the MOU allows for a trial basis.
Mrs. Mazyck doesn’t believe the employees that brought the long-term issues to light should be placed on a trial basis. She believes this is punishment that they don’t deserve.
Page 4
Supervisor Williams stated that they only get the severance pay if they are removed, but no one is saying that they are going to be removed.
Supervisor Fisher stated that if they are doing the job, they’ll remain in those positions. Supervisor Williams stated that the individuals being discussed were not given a trial basis when they were hired originally, but if they made a major screw up a day after they were hired, they would be removed whether they were employed by the school or by the County.
Mrs. O’Bier asked why they have to have a probationary period for individuals who are not new to the job.
Mr. Gregory explained that Virginia is a “right to work” state, and any employer or employee can separate themselves from any relationship at any given time without much recourse under the general law. The MOU, however, does provide a commitment by the County to keep those individuals on for a minimum of 90 days the way it is written now. Mr. Gregory believes that the hope and desire is to make sure those employees can continue to do the job, but the County has to have some recourse in the instance that the arrangement or their performance is not satisfactory.
Supervisor Fisher stated that it doesn’t seem like the School Board had much conversation with the School Board’s attorney in putting together this MOU.
Mrs. O’Bier stated that they did but this is a working draft. She asked who would be the direct Supervisor of the finance department employees?
Vice Chairman read section four as follows: “The County Finance Director and Finance Staff shall report to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors. They also shall provide to the School Board, Superintendent, and relevant School Division staff in a responsive and timely manner all support reasonably necessary for the efficient financial operations of the School Division. Upon request, the Superintendent shall be entitled to receive from the County Finance Director and Finance Staff, all information and records relevant to the financial operations of the School Division.”
Mrs. O’Bier asked who gets to decide whether they failed the probationary period and that the employees wouldn’t have a job anymore.
Chairman Haynie and Mr. Tadlock stated that they would fall under the County’s personnel policy.
Page 5
Mrs. O’Bier asked if the School Board can get a copy of the County’s personnel policy. The County Attorney stated that this was allowable.
Mrs. O’Bier asked if the employees would be physically in their School Board office or would they be moving over to the County offices.
Mr. Gregory stated that the County is currently trying to figure out where they would be housed at this time.
Vice Chairman Brann prefers that they be housed in the School Board office.
Dr. Curran stated that the School Board had ample opportunities to make suggestions to the 90- day trial basis and although Mrs. O’Bier has some valid concerns, he believes that those concerns can be addressed without being included in the MOU. The MOU is to simply hire a Finance Director, move the two finance department employees to the County, and move forward with getting the finances straightened out. He stated that he’s ready to move forward with the document the way it is presented.
Mrs. Mazyck believes that section 2 can be interpreted as the new Finance Director having the ability to hire two new finance staff members. If this is the case, she believes the two current finance employees can stay in place with the school division. Mrs. Mazyck even encouraged the Finance Director to hire two new employees because the two current employees applied for the positions they are in and should not be moved.
Mr. Gregory explained that section 3 provides clarification for section 2 as it defines who the finance staff consists of, which is the Accounts Payable Clerk and Payroll Clerk. Vice Chairman Brann stated that they all agreed to get the finances in line, and he doesn’t want anyone to lose their jobs either. He guarantees that those employees will meet with probationary period and will be an employee for a long time. To his understanding, the finance staff that will be under the Director will continue to do the tasks that they’re doing now. Mr. Brann stated that the Boards must agree to move forward because progress needs to be made.
Mrs. Mazyck asked why they have to be considered County employees if they will be doing the same work.
Supervisor Williams stated for more oversight on the County side.
Page 6
Mrs. Mazyck asked if they would be answering to Dr. Leslie.
Mr. Gregory stated that those two employees would be under the oversight of the County Finance Director, but under the MOU the idea is that those employees could revert back to the school division if the Boards desire. The purpose of the MOU is that the County would be providing the oversight and the services because there was an identified need for that, but if that doesn’t exist anymore then maybe the MOU is not necessary.
Chairman Haynie referenced section 4 to Mrs. Mazyck, assuring her that the Superintendent and School Board could receive any information they want from the Finance Director and finance staff.
Dr. Davis asked if the two positions would have written descriptions of their job and performance expectations.
Dr. Curran suggested that the Board of Supervisors take their current job descriptions and use those as they move over into their new roles to be evaluated on. He also added that the School Board has the autonomy to bring on another person if they need to if the finances or the communications are not working as planned.
Mrs. Christopher believed that maybe the school system would be better off trying to find a competent Finance Director who would get the work done rather than moving forward with the MOU.
The Board of Supervisors asked to move on to the finance update from UHY Advisors. Information: B. UHY Advisors Update
Mr. Reagan, with UHY Advisors, provided some feedback in relation to the discussion that took place tonight. He stated that both Boards should really take a deep dive through the FY26 budget development to make sure that the underlying budget assumptions are correct and valid and reflect the shortfalls in the FY24 and FY25 budgeting process because if they don’t, they’ll be setting the County up for having the same thing happen again in FY 26 in relation to overspending.
Mr. Jack Reagan with UHY Advisors presented the same information to the School Board that he presented to the Board of Supervisors at their regular meeting on June 12, 2025. He explained that his team was hired a few weeks ago to assist the schools in a few financial reporting and accounting matters. He stated that there were a couple of notices that came in from the tax authorities about underpayment of withholdings, so they went through and reviewed the 2023,
Page 7
2024, and first quarter of 2025 calendar year tax filings for the federal government and the state government and identified several clerical errors in the preparation of those returns. They prepared amended tax filings for both the federal and state government, and the net impact after going through all of the revised filings is going to be about an additional $30,000 or so. In addition to the tax issue they have been working on, they turned their attention to analyzing the th
accounts payable balances that are out there that need to be paid through June 30 . He stated that they were able to determine that the school system had approximately $644,000 worth of purchase orders in the system that were still outstanding, $142,000 of which were no longer needed so they were able to get those cleared up even though it should have been done sooner. Additionally, they have identified $305,000 worth of invoices that represent purchases that have been made or are expected to be made by the schools and have not yet been entered into the system, some of which are for invoices that have been hanging around for months. Mr. Reagan explained that some of that represents additional invoices that have come in since their first (and th
what was supposed to be their last) request as far as purchases between now and June 30 . He stated that he’s unsure if that information was an error of omission or an error of commission. Mrs. Christopher stated that Mr. Reagan needs to provide them with a name so that the School Board can go to that employee directly.
Mr. Reagan stated that information can be requested through the Superintendent. Mrs. O’Bier asked if UHY was physically doing the work in the building or if they were doing it remotely.
Mr. Reagan stated that they’ve been doing both. He explained that he’s been physically present four times out of the three weeks he’s been working for the County. He asked Mrs. O’Bier to clarify her concern about his team working remotely because he feels that there’s a little veiled implication in her comment that by not physically being on site that he’s somehow being derelict in his duties.
Mrs. O’Bier believes that it would be helpful if someone was physically present. Vice Chairman Brann asked how many staff members UHY Advisors has working on the finances.
Mr. Reagan stated 5 different people.
Vice Chairman Brann asked if anyone from UHY has met with the finance people at the schools to see what their process is for placing purchase orders. He asked if UHY understands their processes.
Page 8
Mr. Regan stated that he understands at a high level what the process is supposed to be, but he has not had time to go back through and do a detailed process analysis on that. He’s been trying to gather the numbers for the Boards.
Mr. Reagan informed the Board that they also checked to make sure the County was getting all the reimbursements from the federal and state government. He explained that the best source of information they could get was something called the cardinal report which is a report that comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia that shows all of the cash they have sent to the schools. th
They received that report for the period July 1 through April 30 and when looking at that report and through inquiries of staff, they were able to determine that it did not look like reimbursement requests had been made since about January 1st of this year for expenses. He stated that they have been working with staff and the Superintendent who has really been driving this process very hard and very well to get the reimbursements up to speed. He believed there was a little over $800,000 worth of reimbursements that were submitted to the State Department of Education in early June that carried forward expenses that were incurred in January, February, March, and April of this year. Mr. Reagan stated that based on the best information that he has, his best estimate is that there's going to be about a $1.3 million shortfall against the budget for this year.
Mrs. O’Bier asked if there is an itemized report of the $1.3M shortfall that Mr. Reagan could provide to them.
Mr. Reagan stated that there was, and he would provide that for them.
Mrs. Christopher asked if Mr. Reagan could gather information related to the grants to see if any was not spent on time and if any was sent back to the source.
Mr. Reagan explained that he would to the extent that he can. He stated that the grants management is extraordinarily complex.
Chairman Haynie announced that the two attorneys have prior obligations and will have to leave the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Dr. Curran asked Mr. Reagan if the draft MOU as it’s written can be an effective tool for the County to move forward.
Mr. Reagan stated that it’s a good starting point but there are one or two things that still need to be worked out in the next 30-60 days in order to implement. He mentioned procedural processes that need to be laid out and the reimbursement request process.
Page 9
Dr. Curran agreed and stated that those are areas that have not been decided yet and they need to get an MOU approved in order to figure those out.
Supervisor Williams asked Dr. Leslie if she believes this MOU will work operationally. Dr. Leslie believes that a position is needed in the schools for an Administrator of Finance to be a liaison as there are several financial reports due to the VDOE and other specific school level items that will need to be monitored.
Mr. Reagan agreed that a liaison at the school would be needed.
Dr. Curran stated that there’s a system in place through the state called SSWS and they notify the school division administrators when items/reports are due. He believes Dr. Leslie’s suggestion would be that the liaison could provide updates and information to the County Administrator on where they are on those reports. He stated that is why he brought up that the School Board has the autonomy to hire an individual to do that if they see fit.
Mrs. Mazyck agreed on the importance of having someone inside the School Board office and asked Mr. Reagan if he believes it’s necessary that they hire a Finance Director right now to work alongside him while he is working in this capacity.
Mr. Reagan stated that it could be helpful but it’s also optimistic to think they could get someone in such short order.
Vice Chairman Brann stated that we need an MOU to get to the transition portion of all this. He made a motion to accept the MOU as presented. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion. Mrs. Mazyck stated that the MOU does not specify that the two employees will be the two current employees at the school.
Vice Chairman Brann stated that there a lot of concerns in the MOU, but they are in a time crunch and those concerns can be addressed in the transition plan. He stated that it may not end up being the two School Board employees and they may just stay where they are. Mr. Brann stated they won’t know until they get to a transition plan.
Supervisor Williams commented on section 9. and believes that both Boards are entering into this agreement together, so both Boards should come out of it together. He would like to see the original language inserted back into the MOU which states, “The initial terms of the
Page 10
Memorandum of Understanding shall be the date of execution noted above through June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier by mutual written agreement of the parties.”
Vice Chairman agreed and withdrew his motion.
Supervisor Williams motioned to move forward with the MOU as presented with the revision to section 9. so that it reads as follows: “The initial terms of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be the date of execution noted above through June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier by mutual written agreement of the parties.” Vice Chairman Brann seconded the motion. The Board of Supervisors vote was 5:0.
Dr. Cheryl Davis motioned to move forward with the MOU. Dr. Curran seconded the motion. Mrs. O’Bier asked if they were passing the MOU as presented or with the Board of Supervisor’s amendment.
Dr. Curran asked the School Board to consider amending section 9. so that it reads, “the majority of both boards.” He stated that this would allow for a 6:4 vote and would give both Boards the autonomy to not have power over the other Board.
Chairman Haynie stated that the two Boards are separate, and they do not vote together. It would have to come back to the Board of Supervisors for a separate vote after the School Board votes. Dr. Cheryl Davis clarified that her motion was to move forward with the MOU as it is presented, but if someone wants to make an amendment to her motion to match the Board of Supervisor’s motion, she will accept that.
Dr. Curran made an amendment to Dr. Davis’ motion to move forward with the MOU with the revision to section 9. so that it reads, “The initial terms of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be the date of execution noted above through June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier by a majority of both Boards.” Dr. Davis accepted the amendment.
Mrs. Mazyck stated that she is going to vote against the motion because the Boards have to vote separately.
Dr. Curran stated that the Board of Supervisors would vote, and the School Board would vote, but if the Board of Supervisors had 5 votes and the School Board had one vote, that would be the majority of both Boards.
Page 11
Mrs. Mazyck believes that scenario is the majority of the Board of Supervisors. The School Board asked for input from their attorney who is now present via zoom.
Dr. Curran asked their attorney about a 3:2 majority of each Board.
School Board Attorney Crawford stated that would be quorum so that would be appropriate. She believes that one party should be able to terminate but she understands their position. Mrs. Christopher asked Dr. Curran to restate the motion.
Dr. Curran motioned to move forward with the MOU with the revision to section 9. so that it reads, “The initial terms of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be the date of execution noted above through June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier by a majority of each Board as in a quorum.” Dr. Davis seconded the motion. The School Board voted 4:1.
Motion to rescind the original motion to approve the MOU.
Motion by Chip Williams, second by AC Fisher, Jr.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Aye: James M. Long, Richard F. Haynie, James W. Brann, Chip Williams, AC Fisher, Jr.
Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board in relation to the management of County finances to include a revision to section 9 so that it reads "The initial term of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be the date of execution noted above through June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier by a majority of each Board as in a quorum."
Motion by: Chip Williams, second by: James W. Brann.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Aye: James M. Long, Richard F. Haynie, James W. Brann, Chip Williams, AC Fisher, Jr. Mrs. Tina Withers asked what additional support will be offered from the County because they do not have enough staff to do everything that needs to be done.
Ms. Shannon O’Bier is the Finance and Human Resource Specialist at the schools. She explained all of her job duties and stated that several other jobs have been thrown in her and Mrs. Withers’ laps because they do not have a full-time Finance Director. Ms. O’Bier stated that they want everything correct too and that is why they are asking for help.
Page 12
Mrs. Tina Withers stated that she and Ms. O’Bier really enjoy working for the school system but are open to working with the County to make everything work. She stated that this is directly affecting them, and they cannot handle the workload that needs to be done at the school. She asked if the County will be able to provide additional staff for them.
The Board of Supervisors stated that they don’t have anyone at this time. They are working to get someone hired.
Information: C. Davenport Update
Mr. Kyle Loux presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the County’s financial status and some recommendations for improvement. He stated that the County’s unassigned fund balance had steadily been increasing through FY23, however it took a tremendous decline in FY24 and FY25. The County’s projected reserves will be in the range of $3M at the end of FY25. One of the recommendations was that the County secure a Revenue Anticipation Note to ensure that the County has sufficient cash on hand to operate during FY26. The full presentation can be accessed in Board Docs.
**Chairman Haynie requested a 10-minute recess.
Information: D. Old EVB Building Discussion
Chairman Haynie stated that the County and the school have tried to settle an agreement on the old EVB building/current School Board office for a long time, and now the County is in need of some office space and the only space they have available is in that building.
Vice Chairman Brann clarified that the space needed is for the Finance Director and their staff. Supervisor Fisher asked how many employees the School Board has in that building. Dr. Leslie explained that there are about seven that work in that building every day, but that is without a Director of Finance or someone for HR.
Supervisor Fisher asked how they were going to set this up as far as finances go. Vice Chairman Brann stated that some of their discussion was if the County is going to use some of the office space and the School Board has not yet accepted the deed or entered a lease agreement, then they’d leave it alone and let the School Board stay in that building while the County provides the maintenance/upkeep of the building, but the School Board would be responsible for the utilities.
Page 13
Mrs. Christopher asked what happened to a grant that the school had.
Vice Chairman Brann referenced conversations he and Mr. Haynie had with former Superintendent Wargo related to their agreement on the School Board only using half of that building. He then reminded Mrs. Christopher that there was a construction grant for nearly $1.2M, which were federal funds given to the school system and the School Board was going to try to construct a new School Board Office, but it wasn’t enough to cover it all so they discussed the County deeding the old EVB building to the School Board while using those grant funds for other capital improvement projects at the school. After the discussion, it was confirmed that all projects were completed except the construction of the elementary school playground. Dr. Curran asked if the Board was asking if the School Board would pay for the utilities in full or percentage wise.
Vice Chairman Brann stated that is open for discussion.
After some discussion about splitting the utilities, County Administrator Tadlock stated that he would have to look into the accounting system to see what it will allow as far as splitting the utility payments.
Supervisor Williams suggested that the County pay for all the utilities over there because it’s ultimately the County’s money anyway. He stated that the Board would just have to take that line item out of the school’s budget.
The School Board’s Chair, Betty Christopher, adjourned to close the joint meeting.
3. County Administrator Items
Action, Information: A. Fuel Bid
County Administrator Tadlock reminded the Board that the fuel bids were due on June 5, 2025 and the County received one bid from NWP who provides both a lump sum bid as well as a variable/differential rate bid. After reviewing the bids, staff recommended that the County move forward with the with differential/variable rate which is what the County has done in the past. Chairman Haynie asked if this bid covered the school system too.
Page 14
Mr. Tadlock confirmed that this covers the school as well. He reminded the Board that the County advertised the bid this year for the both the County and the school this year which is different from years past.
Motion to move forward with the differential/variable rate from NWP for County fuel.
Motion by: James M. Long, second by: Chip Williams.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Aye: James M. Long, Richard F. Haynie, James W. Brann, Chip Williams, AC Fisher, Jr. Information: B. Board Docs Proposal
County Administrator Tadlock stated that he received some additional information regarding the Board Docs system and the transition is mandatory. There were some questions related to the live stream manager package and the additional costs associated with that, so Mr. Tadlock explained that the additional package assists with the setup of the live stream manager/YouTube and allows for split screen capabilities. It also allows for timestamps that sync with the agenda, so staff can insert timestamps during or after the meeting. He stated that the total cost without the livestream package is $9,989 and if the Board wants to move forward with the livestream package it would be $12,589. He reminded the Board that we currently pay $8,000 annually for Board Docs.
Chairman Haynie asked if this allows other committees to have access to the program too. Mr. Tadlock confirmed that they could include up to 10 other commissions/boards with the $9,989 base price.
Chairman Haynie asked where the videos would be posted and how long it would take. Mr. Tadlock stated that their live stream would be more embedded into our webpage versus on YouTube. He explained that the live stream recordings are available to the public immediately during the live session.
Supervisor Williams asked how much of a burden is it on County staff to upload the videos to YouTube.
Mr. Tadlock stated that is being done now, and staff say that the recordings are available the next day unless it’s on a Thursday evening and that individual has off on Friday, then it is posted on Monday.
Page 15
Mr. Tadlock suggested that the Board move forward with the lower package right now and they can revisit it later if it’s not working properly. He stated that they could move forward with another company, but the challenge is all the historical data the County has now is through Board Docs and they will be converting everything over to the new system on the back end of things. Chairman Haynie asked Mr. Tadlock to make sure they can convert all the information over. Information: C. FY26 Budget Discussion
Vice Chairman Brann stated that he’d like to look over the budget again one more time and meet again to discuss how they would like to move forward.
Supervisor Williams asked Mr. Tadlock what he’s looking for the Board to do.
Mr. Tadlock explained that staff has identified some areas for reductions to be made, and the current budget presented does not have any salary increases built into it. He stated that any potential salary increase would require the County to dip into the General Fund unless the Board can come up with other areas they’d like to cut.
Chairman Haynie stated that Mr. Laux from Davenport suggested not dipping into the General Fund anymore.
Supervisor Long agreed with taking another look at the budget because he can’t vote for not giving staff a raise.
Vice Chairman Brann asked what the cost is for 1.25% raise.
Mr. Tadlock stated for the County side it’s about $104,000 - $105,000.
Dr. Leslie stated that if the school gave a 1.25%, they’d be asking for $216,599 over what they requested last year. If no raise was given, they’d be requesting $298,000 less than last year. Vice Chairman Brann asked if this included Social Services.
Mr. Tadlock stated that he would have to verify that Social Services is included in those numbers.
The Board agreed to have another special meeting for further discussion tomorrow, June 18, 2025 at 4:30 p.m.
Page 16
4. Closing of Meeting
Action: A. Carry Over
Motion to carry over to the special called meeting on June 18, 2025 at 4:30 p.m..
Motion by: Chip Williams, second by James W. Brann.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Aye: James M. Long, Richard F. Haynie, James W. Brann, Chip Williams, AC Fisher, Jr.