County finance staff and the board’s bond counsel spent an extended portion of the meeting on Sept. — discussing whether to use a tax‑anticipation note, or TAN, to bridge a $6 million retirement contribution the county may have to pay in December rather than postponing until February.

The conversation matters because the county faces tight cash flows and other projected budget pressures; a short‑term TAN would provide cash ahead of tax receipts but carries issuance costs and interest the county would have to cover.

Larry, the county bond counsel, told the board: “So a tax anticipation note, municipality can issue it in anticipate exactly what it says. In anticipation of a tax to be received.” He and county finance staff ran several numerical examples showing the near‑term borrowing cost could roughly match the loss of a vendor discount the county would forfeit by delaying the retirement payment.

County staff estimated the retirement contribution at “round numbers” of about $6,000,000. Officials said the county can take an early‑payment discount by paying on Dec. 15; if the payment is deferred to Feb. 1 the county would lose roughly $44,000 in discount. Bond counsel used sample market rates to show the economics could be nearly break‑even: “If you borrow $6,000,000 at 3%, that annualized is $180,000 which is roughly $15,000 a month,” Larry said. Borrowing for 60 days at that rate would produce about $30,000 of interest; adding issuance and underwriting costs (estimated by counsel at about $11,000–$13,000) brought the example total borrowing cost to roughly $42,000–$43,000 — close to the $44,000 lost discount.

Board members and staff discussed variations in the math: shorter borrowing durations reduce interest, higher or lower market yields change the comparison, and issuance fees and underwriting work affect the total cost. Counsel said recent short notes for other clients came in around 2.7% and used 3% as a conservative example. He also cautioned that TANs can only be issued up to statutory limits tied to anticipated taxes and that there are restrictions on using proceeds — for example, proceeds cannot be borrowed solely to invest for profit outside narrow arbitrage rules.

Several supervisors noted TANs do not fix structural budget problems and voiced concern about using borrowing to cover recurring shortfalls. One supervisor said a TAN “might get you through this bill” but warned it does not solve underlying budget imbalances. Others argued a TAN large enough to address near‑term operational cash flow — not merely the December retirement bill — could be useful if the county could invest proceeds at yields above the borrowing cost and thereby reduce net expense.

After hearing the analysis and discussion, members directed staff and bond counsel to advance the TAN process. The board agreed to begin the public process that would include a public hearing in September and an inducement/borrowing resolution in October to allow issuance in time for funds to be in hand by the Dec. 15 payment date if the county proceeds. During the meeting a motion to initiate the TAN process with an authorization ceiling of $25,000,000 for a one‑year note was made and carried; county staff said they would present firm pricing and term options back to the board and could tailor the amount and length (six to twelve months were discussed) to operational needs.

Officials emphasized these next steps were investigatory and procedural: staff will obtain market rate indications for the precise duration needed, refine issuance cost estimates, and return with a proposed resolution, an official statement for fiscal advisers, and recommended public‑hearing timing. Counsel also offered to present detailed, current market quotes at the board’s next meeting.

The board’s motion and staff direction do not constitute final borrowing; the board must adopt a formal resolution (after required public notice and hearing) to authorize a TAN. Supervisors said they expected staff to return with written cost comparisons showing (1) the estimated dollar cost of borrowing for the selected term, (2) issuance and underwriting fees, and (3) the dollar value of any vendor discount the county would forgo by delaying the December payment.