Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

We're on air. You

want to start the meeting? Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the February 5th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

public comment.

Thank you. That concludes public comment. Next item is the approval of the consent calendar. Would any commissioners like to pull any items? Hearing none, if I may ask if there are any members of the public who have indicated desire to speak on anything on the consent calendar?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you I would approve a roll call vote

for approval of the consent agenda. Second

we have a motion and a second made madam clerk you please call the roll.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, the next item is business item number one would the clerk please read that item into the record.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission business item number one is to consider recommendations regarding work program for fire police emergency safety municipal service and sphere review and approve the proposed outline and schedule

Thank you. Maybe we have a report from the executive officer.

Thank you, Chair and good afternoon commissioners. Pardon my voice this afternoon I've been out ill for the last four days but I'll do my best to keep my comments short and to the point here. And I do believe we have a PowerPoint that I want to get loaded. But this is the time that we are proposing to exercise our work program for our service reviews and sphere updates looking at fire, police and EMS services.

As you recall the first time we went through this exercise it was back in 2021 It's now been five years since we've looked at that. This is a good opportunity to look at those agencies one more time, five years removed see what kind of trends and patterns have occurred within those five years and maybe make some projections about what the next five would look like for them and whether or not spheres would need to change as a result. And so that's what we're essentially trying to embark upon But essentially we'll cover the agencies that are going to be part of this review. We'll talk about the service review itself and its outline, and this is largely based off the direction from your January 8th meeting when we proposed the work plan for the year.

And then we'll ask for public comments and then ask any questions of anybody and try to answer them as best we can Just as a reminder, top boxes are Fire Police EMS Safety Service. These are the communities that are involved. The only community that will likely be removed from the prior one is CSA 32 which is later on our agenda to be dissolved. So we'll no longer have to evaluate their services.

Up next for next year would be water, wastewater stormwater that's usually the biggest one it entails 33 agencies that provide such services and following that is transportation sort of related services that get into parking in streets sweeping in street beautification there's a number of agencies that also provide those types of services Year four is park and open space, and those services. And then our other service categories becomes that miscellaneous five-year report that covers the cemeteries in the hospital district in the vector control. And we just completed that one so we've got some time to see how they those play out but essentially that's the work plan in the order of the five year plan And so today I'm going to give you a glimpse at just the fire, police, EMS and the 12 agencies that will be reviewed.

We're gonna look at their ongoing operations any changes that may have occurred since the last time we looked at them. We'll update all the financial performance stuff looking at their audits and ask whether or not they think governmental governance should change in their viewpoint LAFCO can often make those determinations on our own, but what we found best is that when it's derived from the agency themselves it's more likely to become real.

And it builds trust within what LAFCO is doing in the agencies themselves rather than us just coming down and saying this is what we think is best without their involved in our input, that typically builds distrust with us. And they're less likely to cooperate and feel like the commission as a whole and your staff is on their side of things. So we tend to let it kind of occur more organically Then we'll look at, you know, the importance that they do and ultimately have to determine the determinations that are required of state law both for service reviews and spheres of influence.

And so that's essentially what our outline of the proposed chapter looks like following the same pattern that we've been applying. This is now the second go-around that will have an opportunity to look at that, so we'll get some pretty good comparisons. Chapters 1 being the service review determinations, Chapter 2 being the sphere of influence agencies and we'll amend spheres of influences for those agencies that solely just provide either fire, police or emergency services.

If an agency provides more than that then they'll just continue on with the next service review before we look at their ultimate sphere boundary and then Chapter 3 will be an individual profile of each of those agencies to help build that real information base So as outlined, we put together a survey and questionnaire for the agencies to evaluate. We'll send that out to them ask for their response by April 10th then your LAFCO staff will start to generate an admin draft immediately upon that We'll gather information on our own. We'll work with the agencies and their staff to generate that information. We'll prepare an admin draft, submit it for their review and feedback and we'll work on it collaboratively ultimately trying to produce a public review draft.

And then we'll release that late in the year and try to get that adopted by December. That's our goal That's our option one recommended approach. Option three was is a outlined in the staff report which is an alternative option to staff's recommendation and for this I wanted to highlight something different that I didn't actually write about in the staff report because it was new information that just came to me just last week.

So last week, I was contacted by a private company about considering a two-year AI approached service review. So in under this scenario they do an AI generated tool that would look at all 62 agencies that we govern so you'll note at the beginning I had fire and police, then we had water wastewater, then we had transportation, we had rec and park They would look at all of those agencies within this two-year time frame and they would generate a service review.

That service review would be somewhere between an 80% and 90% generated draft that then your staff would have to take and bring it over to the finish line Much of the AI-generated MSR that they're talking about is generated from what's public available data. So they basically just jump on the websites of these agencies, download that data, consume it, plug it into the AI program and out pop the language that we think would fit in the model of a surge review that we're looking for.

So for that type of proposal, that includes this sort of subscription model that they had proposed. The cost of that is $175,000 a year to be able to do that and that'd be an annual subscription that you would sign on to do. The benefit of some of that is that you would have on-demand reporting, so if significant large projects came in for a proposal that needed to amend their sphere because it wasn't part of the original sphere boundary.

You often have to make those same determinations. You might write a mini service review where you'd be able to automatically generate that through this AI tool.

Pardon the interruption if you don't mind? Is my understanding correct that the two-year AI thing appears to be a replacement for the entire municipal service review system that we basically just approved the process for? Is that, it's an alternative correct?

That's an alternative.

It's not on the agenda as far as affirmatively discussing what it means to do the AI and stuff like that. So it's a totally different way of accomplishing the thing in a telescope time period But it involves the use of AI, which I understand correctly involved some degree of oversight safeguards to make sure that it's being used correctly. My question is if you, the commission wanted to seriously consider it would we not have to continue this or not?

I'm not sure that we're ready to affirmatively tackle the AI at this point

Yes, so Chair Stark and the commissions. I am getting to that yes ultimately if the commission had interest in using an AI model I can bring back the co-founder of the company to present the process to you so you have more information about that my recommendation stays the same it is choose option one as outlined in my report Option three was an alternative to my approach. So I'm giving you an option opportunity to dive into some use of AI in some form or fashion, or learn more about it in which we would delay making a decision about moving forward with this particular service review until we've gathered that information. We'd need to re-agendize our approach and so I'm just asking the commission for your information if you want to do that you have to give us some direction And if you wanted to do that, obviously the cost associated with that changes business item four.

That's on our agenda as well so there are some implications associated with that If you wanted to hear about what those implications are, I'm happy to present those. But for now, I'll leave that as discussion for the Commission to have. My recommendation stays the same. I think the outline that we're proposing to do is the appropriate outline for us at this time.

So, with that I'll conclude my comments and happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Sevis had a question? The only question I had was I think it's appropriate to hear about this item and if the count at the Commission wanted more information then we bring it back. We can't act on it today but since this is all new concept and basically I'm old school I don't know anything about that kind of stuff Well, and I'd love to see you know if other agencies are using it what experience they have with that. It could be a considerable cost savings of its effective but certainly want to hear more. I think today maybe might be the item to hear because we are talking about spirit enforces just to get the idea whether we want to bring it back or not for another meeting

I think I agree with you in the sense that we're really not agendized to take final action on this, but it certainly doesn't hurt to get some information and light as an alternative approach.

Chair Stark? Commissioner Guyer, I'd like to make a comment.

Yes, Commissioner Guyer.

Well, I agree with your comments on it. And my feeling too would be I would hate to jump into a discussion about this without offering the agencies, the cities, the districts that we represent an opportunity to hear their comments on how they would feel to have a municipal service review done by AEI

I suggest that we proceed with the item as agendized so we hear what you have to say and then we can entertain the comments from the commission. Go ahead.

I'm concluded with my presentation. I've outlined what I think the service review should entail that the questionnaire that we'd like to send our member agencies, but I also didn't I'd be remiss if I didn't allow the Commission the understanding AI companies are out there pitching this product. To my knowledge, they've reached out to almost a dozen other LAFCO counties. They did a pilot program with Napa County for fire emergency services. I've yet to see that draft. I'd want to see what that looked like obviously before I fully commit to something but I think AI will likely have a place in the future I think as of for today and today's action, my recommendation is that we continue the program as we've been doing it.

Thank you. I think it's appropriate now. Are there any commissioners that have questions or

comments? Commissioner Nelson. Yes thank you Chair Stark. I'd be in favor of keeping the process that we're currently in moving forward. Just a couple of thoughts, you know, I appreciate our executive officer looking at different sales pitches from other companies and I think that might be something valid in the future. It seems somewhat contrary to me that it would be a two-year process for AI because the whole concept of AI is it would be processed quickly and so that kind of alarms me as well as the price tag involved, you know?

Also our organization is moving to a direction and try to add staff. You know I would be thinking we talked about reducing staff at that point if you're moving towards AI, to do some of the same functions so I think it's a little premature and also I like to see other jurisdictions go through that process. I actually think our staff should be trained up to use some AI in their initial service reviews as maybe a bridge Because I do think that there's a lot of value in that. You know, they're able to see things a little bit more objectively through an eugenic model than you know so they're helpful. I'm a big fan. I am a high utilizer of AI.

I'm working on it right now in my iPad as we're up here on some different issues, but I think it might be premature to do that. Speaking specifically to the service review and moving forward this, I just wanted to highlight an issue to include Obviously, the county and our city partners have worked together on a regional dispatch for fire and EMS. And so that I think that needs to be part of the discussion as well as the evaluation when we talk about emergency services some jurisdictions that have advanced life saving services ALS versus basic life saving services and I think that's something that should be highlighted Are there any other commissioners have questions?

Thank you, I wanted to follow up on the emergency services. I know that we have a LEMSA that analyzes things but it seems to me that it might also be within the purview of LAFCO how well Are different areas of the county being served? Excuse me. I think there's quite a lot of variation and In how well what the time is for Ambulance services to get out there, so I hope that you would include that as well Is is that something that you're allowed to do?

Commissioner Hartman to the chair. That is something that we do when you get down to the profile level, we do an analysis of response times number of service calls. We even go into their level of service whether they're all life support or so we cover all those topics dispatches part of this service review as well to understand how the regional agreement is going to work and what those costs are as a result of coming together under that agreement. So all of that is part of this evaluation at the end of the day whether we make it a conclusion about One area is better served or the other may be up for debate because there's a lot of information that goes into sort of coming out with the outcome of a final decision.

Sure, can you provide the data? I mean you don't have to make the conclusion but you can...

Yeah all of

that data

will be part of the

search review. Because I think there is quite a bit of variability, and it's consistent over time that some areas are underserved. And I think that would be a really important thing for LAFCO to try to reveal. Regarding the AI, I would love to have someone you know invite them. I don't think this is quite the time for us to take it on. You mentioned that there was a pilot done in Napa.

Maybe we could do a pilot here in some way? I mean I don' think...I think we need to be educated and persuaded about how this could be used and how it would compare to what we do otherwise. And so I'm interested, curious but again not quite ready to commit but would love to hear more about it.

Commissioner Carriaco in Santa Barbara if you have time for a question.

Commissioner Carriaco go ahead

Maybe less of a question, more of a comment. I support option one today in terms of looking at different ways of evaluating municipal service reviews or doing work product differently in the future. I appreciate the discussion of AI but I feel like that would be a more appropriate discussion to have within the context of what's our annual work plan? What are the things executive officer and staff are supposed to be focusing on. And I'd rather kind of have a discussion about AI implications for our work, kind of more as part of that kind of a conversation. And, and I guess I would just also conclude by saying before I would be comfortable even contemplating a pilot or a test kind of a run on something with AI, I just want to make sure we have a clear answer to the question of what problem are we trying to solve?

Are we trying to solve a problem How much money we're spending on work or how fast work is being done by LAFCO. Is there a concern about bias? Those are the kinds of questions I would want to be clear on in terms of what we'd be trying to solve before I would want to start going down the road of test pilots because once you start going down that road, you don't know what you're gonna get and then you don''t know what the implications of that will be.

Thank You Commissioner Johnson

Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your report. I also support the option one. I think that the AI, I think I like to see that down the road. You have a pilot at SNAPA that has not been completed so too I'd be concerned about possibly some of the risk factors and the pros and cons of AI at this time and also too I would be Concerned about kind of the fees because I think that was a limitation that you had to have two year contract with them.

To complete the course, but at the same time there's no other thing that you could. Any other commissioners have any questions? I have a couple if nobody else does.

Mr. Prater, am I correct that law enforcement services in the county is a combination of some cities have contracts with the sheriff and some others have their own police departments? Is that right?

Chair Stark, that is correct.

And am I also correct that the Isla Vista Community Services District provides supplemental law enforcement services? I think that's right.

That is

correct. So here's my main question. Are you, do you intend to consider the use of overtime by the various law enforcement agencies including the agencies that contract with the sheriff? I think it's an important issue and the more facts that we can shed on it the better

Chair Stark and the Commission, as the survey questionnaire currently exists it does not specifically ask about overtime and its usage. So that is something we could add to our questions for the agencies.

I think if we could do so without a formal motion I'd like you to inquire into it. I will confess to having watched the Board of Supervisors meeting when they discussed the taxation issue and I was somewhat surprised to learn the scale of the overtime issue relative to the overall, if I understand correctly is at least a five-year fiscal shortfall and I'd like to know like some light on it to the extent that we could get some.

That's that's the primary I would suggest that we entertain a motion to go forward with question one and give direction to our executive officer to inquire as to when we might be appropriate to bring the AI presentation back, as an agenda item.

I didn't have a question on that. I had a question on the Isla Vista Community Service District, what law enforcement functions do they provide?

Commissioner Aceves to the Chair, Isla Vista CSD helps fund the foot patrol

I think they have a supplementary, I think it's a funding. It's

similar they contract with the Sheriff's Department then by providing funding for certain parts but they're not responsible for law enforcement services other than funding program they want

yes okay and I would add if we could please take public comment before we make a motion

yeah all right is there any public comment on this

Chair Stark and members of the commission there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you, I would then entertain a motion.

Commissioner Geyer, I would move to approve option one.

I'll second that.

Thank you Commissioner Harmon.

Yes, I just wanted to say that I think any and all attention on the overtime issue and how it affects different jurisdictions differently would be valuable although I'm not sure I think that this is an auditing issue I mean it took our auditor getting deep into the The pay stubs and time cards. So I don't expect our executive officer to do anything like that, so I just wanted to put that out there.

Good point. To the contrary, my expectation is by understanding the auditor is supposed to release a report in the fairly near future and I would assume that our executive officer would look at the report and see to the extent it might prove useful

Yeah, I'm not sure that it breaks it out by jurisdiction. That'll and perhaps In another context in the county we could we could ask for that or even LAFCO could ask for that So we'll we'll see

yeah We have do we have a motion on a second Unless we have further discussion on the motion and the second I'd asked the clerk to call the roll

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you The next item is business item two and I would ask the clerk to please read that item into the record

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, business item number two is to consider approval of resolution to dissolve County Service Area 32 pursuant to government code section 56879. I'd

like our EO to report.

Thank you chair so back in December the commission initiated the dissolution of CSA 32 essentially agreeing that the district qualifies as an inactive district So today is a hearing to be held, which is the official action to be taken to dissolve the district after a public notice has been published. That notice has been published for today's hearing. We should take any additional public comments as of the writing of this report there had been no public comments And so staff is asking that the commission adopt the resolution to dissolve CSA 32 consistent with an inactive status as identified in the 2021 Municipal Service Review Study and with the government code 56879. So with that, if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer any.

Thank you. I would invite questions or comments from the commissioners. I'm not, I'm not hearing any. Do we have anything from the Sheriff? Is there any reason we should not do it? Let me

make a small comment here.

Commissioner Nelson.

I think this is already actually up for dissolution and I think myself and Commissioner Hartman just had some questions and wanted to make sure that it wasn't still something we could potentially use at the county level. So I think it was a good recommendation when it was made a while back. I want to thank our executive director for giving us additional time to make sure it could be used for other purposes that we hope that we might be able to do too in the county, but I'm convinced that this is the right move at this

We're good. Is there any request from the public to speak on this?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you and I think it just to satisfy myself it's been confirmed there's no adverse effects of any sense on our doing this that the sheriff in the county or At peace with respect to how the revenue is allocated. Thank you, I would then if there's no public comment, I would entertain a motion.

Harville moves staff recommendation. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any comments on the motion?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

And is there an attendant CEQA exemption, etc. that go with this resolution?

There isn't a CEQA exemption.

Yes. Okay in that case I would call for ask the clerk to call the roll.

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you rolling right along the next item is business item number three would the clerk please read that item into the record

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, business item number three is to receive and file a report on the UCLA extension held February 2nd and 13th and CEQA updates on February 20th and authorized reimbursements for Commissioner attendance.

Thank you. Mr. Prater?

Yes, Commission Chair. Typically the commissioners are offered the opportunity to attend the UCLA planning and land use conferences every year They're not holding that this year so this is a replacement opportunity to go through the UCLA seminars both on February 12th, 13th and a CEQA update on the 20th. So per the Commissioner's handbook attendance to other LAFCO related events may be allowed with the pre-approval of the commission or the chair. And so we brought this forward to allow that authorization, to get reimbursement for anybody that's interested in attending that.

Attendance ranges anywhere from about $400 to $500 on the sessions. So depending on how many anticipate ongoing typically we usually have a couple of commissioners and legal counsel that attends that every year on the planning and land use conferences which are roughly the same price ranges. So with that we'll conclude and recommend that the Commission does authorize attendance and reimbursement for those that are interested, and anybody that does attend obviously we would appreciate them coming back and reporting what they learned from that session.

If I understand correctly there's a two-day conference and a one-day conference. They're both on Zoom, they're not live. The two day conference is primarily intended for people sort of an introduction to CEQA and it's fairly in depth on the one day conferences sort of well what's all the sequel reforms going to mean? And it's one day That's basically it. They're both CEQA conferences with slightly different orientations and different lengths. Correct Are there any other comments or questions from the

commission?

My personal opinion is that The one day conference with Bill Fulton and Margaret Sohogi is probably likely to be interesting in terms of the future direction of environment. I'm planning on going into that, I will confess it. It gives you five hours worth of continuing legal education credit, including a coveted bias credit. You've got to get your bias credits. So I'm planning on doing that. But that looks pretty interesting. I don't know about the two days.

I will point out that our fine staff has already given us a pretty good briefing on CEQA update. Are there any questions from the audience? Any commissioners? How about the public?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you. Commissioner Hartman.

So if I understand our chair Stark is the only one who'd like to go attend one of these. And so I think we should authorize that.

Thank you.

And I would make the motion that we do so.

I'll second that. And I'd like to, I have gone to the conferences before and I think they are probably some of the best conferences that I've ever gone to. They're full of information you don't want even get up and go to lunch or go to the bathroom we just want to stay there and I'll look at my schedule because So I guess I'd like to amend my motion that we would authorize both Commissioner Patino and our chair.

Thank you. Is there a second?

That's a second.

Thank you, any public comment?

Commissioner Stark or Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

And is there any further discussion from the commission on the motion? I don't hear any. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you the next item is business item number four would the clerk please read that item into the record

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, business item number four is to consider adopting a revised commission organizational chart. Establish a job description for the position of senior analyst and consider a preliminary draft budget for years 26 through 27 adding one full-time employee for a total of three full time employees.

Thank you Mr. Prater.

Thank you so that is what staff is requesting that the Commission revise your LAFCO org chart We have an org chart already and we're asking that you add that senior analyst position. And with that comes a job description that we would adopt in order for essentially the EO to be able to fill all of these positions. We've got to have the position first and then we've got to be able to fund a position when budget cycle comes around, and then we would eventually fill those positions when we see the need So the addition of this senior kind of slash analyst position will benefit LAFCO in a number of ways.

It'll help us achieve our work plan, it offers upward mobility for staff to allow retention and allow growth within the organization while still implements our succession plans that we've outlined as our organizational goals Adding that senior analyst position will allow essentially focus on analyst functions for that individual, thereby allowing the commission clerk analyst position to be assigned all of the normal clerk functions that are within that GROP description that's been adopted as well.

So as proposed, this request will add three FTEs beginning in January of 2027 is the proposal that I put forward. That ties to the preliminary budget for fiscal year 26-27 which we haven't considered yet but I've put some rough numbers together. It likely results in about $43,000 increase to our budget That's an overall budget increase of about 6% likely followed because the position is only for half of the fiscal year in 26-27. The following year would be a full time commitment, so that following year 27-28 would be an additional 5.5 percent increase We are proposing to use some fund balance in our reserves to help offset the cost to our member agencies.

The goal here is to be mindful of the workload, but also be mindful of their budget while establishing an organizational structure that will be useful for this organization for the long term. It both continues our achievements and our goals and objectives that were outlined every year, that we set ourselves on to do. So with that attached is the job description for this senior slash analyst position A preliminary budget is attached if you have any questions about that. And we've also attached a comparison of what other LAFCOs are doing, how many employees they have, what their budgets look like.

What I will note in that particular document attachment are the budgets for 25-26. If you look at those budgets it shows that Santa Barbara LAFCO actually shows a significant savings we have one of the lowest budgets of LAFCOs out there and even after We were to add this position. We are still well one of the lowest budgets that would be available and I would add that personally, I would stack up our workload in our accomplishments with any one of those agencies that we are comparing ourselves to you. We don't necessarily compare ourselves. We do what work is necessary for this county and what we think is best for our member agencies But if you take it on large, on a whole I think we do tremendous amount of work for the amount of personnels that we have.

And I think we can just continue to keep doing more work when we add position and I think it'll help the organization in a long-term perspective goal I have no plans to go anywhere. I've repeated that to the commission, but at some point, you know, I will age out and we need that next generation to come on board in having that continuity and having that mentorship will just continue to solidify the good work that this commission is committed to doing so with that I recommend that you Revise the org chart adopted job description.

And I'm happy to answer any questions. I

would entertain commissioner questions. Commissioner Hartman,

is it possible to project the organizational chart? If not, I can ask my question but it just wouldn't allow everybody to see it better. Okay so I guess We have an executive officer, we have a senior analyst and now we're going to add a clerk analyst. And on the org chart it also says clerk by contract so I was confused by that is the new position going to be a clerk analyst or are we gonna expect to hire another clerk by contract through the county?

So, I would love to be able to project that graphic. Essentially we're adding the senior analyst position so we currently have an EO and a clerk analyst position those are on the books that were adopted in 2022. We also have contract for clerk services since we do have an existing contract with the Clerk of the Board for emergency use if we need it. What we're also doing under that contract is, we've hired a part-time clerk that helps fulfill that role.

So the request is to add that middle management position that would allow our clerk analyst person that holds that title to move up and we'd be able to backfill that position

So we anticipate then that our own FTEs absent an emergency to provide our clerk services? Correct. Okay, that's just what I want to know.

Commissioner Esteves

Just a quick question to the EO just for clarification We're going to use existing fund balance How long are we going to use that? And then how we go and then what we're going to do after that.

Commissioner Stavis through the chair, We would use fund balance for one year anticipating drawing down that reserve which is sitting at pretty close to 50% down to about 45-43%. To be able to offset that So we'd use it one time for fulfilling fiscal year 2026-27. And then

what?

And then we'll look at the budget to see what's necessary. We could use fund reserves again in 27-28 if necessary And that fund, those reserves would dependent upon what our budget looks like at the end of the next fiscal year as to whether we could sustain the use of those funds. I think there'll be adequate funding still within reserves, still within our targeted 30-50% range to probably likely use those fund reserves two years in a row and that would essentially alleviate those one-time significant cost increases to be smaller increases for the agencies to offset their budget portion.

So we're looking at a 6% and 5.5% in order to do that versus if we use no reserves and fund the position immediately, then we'd be looking at a much bigger jump of you know 19% increase

I guess my question really is, I'm not comfortable being dependent on our fund reserves because the fund reserves were created because of the more work that we had at that time. But I think at one point in time we're going to need to look at the budget so that we're not dependent on the fund reserves and so I'm just kind of wondering at what point that's gonna be?

So we don't live on a fund reserve too to keep paying for employee expenses.